Marxist Historical Cultures And Social Movements During The Cold War: Case Studies From Germany, Italy And Other Western European States 3030038033, 9783030038038

Table of contents :
Preface......Page 6
Contents......Page 10
Notes on Contributors......Page 12
List of Tables......Page 17
Chapter 1 Marxism and Social Movements: A Forgotten History?......Page 18
Literature......Page 41
Chapter 2 Marxist Historical Cultures, ‘Antifascism’ and the Legacy of the Past: Western Europe, 1945–1990......Page 50
‘Antifascism’ in Britain: The Decline as a Major Power and Relations to the Two German States......Page 54
Austria: The Myth of the ‘First Victim’ of National Socialism and ‘Antifascist’ Resistance......Page 60
Italy: ‘Antifascism’ as a Legacy of Resistenza......Page 63
France: ‘Antifascism’ as a Fragile Consensus Between Gaullists and Communists......Page 71
Conclusion: ‘Antifascism’ as a Code. Memories of the Second World War and Marxist Historical Cultures in Europe in the Cold War......Page 73
References......Page 75
Chapter 3 Marxist Historians, Communist Historical Cultures and Transnational Relations in Western Europe in the 1950s and 1960s......Page 82
Marxist Historians in Communist Historical Culture......Page 86
Exchanges......Page 88
Transnational Debates......Page 90
International Networks in Marxist Historiography......Page 92
References......Page 99
Left-Wing Historiography and Contemporary History......Page 105
A Generation of Heirs and Rivals......Page 108
Inside and Outside the University......Page 111
The Communist Pole: The Feltrinelli Library of Milan and the Gramsci Foundation of Rome......Page 114
The Anti-Fascist Pole: The Historical Institutes of the Resistance......Page 118
A Battle Won?......Page 122
References......Page 126
Chapter 5 Remembering the Revolution: Neo-Marxist Interpretations of the German Revolution 1918/1919—A Challenge for Cold War Historiography......Page 130
The German Revolution and the Birth of Communism......Page 132
Memoirs of the Revolution......Page 133
The German Revolution in West Germany......Page 136
The 1918 Revolution in East Germany......Page 138
A Divided Memory......Page 139
Richard Müller and His Challenge to Cold War Historiography......Page 140
Khrushchev’s Secret Speech and the First Breakup of Divided Memory......Page 141
A New Left and the German Revolution......Page 143
K for Communism?......Page 147
Labor’s Other......Page 148
Summary......Page 151
References......Page 152
Introduction......Page 155
Positivist vs. Engaged Scholarship: Basic Viewpoints......Page 156
Positivist and Engaged Scholarship in Social Movement Studies: An Overview......Page 161
The Problem of Closeness and Distance......Page 168
Summary......Page 172
References......Page 173
Introduction......Page 177
Biographical Notes on Marxism, Historical Scholarship and Peace Activism......Page 179
Thompson’s Marxist Understanding of History......Page 186
Thompson’s Role in the Anti-Nuclear Movement and His Position Between the Two Blocs......Page 190
Conclusion......Page 196
References......Page 197
Chapter 8 The Historical Cultures of the 1960s’ West German Peace Movement: A Learning Process?......Page 200
Emergence of the 1960s’ West German Peace Movement: Some Constitutive and Political Conditions......Page 203
The First Phase (1960–1961/1962): Cautious Memory Work......Page 207
The Second Phase (1961/1962–1964): Transitions......Page 211
The Third Phase (1964–1969): Crossroads......Page 217
Conclusion......Page 223
References......Page 225
Chapter 9 Fugacious Marxisms: Some Thoughts on the Aesthetics of Marxism in the West German Student Movement (1961–1972)......Page 230
References......Page 246
Chapter 10 Dispersion and Synchronization: Surge and Crises of the New Left in West German Leftist Periodicals in 1959 and 1976......Page 248
A Journalistic Left: The New Left and Its Periodicals......Page 251
1956: International Meeting Points of National New Left Cultures......Page 252
Existentialist Beginnings: Das Argument and the Philosophy of Guenther Anders......Page 256
Debating Crisis at the End of the 1970s......Page 261
Conclusion......Page 265
References......Page 266
The Gun as Revolutionary Icon......Page 269
Anti-imperialism as a Movement of Moral Awakening......Page 273
From Moral Outrage to Religious Certainty......Page 277
Anti-imperialist Missionaries and the Moralization of (Counter)Violence......Page 282
Moral Crusades......Page 286
Performative Shift and the Sanctification of Violence......Page 291
References......Page 295
Introduction......Page 300
The Third Worldism of Intellectuals......Page 302
Third Worldism of a Catholic Origin......Page 303
The Dialogue Between Marxists and Catholics Following the Second Vatican Council......Page 308
The Impact of the Populorum Progressio Encyclical......Page 310
Conclusions......Page 316
Bibliography......Page 318
Index......Page 320

Citation preview

Marxist Historical Cultures and Social Movements during the Cold War Case Studies from Germany, Italy and Other Western European States Edited by Stefan Berger Christoph Cornelissen

Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements Series Editors Stefan Berger Institute for Social Movements Ruhr University Bochum Bochum, Germany Holger Nehring Contemporary European History University of Stirling Stirling, UK

Around the world, social movements have become legitimate, yet contested, actors in local, national and global politics and civil society, yet we still know relatively little about their longer histories and the trajectories of their development. This series seeks to promote innovative historical research on the history of social movements in the modern period since around 1750. We bring together conceptually-informed studies that analyse labour movements, new social movements and other forms of protest from early modernity to the present. We conceive of ‘social movements’ in the broadest possible sense, encompassing social formations that lie between formal organisations and mere protest events. We also offer a home for studies that systematically explore the political, social, economic and cultural conditions in which social movements can emerge. We are especially interested in transnational and global perspectives on the history of social movements, and in studies that engage critically and creatively with political, social and sociological theories in order to make historically grounded arguments about social movements. This new series seeks to offer innovative historical work on social movements, while also helping to historicise the concept of ‘social movement’. It hopes to revitalise the conversation between historians and historical sociologists in analysing what Charles Tilly has called the ‘dynamics of contention’. More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14580

Stefan Berger · Christoph Cornelissen Editors

Marxist Historical Cultures and Social Movements during  the Cold War Case Studies from Germany, Italy and Other Western European States

Editors Stefan Berger Institute for Social Movements Ruhr University Bochum Bochum, Germany

Christoph Cornelissen Goethe University Frankfurt Frankfurt, Germany

Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements ISBN 978-3-030-03803-8 ISBN 978-3-030-03804-5  (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03804-5 Library of Congress Control Number: 2019936148 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover credit: dpa picture alliance/Alamy Stock Photo This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

Around the world, social movements have become legitimate, yet contested, actors in local, national and global politics and civil society, yet we still know relatively little about their longer histories and the trajectories of their development. Our series reacts to what can be described as a recent boom in the history of social movements. We can observe a development from the crisis of labour history in the 1980s to the boom in research on social movements in the 2000s. The rise of historical interests in the development of civil society and the role of strong civil societies as well as non-governmental organisations in stabilising democratically constituted polities has strengthened the interest in social movements as a constituent element of civil societies. In different parts of the world, social movements continue to have a strong influence on contemporary politics. In Latin America, trade unions, labour parties and various left-of-centre civil society organisations have succeeded in supporting left-of-centre governments. In Europe, peace movements, ecological movements and alliances intent on campaigning against poverty and racial discrimination and discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual orientation have been able to set important political agendas for decades. In other parts of the world, including Africa, India and Southeast Asia, social movements have played a significant role in various forms of community building and community politics. The contemporary political relevance of social movements has undoubtedly contributed to a growing historical interest in the topic. v

vi   

Preface

Contemporary historians are not only beginning to historicise these relatively recent political developments; they are also trying to relate them to a longer history of social movements, including traditional labour organisations, such as working-class parties and trade unions. In the longue durée, we recognise that social movements are by no means a recent phenomenon and are not even an exclusively modern phenomenon, although we realise that the onset of modernity emanating from Europe and North America across the wider world from the eighteenth century onwards marks an important departure point for the development of civil societies and social movements. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the dominance of national history over all other forms of history writing led to a thorough nationalisation of the historical sciences. Hence, social movements have been examined traditionally within the framework of the nation state. Only during the last two decades have historians begun to question the validity of such methodological nationalism and to explore the development of social movements in comparative, connective and transnational perspective taking into account processes of transfer, reception and adaptation. Whilst our book series does not preclude work that is still being carried out within national frameworks (for, clearly, there is a place for such studies, given the historical importance of the nation state in history), it hopes to encourage comparative and transnational histories on social movements. At the same time as historians have begun to research the history of those movements, a range of social theorists, from Jürgen Habermas to Pierre Bourdieu and from Slavoj Žižek to Alain Badiou as well as Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe to Miguel Abensour, to name but a few, have attempted to provide philosophical-cum-theoretical frameworks in which to place and contextualise the development of social movements. History has arguably been the most empirical of all the social and human sciences, but it will be necessary for historians to explore further to what extent these social theories can be helpful in guiding and framing the empirical work of the historian in making sense of the historical development of social movements. Hence, the current series is also hoping to make a contribution to the ongoing dialogue between social theory and the history of social movements. This series seeks to promote innovative historical research on the history of social movements in the modern period since around 1750. We bring together conceptually informed studies that analyse labour

Preface   

vii

movements, new social movements and other forms of protest from early modernity to the present. With this series, we seek to revive, within the context of historiographical developments since the 1970s, a conversation between historians on the one hand and sociologists, anthropologists and political scientists on the other. Unlike most of the concepts and theories developed by social scientists, we do not see social movements as directly linked, a priori, to processes of social and cultural change and therefore do not adhere to a view that distinguishes between old (labour) and new (middle-class) social movements. Instead, we want to establish the concept ‘social movement’ as a heuristic device that allows historians of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to investigate social and political protests in novel settings. Our aim is to historicise notions of social and political activism in order to highlight different notions of political and social protest on both left and right. Hence, we conceive of ‘social movements’ in the broadest possible sense, encompassing social formations that lie between formal organisations and mere protest events. But we also include processes of social and cultural change more generally in our understanding of social movements: this goes back to nineteenth-century understandings of ‘social movement’ as processes of social and cultural change more generally. We also offer a home for studies that systematically explore the political, social, economic and cultural conditions in which social movements can emerge. We are especially interested in transnational and global perspectives on the history of social movements, and in studies that engage critically and creatively with political, social and sociological theories in order to make historically grounded arguments about social movements. In short, this series seeks to offer innovative historical work on social movements, whilst also helping to historicise the concept of ‘social movement’. It also hopes to revitalise the conversation between historians and historical sociologists in analysing what Charles Tilly has called the ‘dynamics of contention’. Stefan Berger and Christoph Cornelissen’s Marxist Historical Cultures and Social Movements in Western Europe during the Cold War addresses a key question that has come under intense scrutiny in recent years: the role of historical thinking in social movements that are routinely concerned with campaigning for better futures. This volume’s focus is intentionally not on the history of Communist parties or the uncovering of

viii   

Preface

the role of history in Communist and Socialist working-class cultures, not least in the context of the rebellions of ‘1968’. It does also not seek to provide a full overview of all aspects of this topic. Instead, this volume aims to provide a series of case studies that probe the role of history in the political cultures of the oppositional Left in Cold War Europe. If we follow Odd Arne Westad in conceptualising the Cold War as contest about competing notions of modernity and different paths towards modernisation, the question arises how Marxists and Socialists, who saw themselves as the vanguard of modernity and modernisation towards a more equal world, conceptualised the role of history as a cultural repository, resource and political argument in their thoughts and actions. This volume seeks to offer a kaleidoscopic view of these issues, combining conceptual and longer-term approaches with more specific case studies. The geographical focus of most studies here is on Germany and Italy: as the editors elaborate in their introduction, Italy had one of the strongest Communist parties and political cultures in Western Europe, whereas Communism was much more marginal and smaller in Cold War West Germany, where Communists and Socialists faced consistent suspicions of being fellow travellers with direct and tangible consequences for people’s career prospects. These differences between Italy and West Germany allow the editors and authors to bring out the different sociopolitical contexts in which historical cultures could be activated. Instead, this edited collection wants to provide a first attempt to think through, in comparative and transnational perspective, the interplay between historical cultures and future-oriented social movements in their political contexts. In doing so, it seeks to illuminate aspects of how Marxist historical patterns influenced more mainstream political debates and cultures. This is, then, fundamentally a volume that proposes to think through the impact of social movements also by way of analysing the ways in which their ways of thinking about history percolated into unexpected places and left unexpected traces. Bochum, Germany Stirling, UK

Stefan Berger Holger Nehring

Contents

1

Marxism and Social Movements: A Forgotten History? 1 Stefan Berger and Christoph Cornelissen

2

Marxist Historical Cultures, ‘Antifascism’ and the Legacy of the Past: Western Europe, 1945–1990 33 Arnd Bauerkämper

3

Marxist Historians, Communist Historical Cultures and Transnational Relations in Western Europe in the 1950s and 1960s 65 Thomas Kroll

4

Left-Wing Historiography in Italy During the 1950s 89 Gilda Zazzara

5

Remembering the Revolution: Neo-Marxist Interpretations of the German Revolution 1918/1919—A Challenge for Cold War Historiography 115 Ralf Hoffrogge

6

Politically Engaged Scholarship in Social Movement Studies 141 Dieter Rucht ix

x   

Contents

7

‘…Two Monstrous Antagonistic Structures’: E. P. Thompson’s Marxist Historical Philosophy and Peace Activism During the Cold War 163 Stefan Berger and Christian Wicke

8

The Historical Cultures of the 1960s’ West German Peace Movement: A Learning Process? 187 Alrun Berger

9

Fugacious Marxisms: Some Thoughts on the Aesthetics of Marxism in the West German Student Movement (1961–1972) 217 Benedikt Sepp

10 Dispersion and Synchronization: Surge and Crises of the New Left in West German Leftist Periodicals in 1959 and 1976 235 David Bebnowski 11 The Hour of the Gun: Anti-imperialist Struggle as the New Left’s Hope of Salvation in Germany and Italy 257 Petra Terhoeven 12 Third Worldism in Italy 289 Guido Panvini Index 309

Notes

on

Contributors

Arnd Bauerkämper is Professor of Modern European History at the Freie Universität Berlin and studied History and English at the Universities of Bielefeld, Oxford and Göttingen. He was Visiting Professor at Central European University, Budapest (2006); Visiting Professor of the German Academic Exchange Service at Ball State University, Muncie Indiana (USA) (2009); Gerda Henkel Visiting Professor at the German Historical Institute and the London School of Economics and Political Science (2017–2018). His recent publications are: Das umstrittene Gedächtnis. Die Erinnerung an Nationalsozialismus, Faschismus und Krieg in Europa seit 1945 (Paderborn, 2012); (ed., Gregory R. Witkowski) German Philanthropy in Transatlantic Perspective. Perceptions, Exchanges and Transfers Since the Early Twentieth Century (New York, 2016); (ed., Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe) Fascism Without Borders. Transnational Connections and Cooperation Between Movements and Regimes in Europe from 1918 to 1945 (New York, 2017). David Bebnowski is a doctoral candidate in Contemporary History at the University of Potsdam and an associate researcher at the Center for Contemporary History Potsdam. He is also part of the editorial board of the historical academic journal Arbeit—Bewegung—Geschichte (Labour—Movement—History). In his doctoral thesis ‘Kämpfe mit Marx’ (‘Struggles with Marx’), he investigates the two German academic Marxist journals Das Argument and PROKLA as embodiments of the West German New Left, which he seeks to conceptualise as an xi

xii   

Notes on Contributors

imagined community centred around theoretically oriented journals. He has published on generations, right-wing populism and on the New Left. Among his publications are the books ‘Generation und Geltung’ (transcript, 2012) and ‘Die Alternative für Deutschland’ (Springer VS, 2015). His most recent essays are ‘Ein unplanbarer Aufstieg. Die Zeitschrift Das Argument und die Neue Linke’ (2016); ‘Junge Generationen im Neuen Geist des Kapitalismus’ (2018); and ‘Grundlagen der Neuen Linken. Franz L. Neumann und amerikanisch-deutsche Netzwerke in WestBerlin’ (2018). Alrun Berger is a Research Associate at the Institute for Social Movements at the Ruhr University Bochum, Germany. In her doctoral thesis, she investigates the different perceptions of the past within the West German and British peace movements of the 1960s. Furthermore, she has been actively involved in several collaborative projects looking at realms of memory in the German Ruhr Area, at the Industrial Heritage in the Ruhr Area and in British South Wales, and at the role of memory within social movements on an international level. Her main research interests are social movements, memory studies and labour history. Stefan Berger is Professor of Social History and Director of the Institute for Social Movements at Ruhr University Bochum. He is also Executive Chair of the Foundation History of the Ruhr and an Honorary Professor at Cardiff University. He has published widely on the history of social movements, in particular the labour movement, on the history of deindustrialisation, on history of historiography and on nationalism. Among his most recent publications are Social Movements and the Change of Economic Elites in Europe After 1945 (Palgrave, 2018, edited with Marcel Boldorf); The Transnational Activist: Transformations and Comparisons from the Anglo-World Since the Nineteenth Century (Palgrave, 2018, edited with Sean Scalmer) and History and Belonging: Representations of the Past in Contemporary European Politics (Berghahn, 2018, edited with Caner Tekin). Christoph Cornelissen  is Professor of Contemporary European History at the Goethe University Frankfurt a. M., previously Professor of Modern and Contemporary History at the University of Kiel (2003– 2011) and the University of Düsseldorf (2011), and studied History and English at the Universities of Düsseldorf and Stirling. He was Visiting

Notes on Contributors   

xiii

Professor at Charles University, Prague (1999–2003); Visiting Professor at University of Bologna (2008); Gerda Henkel Visiting Professor at the German Historical Institute and the London School of Economics and Political Science (2010–2011). His recent publications are: (ed., Wissenschaft im Aufbruch: Beiträge zur Wiederbegründung der Kieler Universität nach 1945 (Essen, 2015); (ed., Silke Fehlemann and Nils Löffelbein) Europa 1914. Wege in das Ungewisse. Paderborn 2016; (ed., Paolo Pombeni) Spazi politici, società e individuo: le tensioni del moderno, Bologna 2016; (ed., Paolo Pezzino), Historikerkommissionen und historische Konfliktbewältigung (München, 2018). Ralf Hoffrogge is Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Institute for Social Movements at Ruhr University Bochum. He has published widely on labour history, social movements and the history of German Communism. At the moment, he works on a comparative study on the German Industriegewerkschaft Metall (IGM) and the British Amalgamated Engineering Union (AEU). His most recent publications are: Working-Class Politics in the German Revolution. Richard Müller, the Revolutionary Shop Stewards and the Origins of the Council Movement (Brill, 2017); Weimar Communism as Mass Movement 1918–1933 (Lawrence & Wishart, 2017, edited with Norman LaPorte); A Jewish Communist in Weimar Germany—The Life of Werner Scholem (1895– 1940) (Brill, 2017). Thomas Kroll is Professor of Western European History at the Friedrich Schiller University Jena. He has published on the comparative history of intellectuals and Communism, the history of historiography and social sciences, the history of the Italian Risorgimento. Among his most recent publications is Werner Sombart. Briefe Eines Intellektuellen 1886–1937 (Duncker & Humblot, forthcoming 2019, edited with Friedrich Lenger and Michael Schellenberger). Guido Panvini is currently Marie Curie Fellow at the University of Sciences Po in Paris and Visiting Scholar at the Ku Leuven University. He has carried out research and teaching activities at the University of La Tuscia, the University of Macerata, the Luiss Guido Carli University of Rome and the University of Perugia. He has been Postdoctoral Fellow at Yale University. He has studied political violence and terrorism in Italy during the Sixties and Seventies. He is the author of

xiv   

Notes on Contributors

Ordine Nero, Guerriglia Rossa (Einaudi, 2009) and Cattolici e violenza politica (Marsilio, 2014). He is currently engaged in research on the relationship between religious radicalism, the Christian working world and the process of transition and consolidation of democracy in the countries of southern Europe in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council. Dieter Rucht is retired since July 2011. Before, he was co-director of the research group ‘Civil Society, Citizenship and Political Mobilization in Europe’ at the Berlin Social Science Center and Professor of Sociology at the Free University of Berlin. His research interests include political participation, social movements, political protest and public discourse. He recently published Transnational Struggles for Recognition (Berghahn, 2017, edited with Dieter Gosewinkel) and Protest in Bewegung (Nomos, 2017, edited with Priska Daphi, Nicole Deitelhoff and Simon Teune). Benedikt Sepp is a Researcher at the Lehrstuhl für Zeitschichte at the University of Constance, Germany. From 2014 to 2018, he was part of the interdisciplinary ‘Centre of Excellence: Cultural Foundations of Social Integration’ at the same university. His research explores the cultural history of political extremism in the twentieth century. His recent publications include ‘Beyond the Buttocks as a Political–Geographical Model—A Praxeological Approach to West Germany’s National Revolutionaries’, in: Moving the Social, Journal for Social History and the History of Social Movements 56 (2016), S. 73–92, ‘Schwenken, Schmücken und Studieren’. Die ‘Mao-Bibel’ in der westdeutschen Studentenbewegung, in: Anke Jaspers, Claudia Michalski, Morten Paul (ed.), Ein kleines rotes Buch. Die ‘Mao-Bibel’ und die BücherRevolution der Sechzigerjahre, Berlin, 2018. Petra Terhoeven is Professor of European Contemporary and Cultural History at Georg-August University, Göttingen. She has published on Italian fascism and left-wing terrorism in its transnational context, including: Deutscher Herbst in Europa. Der Linksterrorismus der siebziger Jahre als transnationales Phänomen, München (Oldenburg) 2014; Hitler’s Children? German Terrorism as Part of the ‘New Left Wave’, in: Alberto Martín/Eduardo Rey (eds.), Revolutionary Violence and the New Left: Transnational Perspectives, Routledge, 2016, pp. 126–144, Die Rote Armee Fraktion. Eine Geschichte terroristischer Gewalt, München (Beck) 2017.

Notes on Contributors   

xv

Christian Wicke is Assistant Professor of Political History at Utrecht University. He has written about nationalism, historical culture, social movements and processes of deindustrialisation. He is the author of Helmut Kohl’s Quest for Normality: His Representation of the German Nation and Himself (Berghahn, 2015) and edited Industrial Heritage and Regional Identities (Routledge, 2018, with Stefan Berger and Jana Golombek). Most recently, he edited an issue of Arbeit—Bewegung— Geschichte on the relations between the labour movement and so-called new social movements (2018, 17:3, with Ulf Teichmann). His current focus is on urban movements in the 1970s. Gilda Zazzara is Lecturer in Contemporary History at the Ca’ Foscari University of Venice. Her research interests are Italian historiography after the Second World War (‘La storia a sinistra. Ricerca e impegno politico dopo il fascismo’, Laterza, 2011), the culture of the labour movement and the trade unions, in particular in North-eastern Italy, and contemporary workers’ identities. She is carrying out research on deindustrialisation, industrial heritage and labour memory in the port of Venice. Among her recent publications are ‘I cento anni di Porto Marghera (1917–2017)’ (Italia contemporanea, 2017, n. 284), Smockestack nostalgia o della nostalgia del futuro (Clionet, 2018, n. 2), ‘Italians First: Workers on the Right Amidst Old and New Populisms’, International Labour and Working Class History (2018, vol. 93).

List of Tables

Table 6.1 Typology of basic approaches in doing science 146 Table 6.2 Typology of basic approaches in social movement studies and exemplary proponents 152

xvii

CHAPTER 1

Marxism and Social Movements: A Forgotten History? Stefan Berger and Christoph Cornelissen

Marxism, in its diverse twentieth-century manifestations, belonged to the most powerful political ideas of the modern age. By the late nineteenth century, it had captured the imagination of wide sections of the organized working class across Europe.1 It became a governmental ideology in the Soviet Union after the successful Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, and after 1945, the Red Army ensured its presence as governmental ideology across Eastern Europe.2 In the context of the Cold War, Marxism 1 K. Callahan (2010) Demonstration Culture. European Socialism and the Second International, 1889–1914 (Leicester: Troubador Publishing Ltd.). 2 M. Kort (1993) Marxism in Power: The Rise and Fall of a Doctrine (New York: Millbrook Press); G. Koenen (2017) Die Farbe Rot: Ursprünge und Geschichte des Kommunismus (Munich: Beck).

S. Berger (*)  Institute for Social Movements, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany e-mail: [email protected] C. Cornelissen  Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2019 S. Berger and C. Cornelissen (eds.), Marxist Historical Cultures and Social Movements during the Cold War, Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03804-5_1

1

2  S. BERGER AND C. CORNELISSEN

became a global force, with many anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist movements adopting Marxist perspectives—often under the influence of the Soviet Union. But Marxism did not only radiate where Communism ruled. It also proved attractive to a range of social protest movements in Western Europe during the second half of the twentieth century, especially those broadly on the left that were sceptical of and sought to overcome the bipolar world order of the Cold War. Going back to the interwar period, undoubtedly the Bolshevik Revolution cast a long shadow across Europe. Its reception oscillated between model and threat, fascination and horror. Fascists used the repulsion with Marxism and Communism to win support and justify their respective regimes of terror.3 The Communist left sought to emulate the Bolshevik success and increasingly saw the Soviet Union as the motherland of revolution showing the only possible way towards Communist redemption. Western Marxism developed in discussion with Soviet developments and Western Marxists, Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats and Anarcho-Syndicalists alike, developed the theoretical and political positions that allowed multiple Marxisms to blossom and develop over the twentieth century.4 Each and every Marxism takes as its starting point the works of Karl Marx, even if some are critical of aspects of Marx’s writings.5 They could represent their critique as being in line with Marx who had famously claimed not to be a Marxist, warning of the tendency of an all-toorigid ideologization of his work. Nevertheless, there is a long history of

3 A. J. Gregor (2000) The Face of Janus. Marxism and Fascism in the Twentieth Century (New Haven: Yale University Press); S. Pons (2014) The Global Revolution: A History of International Communism, 1917–1991 (Oxford: Oxford University Press); and M. Aust (2017) Die Russische Revolution. Vom Zarenreich zum Sowjetimperium (Munich: Beck). 4 M. van der Linden (2007) Western Marxism and the Soviet Union. A Survey of Critical Theories and Debates Since 1917 (Leiden: Brill); L. Stern (2007) Western Intellectuals and the Soviet Union, 1920–1940: From Red Square to the Left Bank (London: Routledge); see also: G. Eley (2002) Forging Democracy. The History of the Left in Europe, 1850–2000 (Oxford: Oxford University Press); and S. A. Smith (2014) The Oxford Handbook of the History of Communism (Oxford: Oxford University Press). 5 D. Leopold (2013) ʽMarxism and Ideology. From Marx to Althuser’ in M. Freeden, et al. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 20–37; and G. St. Jones (2016) Karl Marx: Greatness and Illusion (London: Penguin Books); J. Herres (2018) Marx und Engels. Portrait einer intellektuellen Freundschaft (Stuttgart: Reclam).

1  MARXISM AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A FORGOTTEN HISTORY? 

3

intellectual debates surrounding the issue of how to interpret Marx correctly.6 The revisionism controversy within German Social Democracy was an early culmination of those debates before the First World War.7 In the interwar period, Communists developed Marxism–Leninism into an increasingly rigid orthodoxy later extended to Stalinism. Outside the world of Communism, Marxist socialism found a leading theoretician in Karl Kautsky who was also one of the key critics of Leninism.8 Many West European intellectuals were attracted to Marxism in the interwar period and helped to develop it further. Among the most influential we could name Communists, such as Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukács, and Social Democrats, such as Otto Bauer.9 Western Marxism had lots of points of tension with Leninism in the Soviet Union, but both also remained dialogically connected.10 Overall, from the nineteenth century to the present day there never has been a benchmark Marxism that was a unifying credo across all

6 S. Avineri (1977) Varieties of Marxism (Den Haag: Springer); I. Fetscher (1967) Karl Marx und der Marxismus. Von der Philosophie des Proletariats zur proletarischen Weltanschauung (Munich: Piper). 7 M. Lemke (2008) Republikanischer Sozialismus. Positionen von Bernstein, Kautsky, Jaurès und Blum (Frankfurt am Main: Campus); E. Jousse (2007) Réviser le marxisme? D‘Edouard Bernstein à Albert Thomas, 1896–1914 (Paris: Editions l’Harmattan); M. B. Steger (1997) The Quest for Evolutionary Socialism. Edouard Bernstein and Social Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press); and S. Berger (2000) Social Democracy and the Working Class in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Germany (London: Longman). 8 M. Donald (1993) Marxism and Revolution. Karl Kautsky and the Russian Marxists, 1900–1924 (New Haven: Yale University Press). 9 W. L. Adamson (1980) Hegemony and Revolution. A Study of Antonio Gramsci’s Political and Cultural Theory (Berkeley: University of California Press); M. J. Thompson (2011) Georg Lukács Reconsidered. Critical Essays in Politics, Philosophy, and Aesthetics (London: Bloosbury); and G. Mozetič (1987) Die Gesellschaftstheorie des Austromarxismus. Geistesgeschichtliche Voraussetzungen, Methodologie und soziologisches Programm (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft). 10 E. Wangermann (2011) ‘Linke Intellektuelle, Marxismus und Sozialgeschichte in England’ in H. Berger et al. (eds.) Politische Gewalt und Machtausübung im 20. Jahrhundert. Zeitgeschichte, Zeitgeschehen, Kontroversen (Wien: Böhlau), pp. 653–66, p. 656; D. McLellan (2003) ‘Western Marxism’ in T. Ball and R. Bellamy (eds.) The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 282–98; and J. Femia (2007) ʽWestern Marxism’ in D. Glaser and D. M. Walker (eds.) Twentieth-Century Marxism. A Global Introduction (London: Routledge), pp. 95–117.

4  S. BERGER AND C. CORNELISSEN

those calling themselves Marxists.11 At best, there have been core ideas common to many of those Marxisms, such as the belief in the scientific foundations of Marxist teaching, materialism, the critique of capitalism and its relations of production, the historic mission of the working class, alienation and exploitation as well as internationalism. Ideal-typically, it makes sense to differentiate between an orthodox Marxism–Leninism in Eastern Europe and a more heterodox Western Marxism that was more democratic, more critical of forms of economic determinism and more open towards a recognition of cultural factors.12 It was the heterodox nature of Western Marxism that allowed it to renew itself over the course of the twentieth century and develop an important influence in a left-wing milieu which comprised a range of diverse social protest movements.13 In particular, the neo-Marxism of the 1960s developed the Western Marxisms of the interwar period further.14 In the historical culture of Western Europe, unorthodox Marxism played an influential role.15 Marxist-inspired historical narratives acted as transmission

11 R. Walther (1982) ʽMarxismus’ in O. Brunner, W. Conze, and R. Koselleck (eds.) Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, 3 (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta), pp. 937–76, p. 937. 12 J. Hoff (2009) Marx global. Zur Entwicklung des internationalen Marx-Diskurses seit 1965 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag), pp. 58–63; G. Bedeschi (2002) La fabbrica delle ideologie. Il pensiero politico nell’Italia del Novecento (Rome and Bari: Laterza), pp. 370–75; Tosel, A. (2001) ʽDevenir du marxisme. De la fin du marxisme-léninisme aux mille marxismes, France-Italie 1975–1995’ in J. Bidet and E. Kouvélakis (eds.) Dactionnaire Marx contemporain (Paris: Presses Uniiversitaires de France), pp. 57–78. 13 M. Casalini (2010) Famiglie comuniste. Ideologie e vita quotidiana nell’Italia degli anni Cinquanta (Bologna: Il Molino); S. Bellassai (2000) La morale comunista. Pubblico e private nella rappresentazione del PCI, 1947–1956 (Roma: Carocci). 14 R. Wiggershaus (1995) The Frankfurt School. Its History, Theories, and Political Significance (Cambridge: MIT Press); D. Kellner (1984) Herbert Marcuse and the Crisis of Marxism (Berkeley: University of California Press). 15 S. Berger with C. Conrad (2015) The Past as History. National Identity and Historical Consciousness in Modern Europe (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 258–357; L. Raphael (2003) Geschichtswissenschaft im Zeitalter der Extreme. Theorie, Methoden, Tendenzen von 1900 bis zur Gegenwart (Munich: C. H. Beck); H.-U. Wehler (2001) Historisches Denken am Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts, 1945–2000 (Göttingen: Wallstein), p. 31f.; G. G. Iggers (2007) Geschichtswissenschaft im 20. Jahrhundert. Ein kritischer Überblick im internationalen Zusammenhang (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht),

1  MARXISM AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A FORGOTTEN HISTORY? 

5

belts between general debates about Marxism and its interpretation as legitimation for social protest.16 A variety of Marxisms therefore continued to belong integrally to the kaleidoscopic characteristics of left-wing social protest movements in Western Europe during the Cold War and beyond.17 Marxist political ideas, interpretations and controversies formed a framework for interpreting the world that had an impact on how social groups interacted.18 This framework was never stable but continued to develop picking up new intellectual cross-currents that in turn influenced interactions and cultural social practice, including festivities, myths, clothing, forms of popular culture and the languages of social protest. At the heart of a Marxist-inspired social movement culture stood mutual exchange processes that exchanged values, ideas and emotions and brought those forth in the process of interaction.19 Marxism thus was not only an ideology but

pp. 78–86; T. Kroll (2007) Kommunistische Intellektuelle in Westeuropa. Frankreich, Österreich, Italien und Großbritannien im Vergleich, 1945–1956 (Cologne: Böhlau); P. Favilli (2006) Marxismo e storia. Saggio sull’innovazione storiografica in Italia, 1945– 1970 (Milano: Franco Angeli); and E. Traverso (2011) ʽMarx, l‘histoire et les historiens. Une relation à réinventer’, Actuel Marx, 50, 153–65. 16 K. Marx and F. Engels (2003) ʽDie Deutsche Ideologie. Artikel, Druckvorlagen, Entwürfe, Reinschriftenfragmente und Notizen zu “I. Feuerbach” und “II. Sankt Bruno” in I. Taubert et al. (eds.) Marx-Engels-Jahrbuch (Amsterdam: Akademie Verlag); K. Mannheim (1929) Ideologie und Utopie (Bonn: Verlag von Friedrich Cohen); and L. Althusser (1984) Essays on Ideology (London: Verso). 17 K. Salamun (1992) Ideologien und Ideologiekritik. Ideologiekritische Reflexionen (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft); A. Shtromas (1994) The End of “Isms”? Reflections on the Fate of Ideological Politics After Communism’s Collapse (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell). 18 K. Rohe (1990) ‘Politische Kultur und ihre Analyse. Probleme und Perspektiven der Politischen Kulturforschung’, Historische Zeitschrift, 250, 321–34; for the genesis of this research concept see: B. Schwelling (2001) ‘Politische Kulturforschung als kultureller Blick auf das Politische’, Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 11, 601–29; S. Salzborn (2009) Politische Kultur. Forschungsstand und Forschungsperspektiven (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang); and G. Folke Schuppert (2008) Politische Kultur (Baden-Baden: Nomos). 19 J. Fiske (2011a/1989) Reading the Popular (London and New York: Routledge), pp. 1–9; J. Fiske (2011b/1989) Understanding Popular Culture (London and New York: Routledge); S. Hall (1997) Representation. Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices (London: Sage), p. 2.

6  S. BERGER AND C. CORNELISSEN

also a habitus and a system of practical social relations that influenced the life world of protest movements across Western Europe.20 The life worlds of Marxism can be subdivided into several strands. Outside of the world of party communism, many Marxists on the left remained highly critical of the democratic deficits of Communism. Anarcho-Syndicalists and Socialists/Social Democrats were strongly influenced by the writings of Marx and other Marxists, but these movements on the left also were critical of aspects of Marxist thinking and merged Marxism with a variety of other ideological inspirations. Anarcho-syndicalism remained a strong political force in many European countries, not only Spain, up until the end of the interwar period.21 And Socialist as well as Social Democratic parties began abandoning Marxism fully only during the early Cold War period, and even then, many retained an affinity to Marxist thinking.22 Beyond the organizational realm of the classical labour movement, new Marxist-inspired protest movements emerged already in the interwar period around issues of unemployment, war, imperialism and poverty.23 The interwar 20 S. Reichardt (2014) Authentizität und Gemeinschaft. Linksalternatives Leben in den siebziger und frühen achtziger Jahren (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp) has systematically examined the life worlds lf left-alternative milieus in the Federal Republic of the 1970s. See also U. Wirth (2002) Performanz. Zwischen Sprachphilosophie und Kulturwissenschaften (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp). 21 R. Kinna (2012) The Continuum Compendium to Anarchism (London: Continuum). 22 D. Sassoon (2010) One Hundred Years of Socialism. The West European Left in the Twentieth Century (London: I.B. Tauris). 23 G. Koenen and L. Kopelew (1998) Deutschland und die russische Revolution 1917– 1924 (Munich: W. Fink); M. Reiß (2006) ‘Not All Were Apathetic. National Hunger Marchesa s Political Rituals in Interwar Berlin’ in J. Neuheiser and M. Schaich (eds.) Political Rituals in the United Kingdom, 1700–2000 (Augsburg: Wissner-Verlag), pp. 93–122; M. Perry (2007) Prisoners of Want. The Experience and Protest of the Unemployed in France, 1921–45 (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing); M. Perry (2004) ‘“Sans Distinction de Nationalité” The French Communist Party, Immigrants and Unemployment in the 1930s’, European History Quarterly, 34, 3, 337–69; K. Braskén (2015) The International Workers’ Relief, Communism, and Transnational Solidarity. Willi Münzberg in Weimar Germany (Basingstoke: Springer); Grünewald, G. (1999) ‘War Resisters in Weimar Germany’ in P. Brock and T. P. Socknat (eds.) Challenge to Mars. Essays on Pacifism from 1918 to 1945 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press), pp. 67–88; W. Beyer (1985) 60 Years the War Resisters’ International (WRI). The Political Insight of the WRI with Special Reference to the Period 1921–1939 (Berlin: Schriftenreihe des Libertären Forums Berlin); and S. Reichardt (2004) ‘Selbstorganisation und Zivilgesellschaft. Soziale Assoziationen und politische Mobilisierung in der deutschen und italienischen Zwischenkriegszeit’ in

1  MARXISM AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A FORGOTTEN HISTORY? 

7

period saw massive economic and political crises which threatened the liberal-bourgeois political order.24 If it did not bring about any successful revolutions outside of the Soviet Union, it ensured Marxisms a wide reception. Marxist ideas, Marxist political rituals and its suggestive inclusion of the masses appealed to broad social groups across Europe.25 Thus, several anti-imperialist movements, the proletarian women’s movement, movements promoting workers’ culture and workers’ education as well as the peace movement all picked up intellectual impulses from Marxism. Before the late 1920s, many of those movements included both Social Democrats and Communists.26 Both the deep historical roots of social protest movements and the influence of Marxism upon them have been, by and large, ignored by scholarship on the interwar period.27 Especially, the manifold networks that existed between Marxist-inspired political parties, trade unions and protest movements remain virtually unexplored—this is true for key personnel, ideological influences and cultural practices alike.28

R. Jessen, S. Reichardt, and A. Klein (eds.) Zivilgesellschaft als Geschichte. Studien zum 19. Und 20. Jahrhundert (Wiesbaden: Springer), pp. 197–218. 24 C. Maier (1975) Recasting Bourgeois Europe. Stabilization in France, Germany and Italy in the Decade After World War I (Princeton: Princeton University Press). 25 M. Rolf and D. Beyrau (2006) ‘Dictatorships and Festivals’, Journal of Modern European History, 4, 1; Beyrau, D. (2003) ‘Das bolschewistische Projekt als Entwurf und als soziale Praxis’ in W. Hardtwig (ed.) Utopie und politsiche Herrschaft im Europa der Zwischenkriegszeit (Munich: Oldenbourg), pp. 13–40; N. Ajello (1979) Intellettuali e Pci, 1944–1985 (Rome: Laterza); H. Wunderer (1980) Arbeitervereine und Arbeiterparteien. Kultur- und Massenorganisationen in der Arbeiterbewegung, 1890–1933 (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp), pp. 219–28; compare for Britain T. Linehan (2012) Communism in Britain, 1920–1939. From the Cradle to the Grave (Manchester: Manchester University Press); on France see S. Courtois and M. Lazar (2010) Histoire du Parti communiste français (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France); and G. Grünewald (2012) ‘Die deutsche Friedensbewegung 1900 bis 1933 im europäischen Kontext’ in A. J. Schwitanski (ed.) “Nie wieder Krieg!” Antimilitarismus und Frieden in der Geschichte der Sozialistischen Jugendinternational (Essen: Klartext), pp. 57––77. 26 For example Beyer (1985) 60 Years; on anti-imperialism that was closely tied to communism see Braskén (2015) Workers’ Relief. 27 This criticism is also made by B. Hüttner et al. (2005) Vorwärts und viel vergessen. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Geschichtsschreibung neuer sozialer Bewegungen (Neu-Ulm: AG SPAK Bücher). 28 M. Tolomelli (2001) Repressiv getrennt oder organisch verbündet. Studenten und Arbeiter 1968 in der Bundesrepublik und Italien (Opladen: Springer VS); M. Heigl (2015)

8  S. BERGER AND C. CORNELISSEN

The end of the Second World War saw the extension of Communist influence in Eastern Europe and another crisis of the liberal-bourgeois order in Western Europe.29 In 1945, capitalism was widely associated with fascism and war, and this strengthened Marxist and Marxisant historical interpretations that underpinned left-wing protest movements. Whilst these crises did not result in an overthrow of liberal capitalism, they ensured the survival of Marxist ideas and cultures well into the post-Second World War period.30 The legacies of anti-fascism had a major role to play in that remarkable resilience of Marxism in the Cold War world of Western Europe.31 Marxists could point to their finest hour and their sacrifices in the battle against fascism. The aura of anti-fascist resistance gave Marxism a renewed lease of life and attraction in the post-Second World War Europe.32 It allowed Communist parties in France, Italy, Belgium and, at least temporarily, in the Netherlands and Sweden, to rise to mass membership parties that had significant successes in the early post-war elections in Western Europe. They forged powerful alliances with mighty trade union movements.33 Socialist parties, in Rom in Aufruhr. Soziale Bewegungen im Italien der 1970er Jahre (Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag). 29 S. Berger and M. Boldorf (2018) Social Movements and the Change of Economic Elites in Europe After 1945 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). 30 On the impact of the Cold War compare: M. P. Leffler and O. A. Westad (2010) The Cambridge History of the Cold War, vol. 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press); P. Bernhard and H. Nehring (2014) Den Kalten Krieg denken. Beiträge zur sozialen Ideengeschichte (Essen: Klartext); A. Vowinckel, M. M. Payk, and T. Lindenberger (2012) Cold War Cultures. Perspectives on Eastern and Western European Societies (New York: Berghahn Books); and S. J. Whitfield (1996) The Culture of Cold War (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press). 31 J. Späth (2013) ‘Was heißt Antifaschismusnach 1945? Das Beispiel der italienischen Sozialisten in westeuropäischer Perspektive’, Archiv für Sozialgeschichte, 53, 269–304. 32 D. Sassoon (1997) Looking Left. European Socialism After the Cold War (London: I.B. Tauris); F. Furet (1996) Das Ende der Illusion. Der Kommunismus im 20. Jahrhundert (München: Piper); M. Lazar (1996) La Gauche en Europe depuis 1945. Invariants et mutations du socialisme européen (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France); M. Dreyfus et al. (2000) Le Siècle des communismes (Paris: Édition de l’Atelier); and Bundesstiftung zur Aufarbeitung der SED-Diktatur (2010) Die Geschichte der kommunistischen Bewegung in Westeuropa nach 1945 (Berlin: Aufbruch Verleg). 33 M. Bracke (2007) Which Socialism? Whose Detente? West European Communism and Czechoslovak Crisis in 1968 (Budapest: Central European University Press); R. Gualtieri (2001) Il PCI nell’Italia repubblicana (Rome: Carocci); W. Thompson (1998)

1  MARXISM AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A FORGOTTEN HISTORY? 

9

which Marxism had at least some influence, celebrated spectacular election victories in Britain and Norway in 1945. They significantly influenced the post-war political agendas in their respective countries.34 Even where anti-Communism was strong, as in West Germany and Denmark, various left-wing political movements were influenced by Marxist ideas. These included a variety of anti-capitalist movements as well as the nascent peace movement.35 The Soviet intervention in Hungary in 1956 provoked much dissent in West European Communist parties and a departure of a more unorthodox Marxist thinking from the orthodoxies of really existing socialism in Eastern Europe. The New Left was to develop an attractive Marxist framework for the new social movements that emerged with the student protest movement of the 1960s and the new social movements from the 1970s onwards. The emergence of Eurocommunism in the 1970s was another attempt to revitalize the Marxist tradition and make it meaningful not only for Communist parties in Western Europe but also for a range of social movements. Where right-wing dictatorships repressed the Marxist left, such as in Spain, Portugal and Greece, the end of those dictatorships in the 1970s saw the rise of new Marxist-inspired protest movements and political parties as well as trade unions.36

The Communist Movement Since 1945 (Oxford: Blackwell); prior literature in comparison: D. Oberndörfer (1978) Sozialistische und kommunistische Partein in Westeuropa, vol. 1 Südländer (Opladen: UTB). 34 D. Redvaldsen (2011) The Labour Party in Britain and Norway. Elections and the Pursuit of Power Between the World Wars (New York: I.B. Tauris). 35 S. Creuzberger and D. Hoffmann (2014) “Geistige Gefahr” und “Immunisierung der Gesellschaft”. Antikommunismus und politische Kultur in der frühen Bundesrepublik (Munich: De Gruyter); L. van Dongen, S. Roulin, and G. Scott-Smith (2014) Transnational Anti-Communism and the Cold War. Agents, Activities, and Networks (Basingstoke: Springer); M. S. Christofferson (2009) Les intellectuels contre la gauche. L’idéologie antitotalitaire en France, 1968–1981 (Marseille: Agone). 36 A. Baumer (2008) Kommunismus in Spanien Die Partido Comunista de España. Widerstand, Krise und Anpassung (1970–2006) (Baden-Baden: Iberoamericana Vervuert); M. de Giuseppe (2012) ‘Il “Terzo mondo” in Italia. Tranformazioni di un concetto tra opinione pubblica, azione politica e mobilitazione civile, 1955–1980’, Ricerche di Storia Politica, 1, 29–52.

10  S. BERGER AND C. CORNELISSEN

In this way, left-wing protest movement milieus in Western Europe remained influenced by Marxism throughout the Cold War.37 Peace, environmental, women’s and third world movements as well as a range of smaller issue-based movements, e.g. the squatting movement, were thus all infused with Marxist ideas.38 The same is true for the more recent anti-globalization and Occupy movements.39 All of these social movements have been described as ‘networks of individuals, groups and organizations’ that are based on a collective identity, and its members aim at bringing about fundamental social change.40 Social movements are, in Friedhelm Neidhardt’s famous definition, ‘mobilized networks of networks’.41 Not every social protest can be understood as a social movement, but the latter rely on social protest as a means of getting themselves heard. Social movements are fundamentally different from political

37 R. Colozza (2009) Repubbliche rosse. I simboili nazionali del Pci e del Pcf, 1944–1953 (Bologna: Clueb); D. I. Kertzer (1998) Politics and Symbols. The Italian Communist Party and the Fall of Communism (New Haven: Yale University Press); S. Courtois and M. Lazar (2000) Histoire; V. Staraselski (2010) La fête de l’humanité. 80 ans de solidarité (Paris: Le Cherche Midi); Presses de Sciences Po (2007) ‘Dossier. Le PS, nouvelles approaches’ Vingtième siècle. Revue d’histoire, 96, 4; and Panvini, G. (2011) ‘La nuova sinistra’ in M. Gervasoni (ed.) Storia delle sinistre nell’Italia repubblicana (Lungro di Consenza: Marco Editore), pp. 213–40. 38 For an overview of the development of a range of different protest movements, see S. Berger and H. Nehring (2017) The History of Social Movements in Global Perspective. A Survey (Basingstoke: Palgrave McMilan). 39 R. Roth (2012) ‘Occupy und Acampada. Vorboten einer neuen Protestgeneration’, APuZ, 25 and 26, 36–43; C. Flesher Fominaya and L. Cox (2013) Understanding European Movements. New Social Movements, Global Justice, Anti-Austerity Protest (London: Routledge); H. Gautney (2010) Protest and organization in the Alternative Globalization Era. NGO’s, Social Movements, And Political Parties (New York: Palgrave Macmillan); U. Brand (2005) Gegen-Hegemonie. Perspektiven globalisierungs-kritischer Strategien (Hamburg: VSA-Verlag); and M. Candeias and E. Völpel (2014) Plätze Sichern! ReOrganisierung der Linken in der Krise (Hamburg: VSA-Verlag). 40 D. Rucht (1994) Modernisierung und neue soziale Bewegungen. Deutschland, Frankreich und die USA im Vergleich (Frankfurt am Main and New York: Campus), p. 64; Rucht, D. (2014) ‘Zum Stand der Forschung zu sozialen Bewegungen’ in J. Mittag and H. Stadtland (eds.) Theoretische Ansätze und Konzepte der Forschung über soziale Bewegungen in der Geschichtswissenschaft (Essen: Klartext), pp. 61–88, p. 61. 41 F. Neidhardt (1985) ‘Einige Ideen zu einer allgemeinen Theorie sozialer Bewegungen’ in S. Hradil (ed.) Sozialstruktur im Umbruch. Karl Martin Bolte zum 60. Geburtstag (Opladen: Leske und Budrich), pp. 193–204, p. 195.

1  MARXISM AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A FORGOTTEN HISTORY? 

11

parties or interest groups.42 And yet they need a minimum amount of continuity over time and organizational coherence to be classified as a social movement. They are thus, in Sidney Tarrow’s famous characterization, moving targets that have a characteristic fuzziness.43 They develop a particular prominence in Western societies from the 1970s onwards, as they can recruit among highly educated strata of the population characterized by high level of engagement and self-confidence, increasing expectations in the quality of life, demands for political participation and a declining confidence in established political elites and expert cultures. Many of these movements’ understanding of history and contemporary society was often informed by Marxist theories and frameworks. This volume tries for the first time to provide an analysis of this influence using case studies from diverse protest movements in diverse Western European countries. The volume has a particular focus on West Germany and Italy, as we intended, above all, to compare two West European countries at the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to strong communist parties. Italy had one of the strongest communist movements in the West which was also at the cutting edge of ideological developments of Western communism. The Communist Party of Italy (PCI) was the home of Eurocommunism which attempted to reform communism by combining it with more democratic practices and by refuting the authoritarianism and dogmatism often characteristic of Leninist and Stalinist principles.44 In West Germany, by contrast, the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) was banned by the constitutional court in

42 D. Rucht (1994) Modernisierung, p. 87 f.; D. Rucht and R. Roth (2008) ‘Soziale Bewegungen und Protest. Eine theoretische und empirische Bilanz’ in D. Rucht and R. Roth (eds.) Die sozialen Bewegungen in Deutschland seit 1945. Ein Handbuch (Frankfurt am Main: Campus), pp. 635–68. 43 S. Tarrow (1991) ‘“Aiming at a Moving Target”. Social Science and the Recent Rebellions in Eastern Europe’, PS: Political Science & Politics, 24, 1, 12–19; K.-D. Opp (2009) Theories of Political Protest and Social Movements. A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Critique, and Synthesis (London: Routledge); and B. Klandermans et al. (1988) From Structure to Action. Comparing Social Movement Research Across Cultures (London: JAI Press). 44 N. Dörr (2006) Wandel des Kommunismus in Westeuropa: eine Analyse der innerparteilichen Entwicklungen in den Kommunistischen Parteien Frankreichs, Finnlands und Italiens im Zuge des Eurokommunismus (Berlin: Dietz).

12  S. BERGER AND C. CORNELISSEN

1956.45 The division of Germany after the Second World War meant that a Communist East Germany stood diametrically opposed to a capitalist and staunchly anti-Communist West Germany. Even when a new Communist Party (DKP) was allowed to form in West Germany in 1968, it remained a politically insignificant and sect-like structure that was the mirror opposite to the powerful communist mass party in Italy.46 By choosing a comparison with national cases that are at the most opposite spectrum, we are hoping to reveal to what extent diverse Marxisms differed in their success or failure to influence a wide variety of other social movements during the Cold War. We have augmented the ItalianWest-German comparison with occasional glimpses to other countries with mass communist parties in the West, such as France and Spain, and countries where the Communist Party had a similar fringe existence to the one in West Germany, namely Britain. One of the intriguing findings of this volume is that the influence of Marxism on social movements in West Germany is not necessarily smaller than the one in Italy, despite the huge difference in size and importance of the respective Communist parties in both countries. Arguably, this has to do with the intellectual power of Marxism that influenced in particular educated elites who in turn played an influential role in left-wing social movements during the Cold War. The variants of Marxism that these intellectual elites adhered to could be quite different in Italy and West Germany but in both cases they had a significant impact on the shape and outlook of a wide variety of social movements, ranging from anti-fascist to women’s and further to peace and environmental movements—to mention just the most significant. We start off by looking at the anti-fascist movements of Western Europe after the end of the Second World War. Arnd Bauerkämper, in his contribution, highlights the ambivalent and multifaceted nature of anti-fascism in Western Europe that was never fully controlled by prescribed Soviet versions of anti-fascism. Many post-war social movements, 45 P.

Major (1997) The Death of the KPD: Communism and Anti-Communism in West Germany 1945–1956 (Oxford: Oxford University Press); T. Kössler (2005) Abschied von der Revolution. Kommunisten und Gesellschaft in Westdeutschland 1945–1968 (Düsseldorf: Droste). 46 From a Communist West German point of view, see G. Fülberth (1990) KPD und DKP 1945 bis 1990: Geschichte – Organisation - Politik (Cologne: Wissenschaft und Politik).

1  MARXISM AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A FORGOTTEN HISTORY? 

13

including the peace, environmental and feminist movements, were deeply influenced by anti-fascist ideas. Anti-fascism thus can be described as a key reference point for all Marxist historical cultures in the second half of the twentieth century until today. Political new beginnings after the Second World War routinely referred to anti-fascist legacies. Attempts by West European communist parties to use anti-fascism in order to forge broad communist-led political alliances collapsed everywhere in the face of the strong anti-Communist sentiments promoted by the USA and its allies in Western Europe. However, the student movement of the 1960s and the ensuing protest movements of the 1970s revived the fortunes of anti-fascist ideas. Focusing on Britain, Austria, Italy and France, Bauerkämper underlines the importance of anti-­fascist ideas underpinning Marxist political cultures in Western Europe. It served different purposes, some of them domestic, e.g. building alliance with non-Marxist political groups, and some regarding foreign policy, e.g. confirming suspicion of the new West-German ally. It was the malleability of the concept of anti-fascism that made it such a powerful political tool that was widely employed by Marxists and non-Marxists alike. Marxists were prominent in anti-fascist movements, but at their core they were broader alliances and by no means always dominated by Communists.47 It was this ‘broad church’ character of anti-fascism that made it so influential in influencing a host of social movements during the Cold War. Even where anti-Communism had been successful in discrediting the legacies of a Communist politics in the twentieth century, anti-fascism provided an important entry door through which Marxist ideas could enter a variety of broad social movements. That connection between anti-fascism and the influence of Marxism in post-1970s social movements would be well worth examining in greater detail in future research on this topic. All variants of Marxist anti-fascism were underpinned by the idea that history was on the side of socialism/communism. Marx’s historical materialism made Marxist cultures attentive to history. Hence, it is not surprising that history itself played a major role in Marxist political parties. Thomas Kroll’s contribution to this volume examines the transnational aspects of Marxist historical cultures within the Communist parties of Western Europe during the early phase of the Cold War. Distinguishing 47 H. Garcia, M. Justa, X. Tabet, and C. Climaco (eds.) (2016) Rethinking Antifascism: History, Memory and Politics, 1922 to the Present (Oxford: Berghahn Books).

14  S. BERGER AND C. CORNELISSEN

between the party officials guarding an orthodox Stalinist historical perspective and more professional Marxist historians, who often belonged to a younger generation and were less orthodox in their application of Marxist theory to history, Kroll shows that the latter initiated a productive transnational exchange which led to the development of a new social history from below, for example in the field of the history of the French Revolution. These Marxist historical cultures stayed close to Communist Party politics but developed a certain professional autonomy from the strict dogmatism characteristic of Communist Party history functionaries. Kroll’s analysis demonstrates the fruitfulness of engaging with an intellectual history of Communism—what he has done for the 1950s and 1960s still needs to be done for the 1970s and 1980s. Marxism here included a variety of post-Marxisms whose intellectual legacies formed powerful traditions in left-of-centre social movements.48 Overall Kroll’s article points to the need for more research on how Marxism influenced conceptions of historical time and historical development in the new social movements that were to be so influential on West European politics from the 1970s onwards. Gilda Zazzara’s chapter stays with the theme of Marxist historiography. Using the case study of Italy, she shows how a range of Marxist institutions, the Feltrinelli Library, the Gramsci Foundation and the National Institute for the History of the Italian Liberation Movement (INSMLI) that were founded outside of the universities and had close links to the Italian Communist Party were vital in launching the sub-field of contemporary history in Italy and in making Marxist historical voices prominent in the debates surrounding contemporary Italian history. Like Kroll, she detects a certain tension between those (largely non-­historians) intent on pushing party orthodoxy and the contemporary historians receiving their training at Marxist institutions who defended the autonomy of the discipline even against the Communist Party line. Marxist institutions were invariably more important, powerful and richer in Italy than they were in West Germany, which is why they could influence the historiographical discourse to a far greater extent than was the case in West Germany.49 Nevertheless, it is noticeable that Marxist history 48 S.

Sim (2000) Post-Marxism: An Intellectual History (London: Routledge). S. Woolf (2011) ‘Italian Historical Writing’ with S. Berger (2011) ‘From the Search for Normality to the Search for Normality: German Historical Writing’, both in A. Schneider and D. Woolf (eds.) The Oxford History of Historical Writing, 49 Compare

1  MARXISM AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A FORGOTTEN HISTORY? 

15

writing also formed its own distinct historical subculture in Italy that was present at the universities but also underpinned a variety of diverse social movements. The precise relationship between the latter and the Marxist historical cultures has not been examined to date but it is likely that precisely such an analysis is necessary to understand better the development of social movements in Italy. If the prominence of anti-fascism after 1945 allowed Marxist historical cultures to blossom in Western Europe despite the Cold War, neo-Marxist ideas developing around various new lefts in the 1960s also proved a challenge to a variety of entrenched Marxist interpretations. Ralf Hoffrogge’s chapter uses the case study of the 1918 German Revolution to highlight how the West-German Marxist new left reinterpreted a key event in modern German history—largely against the grain of the dominant West-German liberal interpretations of that revolution. The attempt to re-establish a Marxist historical culture that was independent of the orthodox Communist Marxism was, however, made difficult by the generational ruptures of the Third Reich and by the total defeat, at the hands of Nazism, of the German labour movement. Germany was, of course, a frontier state in the Cold War which heightened the difficulties of establishing interpretations that went against the orthodoxies of both the capitalist West and the Communist East. Hence, unorthodox Marxist reinterpretations of the German Revolution first and foremost had to rediscover the council movement that was such a prominent part of that revolution, yet had been neglected by historians in both East and West as it did not fit into their respective teleologies. Hoffrogge finds in the anti-authoritarian wing of the German student movement, such as Karl-Heinz Roth, the most promising attempts to steer an independent course between the history politics of West and East Germany, respectively. However, ultimately, Hoffrogge contends, it was the intense fragmentation of Marxist historical cultures in Germany which meant that they could not develop a powerful interpretative frame from which to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies in both East and West Germany. This marked a strong contrast to Italy, where a far more homogeneous Marxist historical culture, grounded in a mass Communist

vol. 5: Historical Writing Since 1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 220–42 and 333–52.

16  S. BERGER AND C. CORNELISSEN

Party, was capable of developing more influential interpretative frames that also came to guide a variety of other social movements in the Cold War world. The articles by Kroll, Zazzara and Hoffrogge are all dealing with politically engaged scholarship by Marxists who were trying to make a contribution as scholars and as political activists. Engaged forms of history writing, at least on the left, were often informed by Marxist ideas and theories.50 The article by Dieter Rucht is examining the problems of such politically engaged scholarship in the field of social movement studies that developed in the aftermath of the student rebellion of 1968 and analogous to the emergence of new social movements from the 1970s onwards. Hence, many scholars working in social movement studies were situated on the (often neo-Marxist) political left, had sympathies with the left and with the object of their studies and identified with the social movements that they were also studying. Reviewing engaged social movement scholarship over the past five decades and reflecting on the advantages and drawbacks of engaged scholarship more generally, Rucht concludes by advocating a scholarly position that can deal with both closeness and distance. Such a position though remains a tightrope walk for many scholars. The following articles move from intellectual history of the relationship between Marxisms and social movements to specific histories of social movements, namely the 1968 student movement, the New Left, the peace movement, and the solidarity movement with the so-called Third World, and the role that Marxisms played within them. Benedikt Sepp looks at the 1968 West German student movement and its espousal of Marxist theories. The latter, he argues, was attractive to the dissenting students, as Marxism was related to forbidden and hard-to-come-by knowledge and as it could be used to define in-groups and out-groups and demarcate a political identity of left-leaning student associations such as the Sozialistische Deutsche Studentenbund (SDS). Marxism allowed the students to link the youth revolt at Western universities with the anti-colonial struggle in the colonial world and thus posit a global revolutionary moment in which economic, political, social and cultural change was imminent. Marxism also allowed them to adopt a pose of intellectual sophistication with which to enter intellectual debates on 50 S. Berger (ed.) (2019) The Historian as Engaged Intellectual (Oxford: Berghahn Books).

1  MARXISM AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A FORGOTTEN HISTORY? 

17

and off the campuses. History was prominently present in the reading of Marxist texts, as Sepp recalls. The long history of Marxist struggles against capitalism and the generations of Marxist that went before them formed a powerful tradition into which the students inserted themselves and which gave Marxism a near-religious aura. Marxism gave students not only a contemporary but also a historical identity. The global moment of 196851 is therefore of key importance for the ways in which Marxisms were able to enter diverse social movements in which 1968ers were to play an important role. The New Left preceded, accompanied and developed from the student movement of 1968. In article on the New Left, David Bebnowski argues not to view its history from the vantage point of 1968 but rather from two vantage points in the late 1950s and late 1970s which mark both the founding and terminal crisis moments of the New Left. Highlighting the international character of the New Left and its German peculiarities, Bebnowski analyses the way in which existentialism paved the way for Marxism in a generation of young intellectuals that were politically socialized in the 1950s. Furthermore, Bebnowski puts much emphasis on the role of the peace movement for the emergence of the New Left arguing that without the peace movement the New Left might never have seen the light of day. Strong doses of moralism were present both in the peace movement and existentialist thought and found their way into the Marxisms espoused by the New Left. Overall, Bebnowski’s article highlights the diversity of many New Lefts that differed substantially over place and time, even if they were also tightly interwoven and interconnected. Turning from the New Left to the peace movement, Stefan Berger and Christian Wicke examine the extraordinary impact of the Marxist historian E. P. Thompson on the British (and global) peace movement from the 1960s to the 1980s. His particular brand of socialist humanism underpinned the vision of a post-Cold War society built from below by the people of Eastern and Western Europe. It was an important inspiration behind the campaigns of both European Nuclear Disarmament and the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Berger and Wicke argue that Thompson’s peace activism gave him a political home after 51 G. R. Horn (2017) ‘1968: A Social Movement Sui Generis’, in S. Berger and H. Nehring (eds.) The History of Social Movements in Global Perspective. A Survey (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 515–42.

18  S. BERGER AND C. CORNELISSEN

becoming politically homeless when he decided to leave the Communist Party in 1956. His politically engaged scholarship now related not so much to party communism but to the fortunes of the peace movement. His Marxist understanding of history thus also influenced wider peace activism in the global peace movement. Such Marxist historical cultures within the peace movement were not only established and strengthened by charismatic leaders, such as Thompson, but they were present, from the bottom-up, so to speak, in the peace movement itself. Using the example of the West-German peace movement of the 1960s, Alrun Berger shows how, in their journals and the various literatures that it produced, a Marxist understanding of history was key in promoting peace activism. Especially, the memory of the National Socialist dictatorship and its crimes against humanity served the early peace movement as historical frame against which it developed its campaigns against remilitarization, nuclear weapons and NATO membership of the young Federal Republic.52 The failure of German society to stand up and be counted in National Socialism served as justification for the resistance against a West German policy that, in the eyes of the peace protesters, threatened the world with annihilation. Such a moral historical culture was augmented, in the second phase of the German peace movement, by a more socialist historical culture that related the development of militarism to the defeat of democracy and socialism, and, by inverting the relationship, argued that only a pacifist culture would allow the emergence of a socialist democracy in Germany. In the third phase, from the mid- to late 1960s Berger finds an increasing influence of a neo-Marxist new left that not only connected the message of peace with anti-capitalism but also argued historically that the victory of militarism would bring the return of fascism to Germany. Overall, the British and West German cases demonstrate how strongly Marxist historical thinking entered the reasoning of the peace movements in both countries during the Cold War. From the peace movement, we move to the solidarity movement for the so-called Third World—with Guido Panvini arguing that this movement received much less attention in Italy than in the Anglo-Saxon and German-speaking countries. He distinguishes between two different types of the third worldism: first, there was the third worldism of 52 H. Nehring (2013) Politics of Security. British and West German Protest Movements and the Early Cold War 1945–1970 (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

1  MARXISM AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A FORGOTTEN HISTORY? 

19

intellectuals who spread key postcolonial texts by Franz Fanon and others. Secondly, the third worldism of Catholic origin is presented by Panvini as the most important in Italy. Catholic representatives of Third Worldism frequently pointed to the parallels between the anti-fascist resistance in Italy and the anti-colonial struggle in the ‘Third World’, morally justifying the latter with reference to the former. The commitment of the Catholic left to third worldism was also an important bridge in the dialogue with the Communist Party that came fully into its own after the Second Vatican Council. Both Communists and left Catholics built alliances on strong sentiments of anti-capitalism. The ChristianMarxist dialogue that blossomed during the 1960s and 1970s made anti-colonial violence a prominent theme with quite a few proponents justifying such violence against an immoral and indefensible imperialist system. Panvini’s article provides tantalizing glimpses into the way in which Marxisms helped to shape diverse third world movements during the Cold War,53 but overall the subject is still awaiting its historian. The final article in the collection by Petra Terhoeven recalls to what extent Marxism informed the anti-imperialism of the New Left and inspired the third worldism that had its origins in the enthusiasm for anti-colonial liberation movements in the West. Making use of theoretical frameworks provided by Thomas Kroll and Emile Durkheim, she understands this Marxist anti-imperialism in its religious dimensions as an imagined moral struggle against the ‘evil’ of imperialism. Antiimperialist movements just as third world movements were strongly influenced by diverse strands of Marxism, and it is impossible to understand these social movements without examining in depth its relationship with Marxisms. The examination of the relationship between Marxism and social movements could easily extend to other movements. The one that is most obviously missing in this collection is the women’s movement, as two contributors, who were at the beginning part of this project had to withdraw from it for different reasons. Maud Bracke’s work on feminism in Italy between the late 1960s and the early 1980s contains tantalizing glimpses into the relationship between sections of the feminist movement and the Italian trade union movement. Using the example of trade union feminism among women workers at the FIAT factory in 53 M. T. Berger (2009) ‘After the Third World? History, Destiny and the Fate of Third Worldism’, in M. T. Berger (ed.) After the Third World? (London: Routledge).

20  S. BERGER AND C. CORNELISSEN

Turin, she argues that feminism posed a major challenge to the Marxist tradition inside the workers’ movement. Feminists argued that Marxists had ignored the simple fact that alienation, exploitation and repression had been and continued to be sex-based. It formulated a critique of the nuclear family as cornerstone of the capitalist order, and it sought to redefine the traditional definitions of work and productivity. However, at the same time as feminism challenged Marxism, it also aimed to renew its anti-capitalist struggle and find a way to reformulate a more effective class politics. It did so by pointing the way to more anti-authoritarian, more grass-roots and bottom-up and more radically democratic ways of resisting capitalism, on the shop floor and in wider society.54 Overall, the contributions in this volume demonstrate how productive it is to ask about the influence of Marxism on a diverse range of social protest movements in Western Europe during the Cold War. So far, this influence has been largely ignored in the scholarship on social movements. There are only a few studies that tend to be strongly rooted in national contexts and avoid a comparative or transnational perspective.55 The question in how far Marxisms influenced social movements across different national contexts is hardly explored at all. It is equally unclear if and to what an extent such Marxist influences crossed national boundaries and was based on transnational networks and ideological transfers.56 Such a comparative and transnational view might also allow us to assess why Marxism was more influential in some countries than in others. 54 Maud Bracke (2014) Women and the Reinvention of the Political: Feminism in Italy, 1968–1983 (London: Routledge). Mandy Stalder-Thon is currently working on a Ph.D. examining the influence of the women’s movement on the West German trade union movement in the 1970s and 1980s. See http://www.isb.rub.de/mitarbeiter/stalder-thon. html.de, date accessed 26 July 2018. 55 D. Dworkin (1997) Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain. History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies (Durham: Duke University Press); M. Dreyfus et al. (2000) Siècle; A. Hajek (2011) ‘Fragmented Identities. Transformations in the Italian Alternative Left-wing Milieu 1968–1977’ in C. Baumann, N. Büchse and S. Gehrig (eds.) Linksalternative Milieus und Neue Soziale Bewegungen in den 1970er Jahren (Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter), pp. 108–33; R. Lumley (1990) States of Emergency. Cultures of Revolt in Italy from 1968 to 1978 (London: Verso); T. Judt (2011) Marxism and French Left. Studies on Labour and Politics in France, 1830–1981 (New York: New York University Press); and D. Lindenberg (2004) ‘Le marxisme au XXe siècle’ in J.-J. Becker and G. Candar (eds.) Histoires des gauches en France, Vol. 2: XXe siècle. À l’épreuve de l’histoire (Paris: Editions la Découvertes), pp. 626–45. 56 M. Pernau (2011) Transnationale Geschichte, pp. 36–84.

1  MARXISM AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A FORGOTTEN HISTORY? 

21

Using Italian, German, British, French, Spanish and Austrian examples, this volume makes a small first step in the direction of more transnational approaches in the study of West European Marxisms. The sustained comparison between Italy and Germany in this volume has demonstrated how a much-more rooted Communist historical culture in Italy found it easier to spread Marxisms to other social movements, but, given the marginality of Communism in West Germany, it is striking to what extent the intellectual rejuvenation of Marxisms during the long 1960s was still capable of influencing a wide range of new social movements in West Germany during the 1970s and 1980s. However, much still needs to be done. First, social movement studies, firmly rooted in the social sciences, have not yet taken a decisive historical turn, whilst historical studies on social movements often retain a distance to theory.57 Bringing both closer together might also bode well for a more historically informed influence of Marxism on twentieth-century social movements. Secondly, the charge of being Communist front organizations was a right-wing charge against social movements during the Cold War and beyond. Several authors have attempted to reduce the influence of Marxism on Western social movements as pure infiltration by East European Communism.58 Even if there were, of course, attempts to influence Western social movements on the left, the latter cannot be

57 C.

Barker et al. (2013) Marxism and Social Movements (Chicago: Brill); J. Mittag and H. Stadtland (2014) ‘Soziale Bewegungsforschung im Spannungsfeld von Theorie und Empirie’ in J. Mittag and H. Stadtland (eds.) Theoretische Ansätze und Konzepte der Forschung über soziale Bewegungen in der Geschichtswissenschaft (Essen: Klartext), pp. 13–60, p. 16; D. Della Porta and M. Diani (2015) The Oxford Handbook of Social Movements (Oxford: Oxford University Press); C. Tilly (2004) Contention and Democracy in Europe, 1650–2000 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press); C. Tilly and L. J. Wood (2009) Social Movements, 1768–2008 (London: Paradigm); D. A. Snow et al. (2004) The Blackwell Companion to Social Movement Research (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing); B. Klandermans and C. Roggeband (2007) Handbook of Social Movements Across Disciplines (New York: Springer); O. Filieule and G. Accornero (2016) Social Movement Studies in Europe (New York: Berghahn Books); and S. Teune (2010) The Transnational Condition. Protest Dynamics in an Entangled Rope (New York: Berghahn Books). 58 A. Glees (2003) The Stasi Files. East Germany’s Secret Operations Against Britain (New York: Free); H. Knabe (1999) Die unterwanderte Republik. Stasi im Westen (Berlin: Propylän).

22  S. BERGER AND C. CORNELISSEN

reduced to mere appendices of ‘really-existing socialism’ in the East.59 After all, many of those protest movements often stressed their equidistance to both dominant ideological systems in the West and East, i.e. capitalism and communism. Insofar as they were influenced by Marxism, it was often a very different kind of Marxism than the one that was preached and practised in Communist Eastern Europe. What is needed is, thus, a fresh look at the actual transfers and relationships between East and West European Marxisms: How much Western fellow-travelling, that accompanied the history of the Soviet Union from 1917 onwards, was still going on? What were popular perceptions of Soviet communism in the West? How much influence did the Communist International have on the selection of cadres in the West? How much influence did East European Communists actually have on anti-fascist and anti-imperialist movements as well as the peace movement in the West? How much did East European dissidents contribute to the development of Marxisms and Marxist-influenced social movements in the West? Thirdly, the revival of Communism studies per se, that is associated not the least with the opening of the archives in Eastern Europe, is very much restricted to Communist parties and societies and often ignores the wider ramifications of Marxism on movements that were not Communist front organizations.60 All of these factors combine to ensure that the historical influence of Marxism on social movements in the twentieth century remains understudied. The prosopographic studies that exist on communist movements in Europe as well as the many biographies, autobiographies and memoirs of people active in labour movements and diverse other social movements present us with excellent material to examine the influence of Marxisms on the intellectual development and social practice of a large range of activists.61 Much of that material has never been examined with a view of analysing the relationship between Marxisms and social movements. 59 S. Berger and N. LaPorte (2010) Friendly Enemies. Britain and the GDR, 1949–1990 (Oxford: Berghahn Books); E. Aga Rossi and V. Zaslavsky (2007) Togliatti e Stalin. Il PCI e la politica estera staliniana negli archive di Mosca (Bologna: Il Mulino). 60 The International Newsletter of Communist Studies online, since 1993; Bundesstiftung zur Aufarbeitung der SED-Diktatur, since 1993; S. A. Smith (2014) Oxford Handbook. 61 K. Morgan, G. Cohen, and A. Flinn (eds.) (2005) Agents of the Revolution. New Biographical Approaches to the History of International Communism in the Age of Lenin and Stalin (Berne: Peter Lang). On the importance of biographical approaches, through

1  MARXISM AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A FORGOTTEN HISTORY? 

23

If we are to take calls for a through Europeanization of historical scholarship seriously,62 then it is high time to engage with the Marxist legacies that can be found within social protest movements across Western Europe during the Cold War. To what extent was Marxist influence ascribed to social movements and to what extent did they themselves claim that heritage? What transfers were taking place between the orthodox Marxisms in both Eastern and Western Europe and the various attempts to produce less rigid Marxist theories models in the West? We need to connect the social, cultural and intellectual history of Marxism to the history of social protest movements. If we do so, a rich field of study will open up: ideological positionings, political practice, cultural self-understanding, social impact, all of these themes could be explored further. Thus, for example, we could look at the influence of Marxist ideas and ideologies on social movements in the West. Starting from the unemployed movements and anti-imperialist movements of the interwar period, we could examine the influence of Marxism on anti-­ capitalist protests in the early post-Second World War years. Equally, we could analyse the ideas surrounding the ‘capitalist production of illness’ in the anti-psychiatry movement in the West. And it is still a starkly unexplored field to look at the impact of Marxism on the peace, women’s and environmental movements in the West from the 1970s onwards. Secondly, we could find out more about the impact of Marxism on the cultures of social protest movements. Looking at festivals, mass rallies, film, theatre, but also at alternative forms of living and working, we could examine the diverse ways in which the culture of social protest was infused with Marxist models and ideas. Finally, we could look at the influence of Marxism on the theory and historiography of social protest and social movement research from the 1970s onwards. What has been the relationship between engagement and scientificity in this field of study? How did Marxist critiques of globalization influence theories of social protest from the 1990s onwards? What about traditions of Marxist history writing and their impact on understandings of history that in turn influenced social movements? How did the latter combine moral concerns with

oral history and memoirs, see also J. M. Jasper (1997) The Art of Moral Protest: Culture, Biography and Creativity in Social Movements (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). 62 M. Conway and K. Patel (2010) Europeanization in the Twentieth Century: Historical Approaches (London: Palgrave Macmillan).

24  S. BERGER AND C. CORNELISSEN

Marxist theory? These are just some of the questions that await their historians and that would shed light on the forgotten histories of Marxisms that go beyond Communist Party histories and Cold War ideologies.

Literature Adamson, W. L. (1980) Hegemony and Revolution. A Study of Antonio Gramsci’s Political and Cultural Theory (Berkeley: University of California Press). Aga Rossi, E. and Zaslavsky, V. (2007) Togliatti e Stalin. Il PCI e la politica estera staliniana negli archivi di Mosca (Bologna: Il Mulino). Ajello, N. (1979) Intellettuali e Pci, 1944–1958 (Rom: Laterza). Althusser, L. (1984) Essays on Ideology (London: Verso). Aust, M. (2017) Die Russische Revolution: Vom Zarenreich zum Sowjetimperium (Munich: Beck). Avineri, S. (1977) Varieties of Marxism (Den Haag: Springer). Barker, C. et al. (2013) Marxism and Social Movements (Chicago: Brill). Baumer, A. (2008) Kommunismus in Spanien. Die Partido Comunista de España. Widerstand, Krise und Anpassung (1970–2006) (Baden-Baden: Iberoamericana Vervuert). Bedeschi, G. (2002) La fabbrica delle ideologie. Il pensiero politico nell’Italia del Novecento (Rome and Bari: Laterza). Bellassai, S. (2000) La morale comunista. Pubblico e privato nella rappresentazione del PCI, 1947–1956 (Roma: Carocci). Berger, M. T. (ed.) (2009) After the Third World? (London: Routledge). Berger, S. (2000) Social Democracy and the Working Class in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Germany (London: Longman). Berger, S. and LaPorte, N. (2010) Friendly Enemies. Britain and the GDR, 1949–1990 (Oxford: Berghahn Books). Berger, S. with Conrad, C. (2015) The Past as History. National Identity and Historical Consciousness in Modern Europe (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Berger, S. and Boldorf, M. (2018) Social Movements and the Change of Economic Elites in Europe After 1945 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Berger, S. and Nehring, H. (2017) The History of Social Movements in Global Perspective. A Survey (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Berger, S. (ed.) (2019) The Historian as Engaged Intellectual (Oxford: Berghahn Books). Bernhard, P. and Nehring, H. (2014) Den Kalten Krieg denken. Beiträge zur sozialen Ideengeschichte (Essen: Klartext). Beyer, W (1985) 60 Years the War Resisters’ International (WRI). The Political Insight of the WRI with Special Reference to the Period 1921–1939 (Berlin: Schriftenreihe des Libertären Forums Berlin).

1  MARXISM AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A FORGOTTEN HISTORY? 

25

Beyrau, D. (2003) ‘Das bolschewistische Projekt als Entwurf und als soziale Praxis’ in W. Hardtwig (ed.) Utopie und politische Herrschaft im Europa der Zwischenkriegszeit (München: Oldenbourg), pp. 13–40. Bracke, M. (2007) Which Socialism? Whose Detente? West European Communism and the Czechoslovak Crisis in 1968 (Budapest: Central European University Press). Brand, U. (2005) Gegen-Hegemonie. Perspektiven globalisierungs-kritischer Strategien (Hamburg: VSA-Verlag). Braskén, K. (2015) The International Workers’ Relief, Communism, and Transnational Solidarity. Willi Münzenberg in Weimar Germany (Basingstoke: Springer). Bundesstiftung zur Aufarbeitung der SED-Diktatur (2010) Die Geschichte der kommunistischen Bewegung in Westeuropa nach 1945 (Berlin: Aufbau Verlag). Callahan, K. (2010) Demonstration Culture. European Socialism and the Second International, 1889–1914 (Leicester: Troubador Publishing Ltd.). Candeias, M. and Völpel, E. (2014) Plätze Sichern! ReOrganisierung der Linken in der Krise (Hamburg: VSA-Verlag). Casalini, M. (2010) Famiglie comuniste. Ideologie e vita quotidiana nell’Italia degli anni Cinquanta (Bologna: Il Mulino). Christofferson, M. S. (2009) Les intellectuels contre la gauche. L’idéologie antitotalitaire en France, 1968–1981 (Marseille: Agone). Colozza, R. (2009) Repubbliche rosse. I simboli nazionali del Pci e del Pcf, 1944– 1953 (Bologna, Clueb). Conway, M. and Patel, K. (2010) Europeanization in the Twentieth Century: Historical Approaches (London: Palgrave Macmillan). Courtois, S. and Lazar, M. (2000) Histoire du Parti communiste français (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France). Creuzberger, S. and Hoffmann, D. (2014) “Geistige Gefahr” und “Immunisierung der Gesellschaft”. Antikommunismus und politische Kultur in der frühen Bundesrepublik (München: De Gruyter). De Giuseppe, M. (2012) ‘Il “Terzo mondo” in Italia. Trasformazioni di un concetto tra opinione pubblica, azione politica e mobilitazione civile, 1955– 1980’, Ricerche di Storia Politica, 1, 29–52. Della Porta, D. and Diani, M. (2015) The Oxford Handbook of Social Movements (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Donald, M. (1993) Marxism and Revolution. Karl Kautsky and the Russian Marxists, 1900–1924 (New Haven: Yale University Press). Dörr, N. (2006) Wandel des Kommunismus in Westeuropa: eine Analyse der innerparteilichen Entwicklungen in den Kommunistischen Parteien Frankreichs, Finnlands und Italiens im Zuge des Eurokommunismus (Berlin: Dietz). Dreyfus, M., et al. (2000) Le Siècle des communismes (Paris: Éditions de l‘Atelier).’.

26  S. BERGER AND C. CORNELISSEN Dworkin, D. (1997) Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain. History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies (Durham: Duke University Press). Eley, G. (2002) Forging Democracy. The History of the Left in Europe, 1850–2000 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Favilli, P. (2006) Marxismo e storia. Saggio sull’innovazione storiografica in Italia, 1945–1970 (Milano: Franco Angeli). Femia, J. (2007) ‘Western Marxism’ in D. Glaser and D. M. Walker (eds.) Twentieth-Century Marxism. A Global Introduction (London: Routledge), pp. 95–117. Fetscher, I. (1967) Karl Marx und der Marxismus. Von der Philosophie des Proletariats zur proletarischen Weltanschauung (München: Piper). Fillieule, O. and Accornero, G. (2016) Social Movement Studies in Europe (New York: Berghahn Books). Fiske, J. (2011a/1989) Reading the Popular (London and New York: Routledge). Fiske, J. (2011b/1989) Understanding Popular Culture (London and New York: Routledge). Flesher Fominaya, C. and Cox, L. (2013) Understanding European Movements. New Social Movements, Global Justice Struggles, Anti-Austerity Protest (London: Routledge). Folke Schuppert, G. (2008) Politische Kultur (Baden-Baden: Nomos). Fülberth, G. (1990) KPD und DKP 1945 bis 1990: Geschichte – Organisation Politik (Cologne: Wissenschaft und Politik). Furet, F. (1996) Das Ende der Illusion. Der Kommunismus im 20. Jahrhundert (Munich: Piper). Garcia, H., Justa, M., Tabet, X., and Climaco, C. (eds.) (2016) Rethinking Antifascism: History, Memory and Politics, 1922 to the Present (Oxford: Berghahn Books). Gautney, H. (2010) Protest and Organization in the Alternative Globalization Era. NGOs, Social Movements, and Political Parties (New York: Palgrave Macmillan). Glees, A. (2003) The Stasi Files. East Germany’s Secret Operations Against Britain (New York: Free). Gregor, A. J. (2000) The Face of Janus. Marxism and Fascism in the Twentieth Century (New Haven: Yale University Press). Grünewald, G. (1999) ‘War Resisters in Weimar Germany’ in P. Brock & T. P. Socknat, T. P. (eds.) Challenge to Mars. Essays on Pacifism from 1918 to 1945 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press), pp. 67–88. Grünewald, G. (2012) ‘Die deutsche Friedensbewegung 1900 bis 1933 im europäischen Kontext’ in A. Schwitanski (ed.) “Nie wieder Krieg!” Antimilitarismus und Frieden in der Geschichte der Sozialistischen Jugendinternationale (Essen: Klartext), pp. 57–77.

1  MARXISM AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A FORGOTTEN HISTORY? 

27

Gualtieri, R. (2001) Il PCI nell’Italia repubblicana, 1943–1991 (Rom: Carocci). Hajek, A. (2011) ‘Fragmented Identities. Transformations in the Italian Alternative Left-wing Milieu 1968-1977’ in C. Baumann, N. Büchse, and S. Gehrig (eds.) Linksalternative Milieus und Neue Soziale Bewegungen in den 1970er Jahren (Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter), pp. 108–33. Hall, S. (1997) Representation. Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices (London: Sage). Heigl, M. (2015) Rom in Aufruhr. Soziale Bewegungen im Italien der 1970er Jahre (Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag). Herres, J. (2018) Marx und Engels. Portrait einer intellektuellen Freundschaft (Stuttgart: Reclam). Hoff, J. (2009) Marx global. Zur Entwicklung des internationalen MarxDiskurses seit 1965 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag). Horn, G. R. (2017) ‘1968: A Social Movement Sui Generis’ in S. Berger and H. Nehring (eds.) The History of Social Movements in Global Perspective. A Survey (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 515–42. Hüttner, B. et al. (2005) Vorwärts und viel vergessen. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Geschichtsschreibung neuer sozialer Bewegungen (Neu-Ulm: AG SPAK Bücher). Iggers, G. G. (2007) Geschichtswissenschaft im 20. Jahrhundert. Ein kritischer Überblick im internationalen Zusammenhang (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht). Jasper, J. M. (1997) The Art of Moral Protest: Culture, Biography and Creativity in Social Movements (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Jones, G. St. (2016) Karl Marx: Greatness and Illusion (London: Penguin Books). Jousse, E. (2007) Réviser le marxisme? D’Edouard Bernstein à Albert Thomas, 1896–1914 (Paris: Editions l’Harmattan). Judt, T. (2011) Marxism and the French Left. Studies on Labour and Politics in France, 1830–1981 (New York: New York University Press). Kellner, D. (1984) Herbert Marcuse and the Crisis of Marxism (Berkeley: University of California Press). Kertzer, D. I. (1998) Politics and Symbols. The Italian Communist Party and the Fall of Communism (New Haven: Yale University Press). Kinna, R. (2012) The Continuum Compendium to Anarchism (London: Continuum). Klandermans, B. et al. (1988) From Structure to Action. Comparing Social Movement Research Across Cultures (London: JAI Press). Klandermans, B. and Roggeband, C. (2007) Handbook of Social Movements Across Disciplines (New York: Springer). Knabe, H. (1999) Die unterwanderte Republik. Stasi im Westen (Berlin: Propyläen). Koenen, G. (2017) Die Farbe Rot: Ursprünge und Geschichte des Kommunismus (Munich: Beck).

28  S. BERGER AND C. CORNELISSEN Koenen, G. and Kopelew, L. (1998) Deutschland und die russische Revolution 1917–1924 (Munich: W. Fink). Kort, M. (1993) Marxism in Power: The Rise and Fall of a Doctrine (New York: Millbrook Press). Kössler, T. (2005) Abschied von der Revolution. Kommunisten und Gesellschaft in Westdeutschland 1945–1968 (Düsseldorf: Droste). Kroll, T. (2007) Kommunistische Intellektuelle in Westeuropa. Frankreich, Österreich, Italien und Großbritannien im Vergleich, 1945–1956 (Cologne: Böhlau). Lazar, M. (1996) La Gauche en Europe depuis 1945. Invariants et mutations du socialisme européen (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France). Leffler, M. P. and Westad, O. A. (2010) The Cambridge History of the Cold War, vol. 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Lemke, M. (2008) Republikanischer Sozialismus. Positionen von Bernstein, Kautsky, Jaurès und Blum (Frankfurt am Main: Campus). Leopold, D. (2013) ‘Marxism and Ideology. From Marx to Althusser’ in M. Freeden, et al. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 20–37. Lindenberg, D. (2004) ‘Le marxisme au XXe siècle’ in J.-J. Becker and G. Candar (eds.) Histoire des gauches en France, vol. 2: XXe siècle. À l’épreuve de l’histoire (Paris: Editions la Découvertes), pp. 626–45. Linehan, T. (2012) Communism in Britain, 1920–1939. From the Cradle to the Grave (Manchester: Manchester University Press). Lumley, R. (1990) States of Emergency. Cultures of Revolt in Italy from 1968 to 1978 (London: Verso). Maier, C. (1975) Recasting Bourgeois Europe. Stabilization in France, Germany and Italy in the Decade After World War I (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Major, P. (1997) The Death of the KPD: Communism and Anti-Communism in West Germany 1945–1956 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Mannheim, K. (1929) Ideologie und Utopie (Bonn: Verlag von Friedrich Cohen). Marx, K. and Engels, F. (2003) ‘Die Deutsche Ideologie. Artikel, Druckvorlagen, Entwürfe, Reinschriftenfragmente und Notizen zu “I. Feuerbach” und “II. Sankt Bruno”, vol. 2 in I. Taubert, et al. (eds.) Marx-Engels-Jahrbuch (Amsterdam: Akademie Verlag). McLellan, D. (2003) ‘Western Marxism’ in T. Ball and R. Bellamy (eds.) The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 282–98. Mittag, J. and Stadtland, H. (2014) ‘Soziale Bewegungsforschung im Spannungsfeld von Theorie und Empirie’ in Mittag, J. and Stadtland, H. (eds.) Theoretische Ansätze und Konzepte der Forschung über soziale Bewegungen in der Geschichtswissenschaft (Essen: Klartext), pp. 13–60.

1  MARXISM AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A FORGOTTEN HISTORY? 

29

Morgan, K., Cohen, G., and Flinn, A. (eds.) (2005) Agents of the Revolution. New Biographical Approaches to the History of International Communism in the Age of Lenin and Stalin (Berne: Peter Lang). Mozetič, G. (1987) Die Gesellschaftstheorie des Austromarxismus. Geistesgeschichtliche Voraussetzungen, Methodologie und soziologisches Programm (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft). Nehring, H. (2013) Politics of Security. British and West German Protest Movements and the Early Cold War 1945–1970 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Neidhardt, F. (1985) ‘Einige Ideen zu einer allgemeinen Theorie sozialer Bewegungen’ in S. Hradil (ed.) Sozialstruktur im Umbruch. Karl Martin Bolte zum 60. Geburtstag (Opladen: Leske und Budrich), pp. 193–204. Oberndörfer, D. (1978) Sozialistische und kommunistische Parteien in Westeuropa, vol. 1: Südländer (Opladen: UTB). Opp, K.-D. (2009) Theories of Political Protest and Social Movements. A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Critique, and Synthesis (London: Routledge). Panvini, G. (2011) ‘La nuova sinistra’ in M. Gervasoni (ed.) Storia delle sinistre nell’Italia repubblicana (Lungro di Cosenza: Marco Editore), pp. 213–40. Pernau, M. (2011) Transnationale Geschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Perry, M. (2004) ‘“Sans Distinction de Nationalité”? The French Communist Party, Immigrants and Unemployment in the 1930s’, European History Quarterly, 34, 3, 337–69. Perry, M. (2007) Prisoners of Want. The Experience and Protest of the Unemployed in France, 1921–45 (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing). Pons, S. (2014) The Global Revolution: A History of International Communism, 1917–1991 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Presses de Sciences Po (2007) ‘Dossier. Le PS, nouvelles approches’, Vingtième siècle. Revue d’histoire, 96, 4. Raphael, L. (2003) Geschichtswissenschaft im Zeitalter der Extreme. Theorien, Methoden, Tendenzen von 1900 bis zur Gegenwart (Munich: C. H. Beck). Redvaldsen, D. (2011) The Labour Party in Britain and Norway. Elections and the Pursuit of Power Between the World Wars (New York: I.B. Tauris). Reichardt, S. (2004) ‘Selbstorganisation und Zivilgesellschaft. Soziale Assoziationen und politische Mobilisierung in der deutschen und italienischen Zwischenkriegszeit’ in R. Jessen, S. Reichardt, and A. Klein (eds.) Zivilgesellschaft als Geschichte. Studien zum 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (Wiesbaden: Springer), pp. 197–218. Reichardt, S. (2014) Authentizität und Gemeinschaft. Linksalternatives Leben in den siebziger und frühen achtziger Jahren (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp). Reiß, M. (2006) ‘Not All Were Apathetic. National Hunger Marches as Political Rituals in Interwar Britain’ in J. Neuheiser and M. Schaich (eds.) Political

30  S. BERGER AND C. CORNELISSEN Rituals in the United Kingdom, 1700–2000 (Augsburg: Wissner-Verlag), pp. 93–122. Rohe, K. (1990) ‘Politische Kultur und ihre Analyse. Probleme und Perspektiven der Politischen Kulturforschung’, Historische Zeitschrift, 250, 321–34. Rolf, M. and Beyrau, D. (2006) ‘Dictatorships and Festivals’, Journal of Modern European History, 4, 1. Roth, R. (2012) ‘Occupy und Acampada. Vorboten einer neuen Protestgeneration?’, APuZ, 25 and 26, 36–43. Rucht, D. (1994) Modernisierung und neue soziale Bewegungen. Deutschland, Frankreich und die USA im Vergleich (Frankfurt am Main and New York: Campus). Rucht, D. (2014) ‘Zum Stand der Forschung zu sozialen Bewegungen’ in J. Mittag and H. Stadtland (eds.) Theoretische Ansätze und Konzepte der Forschung über soziale Bewegungen in der Geschichtswissenschaft (Essen: Klartext), pp. 61–88. Rucht, D. and Roth, R. (2008) ‘Soziale Bewegungen und Protest. Eine theoretische und empirische Bilanz’ in Rucht, D. and Roth, R. (eds.) Die sozialen Bewegungen in Deutschland seit 1945. Ein Handbuch (Frankfurt am Main: Campus), S. 635–68. Salamun, K. (1992) Ideologien und Ideologiekritik. Ideologiekritische Reflexionen (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft). Salzborn, S. (2009) Politische Kultur. Forschungsstand und Forschungsperspektiven (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang). Sassoon, D. (2010) One Hundred Years of Socialism. The West European Left in the Twentieth Century (London: I.B. Tauris). Sassoon, D. (1997) Looking Left. European Socialism After the Cold War (London: I.B. Tauris). Schneider, A. and Woolf, D. (eds.) (2011) The Oxford History of Historical Writing. Vol. 5: Historical Writing Since 1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Schwelling, B. (2001) ‘Politische Kulturforschung als kultureller Blick auf das Politische’, Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 11, 601–29. Shtromas, A. (1994) The End of “Isms”? Reflections on the Fate of Ideological Politics after Communism’s Collapse (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell). Sim, S. (2000) Post-Marxism: An Intellectual History (London: Routledge). Smith, S. A. (2014) The Oxford Handbook of the History of Communism (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Snow, D. A. et.al. (2004) The Blackwell Companion to Social Movement Research (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing). Späth, J. (2013) ‘Was heißt Antifaschismus nach 1945? Das Beispiel der italienischen Sozialisten in westeuropäischer Perspektive’, Archiv für Sozialgeschichte, 53, 269–304.

1  MARXISM AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A FORGOTTEN HISTORY? 

31

Staraselski, V. (2010) La fête de l’humanité. 80 ans de solidarité (Paris: Le Cherche Midi). Steger, M. B. (1997) The Quest for Evolutionary Socialism. Eduard Bernstein and Social Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Stern, L. (2007) Western Intellectuals and the Soviet Union, 1920–1940: From Red Square to the Left Bank (London: Routledge). Tarrow, S. (1991) ‘“Aiming at a Moving Target”. Social Science and the Recent Rebellions in Eastern Europe’, PS: Political Science & Politics, 24, 1, 12–19. Teune, S. (2010) The Transnational Condition. Protest Dynamics in an Entangled Rope (New York: Berghahn Books). Thompson, M. J. (2011) Georg Lukács Reconsidered. Critical Essays in Politics, Philosophy and Aesthetics (London: Bloomsbury). Thompson, W. (1998) The Communist Movement Since 1945 (Oxford: Blackwell). Tilly, C. (2004) Contention and Democracy in Europe, 1650–2000 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Tilly, C. and Wood, L. J. (2009) Social Movements, 1768–2008 (London: Paradigm). Tolomelli, M. (2001) Repressiv getrennt oder organisch verbündet. Studenten und Arbeiter 1968 in der Bundesrepublik und in Italien (Opladen: Springer VS). Tosel, A. (2001) ‘Devenir du marxisme. De la fin du marxisme-léninisme aux mille marxismes, France-Italie 1975–1995’ in J. Bidet and E. Kouvélakis (eds.) Dictionnaire Marx contemporain (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France), pp. 57–78. Traverso, E. (2011) ‘Marx, l’histoire et les historiens. Une relation à réinventer’, Actuel Marx, 50, 153–65. van der Linden, M. (2007) Western Marxism and the Soviet Union. A Survey of Critical Theories and Debates Since 1917 (Leiden: Brill). Van Dongen, L., Roulin, S., and Scott-Smith, G. (2014) Transnational AntiCommunism and the Cold War. Agents, Activities, and Networks (Basingstoke: Springer). Vowinckel, A., Payk, M. M., and Lindenberger, T. (2012) Cold War Cultures. Perspectives on Eastern and Western European Societies (New York: Berghahn Books). Walther, R. (1982) ‘Marxismus’ in O. Brunner, W. Conze R., and Koselleck (eds.) Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, vol. 3 (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta), pp. 937–76. Wangermann, E. (2011) ‘Linke Intellektuelle, Marxismus und Sozialgeschichte in England’ in H. Berger et al. (eds.) Politische Gewalt und Machtausübung im 20. Jahrhundert. Zeitgeschichte, Zeitgeschehen und Kontroversen (Vienna: Böhlau), pp. 653–66. Wehler, H.-U. (2001) Historisches Denken am Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts, 1945– 2000 (Göttingen: Wallstein).

32  S. BERGER AND C. CORNELISSEN Welskopp, T. (2000) Das Banner der Brüderlichkeit: Die deutsche Sozialdemokratie vom Vormärz bis zum Sozialistengesetz (Bonn: Dietz). Whitfield, S. J. (1996) The Culture of the Cold War (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press). Wiggershaus, R. (1995) The Frankfurt School. Its History, Theories, and Political Significance (Cambridge: MIT Press). Wirth, U. (2002) Performanz. Zwischen Sprachphilosophie und Kulturwissenschaften (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp). Wunderer, H. (1980) Arbeitervereine und Arbeiterparteien. Kultur- und Massenorganisationen in der Arbeiterbewegung, 1890–1933 (Frankfurt am Main: Campus).

CHAPTER 2

Marxist Historical Cultures, ‘Antifascism’ and the Legacy of the Past: Western Europe, 1945–1990 Arnd Bauerkämper

‘Antifascism’ was a crucial pillar of Marxist historical cultures in Western Europe in the first postwar years and during the Cold War. Beyond the Communists, it served as a source of identification and legitimation for Marxist politicians and intellectuals. By contrast, their adversaries denounced ‘antifascism’ as a scourge, associating it with the East European communist dictatorships after 1947–1948. Undoubtedly, the concept has to be seen as an integral component of communist ideology from the 1920s to the 1980s. It was highly selective, as it highlighted resistance against fascism in general and the role of the communists therein in particular. Yet socialists and some liberal parties were still able to voice and disseminate their particular, non-communist versions of ‘antifascism’ in Eastern Europe in the first postwar years. By contrast,

A. Bauerkämper (*)  Fachbereich Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften, Friedrich-Meinecke-Institut, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2019 S. Berger and C. Cornelissen (eds.), Marxist Historical Cultures and Social Movements during the Cold War, Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03804-5_2

33

34  A. BAUERKÄMPER

the Communist parties gained exclusive political control over the concept with the onset of Stalinization in most East European countries in the late 1940s. ‘Antifascism’ turned into a dogma and a tool of dictatorial rule, especially after the foundation of the Cominform in Szklarska Roręba (Poland) in late September 1947.1 In Western Europe, however, ‘antifascism’ remained an ambivalent and multifaceted paradigm that was employed for different ends and purposes. The scope of its usages ranged from a genuine protest against fascist movements and parties to outright political instrumentalization by Communist functionaries who sought to justify their orthodox Marxist doctrines. For instance, ‘antifascism’ was a rallying call for protesting students in the 1960s as well as the environmentalist and feminist groups in the following decade. In some European states, the concept also served to justify the rejection of nuclear energy. ‘Antifascism’ therefore needs to be related to specific historical contexts. As this contribution aims to demonstrate, it was one of the most important points of reference in Western Marxist historical culture during the Cold War.2 Even immediately after the Second World War, ‘antifascism’ had been an ideological dogma, a political rallying call and a paradigm in research. All in all, it served as a political and cultural code that specific actors employed for different and occasionally even contradictory purposes. In Western Europe, the concept was by no means exclusively employed by Communist parties, but also by socialists, Christian Democrats and even conservatives. All these political groups sought to legitimize and stabilize their respective programs and agendas for an ‘antifascist’ renewal after the end of National Socialism, fascism, occupation and war. As the Communists had strongly (though not continuously) opposed fascism and National Socialism, their espousal of ‘antifascism’ lent them credibility and support. Not coincidentally, the Communist parties of major

1 H. García, M. Yusta, X. Tabet and C. Clímaco, eds. (2016) Rethinking Antifascism: History, Memory and Politics, 1922 to the Present (New York: Berghahn). For the GDR, see A. Bauerkämper (2012) Das umstrittene Gedächtnis. Die Erinnerung an Nationalsozialismus, Faschismus und Krieg in Europa seit 1945 (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh), pp. 195–97; J. Michelmann (2002) Aktivisten der ersten Stunde. Die Antifa in der Sowjetischen Besatzungszone (Cologne: Böhlau), especially pp. 355–73. When capitalized, ‘Fascism’ refers to the Italian variant, whereas ‘fascism’ denotes the generic concept. 2 In general, see H. Münkler (1998) ʻAntifaschismus und antifaschistischer Widerstand als Gründungsmythos der DDRʼ, Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 45, 16–29.

2  MARXIST HISTORICAL CULTURES, ‘ANTIFASCISM’ … 

35

Western European states gained new members in the first postwar years. By 1946, the Italian Partito Comunista Italiano (PCI) and the Parti communiste français (PCF), in particular, had become mass parties. Whereas the PCI had gained 1.7 million members by late 1945, the PCF commanded the support of 900,000 ‘comrades’ in 1946. Even the membership of the relatively small Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) had risen from 18,000 to 45,000 in the six years from 1939 to 1945. Communists participated in the governments of nine West European countries, frequently collaborating with socialists in order to achieve a fundamental social and political renewal.3 Even though the broad, if fragile consensus about ‘antifascism’ collapsed in the late 1940s, the term and concept continued to inspire the transition to an economic and social order that were to safeguard West Europeans from a resurgence of fascism. With the exception of liberals who unequivocally espoused the capitalist market economy, almost all parties integrated elements of economic planning and social construction into their concepts for postwar order. It was the Communist parties, however, that endorsed ‘antifascism’ most clearly and explicitly in Western Europe. Having lost their influence in governments of democratic states in the late 1940s, they propagated ‘antifascism’ in order to unequivocally oppose the capitalist economy in bourgeois society. The transition to a narrow understanding was promoted by the Soviet Communists as early as late 1947. On the occasion of the foundation of the Cominform, the delegates from the USSR criticized the French and Italian Communists for their failure to mobilize the populations against the ‘bourgeois’ governments. Similarly, the Yugoslav Communists denounced their Italian and French ‘comrades’ for their continued adherence to the concept of a broad ‘People’s Democracy.’ The PCF followed suit and espoused the official doctrine of the ‘two camps,’ thereby reducing the attractiveness of ‘antifascism’. The Cominform doctrine had a particularly devastating impact on the small Communist parties in Western Europe. The CPGB, for instance, was politically isolated after its open commitment to the Soviet ‘camp’ in February 1948. The leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, decided to dismiss all Communists from public authorities. By contrast, the politicians of the PCI did not give up

3 H. Kaeselitz (1998) ʻPositionen westeuropäischer Kommunistischer Parteien im Übergang zur Politik des Kalten Kriegesʼ, Utopie kreativ, 96, 61–70, at p. 61f.

36  A. BAUERKÄMPER

their ambition to gain mass support, although they resorted to ‘self-criticism’ in order to reduce the mounting pressure from the USSR. At the same time, the Italian Communists supported strikes as much as their French ‘comrades,’ and they continued to collaborate with socialists.4 By and large, however, the concept of a broad ‘antifascist’ alliance had collapsed with the onset of the Cold War. It was only the protest movements of the 1960s that lent ‘antifascism’ a new lease of life. As the students’ unrest, in particular, radicalized at the end of the decade in states such as France, Italy and West Germany, even the communist dictatorships of Eastern Europe or China came to be hailed as harbingers of ‘antifascism.’ Especially in Italy and France, left-wing terrorists also claimed the ‘antifascist’ legacy of the Resistenza and the Résistance, respectively. It was no coincidence that they deliberately used weapons of the former resistance fighters in their terrorist attacks. Especially in countries that had been occupied by the Third Reich, broad social groups and influential political parties also referred to antifascism as a tool of distancing themselves from the increasingly mighty Federal Republic of Germany. These West European countries that were officially allies of the new German state even partially sympathized with the antagonistic GDR as the supposedly ‘better Germany.’ Admittedly, this overtures to the East German state remained limited, as West European countries had to take into account the policies of their West German partners. Cooperation in NATO and the European Economic Community, respectably, prevented West European governments from openly supporting the GDR in the name of ‘antifascism.’ Not least, they were frightened by the East German communist dictatorship that was fundamentally opposed to their democratic and liberal constitutions.5

4 H. Kaeselitz (1998) ʻPositionenʼ, pp. 64–70. For the overall context: W. Müller (2016) ʻDie KPdSU und Europa im Kalten Krieg: Blockpolitik im Osten, Antiblockpolitik im Westenʼ in F. Di Palma and W. Müller (eds.) Kommunismus und Europa. Europapolitik und -vorstellungen europäischer kommunistischer Parteien im Kalten Krieg (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2016), pp. 29–51, at p. 30f. 5 A. Bauerkämper (2005) ʻEin asymmetrisches Verhältnis. Gesellschaftliche und kulturelle Kontakte zwischen Großbritannien und der DDR von den sechziger bis zu den achtziger Jahrenʼ, Archiv für Sozialgeschichte, 45, 43–58; A. Bauerkämper (2002) ʻEinleitung: Großbritannien und die DDR. Wahrnehmungen, Beziehungen und Verflechtungen im Ost-West-Konfliktʼ in A. Bauerkämper (ed.) Britain and the GDR: Relations and Perceptions in a Divided World (Berlin: Philo), pp. 7–41, at pp. 17–20.

2  MARXIST HISTORICAL CULTURES, ‘ANTIFASCISM’ … 

37

In the following sections, the ambivalent references to antifascism in Marxist historical cultures in four important West European states will be reconstructed: Great Britain, Austria, Italy and France. The investigation will concentrate on two levels: the overarching political framework and Marxist political cultures. It will be argued that tensions with the Federal Republic fueled ‘antifascism’ as a pillar of Marxist historical cultures in these countries. Suspicions, rumors and knowledge about the role of former Nazis in the Federal Republic of Germany, in particular, lent antifascist claims some credence beyond the narrow confines of the Communist parties. Altogether, this chapter aims to close a lacuna in historical scholarship that has largely concentrated on the GDR. By contrast, few comparative studies have investigated ‘antifascism,’ although the complex concept clearly reached across the borders of nation-states.6

‘Antifascism’ in Britain: The Decline as a Major Power and Relations to the Two German States Although officially committed to West Germany’s policy of nonrecognition, British governments supported a rapprochement between the two German states as early as the late 1950s. Dissatisfied with the West German policy of blocking all initiatives of the state socialist ­rulers of the GDR, Harold MacMillan’s government clandestinely contacted the Soviet Union in order to solve the Berlin crisis in 1959. Even though Britain’s political maneuvering space was limited before the Basic Treaty was signed in 1972 by the governments of the two German states, the economic miracle in the FRG not only met awe and admiration, but also anxieties among British observers. Against the backdrop of their country’s decline, West Germany’s rise to a major European political player aroused as much envy and jealousy as in some other West European states such as France and the Netherlands. As a victorious nation of the Second World War, Britain had to cope with its loss of political clout in the international arena. At the same time, influential British politicians— especially Conservative ones—still clung to the entrenched doctrine of

6 For an important exception, see T. Kroll (2007), Kommunistische Intellektuelle in Westeuropa. Frankreich, Österreich, Italien und Großbritannien im Vergleich (Cologne: Böhlau).

38  A. BAUERKÄMPER

the ‘balance of power’ that aimed to prevent the predominance of one major nation on the European continent. Faced with the political transformation of European and world politics, it was by no means exclusively politicians of the CPGB and the Labour Party who cherished the GDR as an ‘antifascist’ alternative to the almighty Federal Republic. Contrary to the West German state, the German Democratic Republic was perceived as an underdog that was seen as morally superior to the FRG and thus seemed to merit some endorsement. Far beyond the realm of high politics, Marxist historical cultures in general and the adherence of ‘antifascism’ in particular exploited this feeling and perception of British inferiority vis-à-vis the powerful West German ally.7 Support for the GDR was not least anchored in Britain’s memory culture that highlighted resistance and the successful fight against National Socialist Germany from 1939 to 1945. As early as the Second World War, leading British politicians had created, espoused and disseminated the narrative of a heroic ‘people’s war.’ After 1945, this myth was to compensate for the decline of Britain as a major and global power that was accentuated by India’s independence (1947) and the Suez crisis of 1956. The concept of the ‘people’s war’ took up symbols of martyrdom and resurrection. It was popularized as a heroic defense based on and supported by a supposedly egalitarian community of Britons. TV series— for example, ‘Dad’s Army’ that was broadcast from 1968 to 1977— popularized this highly selective interpretation of recent British history. Expositions such as the presentations in the ‘Imperial War Museum’ and in the ‘Winston Churchill Museum’ (opened in 1992), too, glorified the experience of national unity in the Blitz of the German air force that killed thousands of Britons in 1940–1941. It was only after the end of the Cold War that this predominant nationalist and heroic memory of the Second World War was questioned. The controversy

7 M. Howarth (2001) ʻDas Berliner Dreieck. Großbritannien und die beiden deutschen Staaten 1989/90ʼ, Deutschland Archiv (DA), 34, 955–66, at p. 956 (extended version: M. Howarth (2002) ʻThe Berlin Triangle. Britain and the Two German States in the 1980sʼ in A. Bauerkämper (ed.) Britain, pp. 173–98). See also K. Larres (2000) ʻBritain and the GDR: Political and Economic Relations, 1949–1989ʼ in K. Larres and E. Meehan (eds.) Uneasy Allies: British-German Relations and European Integration Since 1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 63–98, at p. 69; S. Lee (1995) ʻPerception and Reality: Anglo-German Relations During the Berlin Crisis 1958–1959ʼ, German History 13, 47–69, at p. 69.

2  MARXIST HISTORICAL CULTURES, ‘ANTIFASCISM’ … 

39

over the monument for the Commanding-in-Chief of the RAF Bomber Command, Sir Arthur Harris, in 1992 demonstrated the fissures and tensions in Britain’s memory culture most prominently.8 Whereas the Federal Republic had officially succeeded the Nazi state of 31 December 1937 (i.e., without Austria and the Sudeten region), the rulers of the GDR emphasized and propagated their particular ‘antifascist’ stance and policies. Contrary to Austria, France and Italy, Britain had not been occupied by Nazi Germany. Some German communists had sought refuge in the country and lived on the British Isles throughout the war. In fact, communist politicians who served as high-ranking functionaries in the East German state after 1949 had participated in the resistance fight against the National Socialists. After the Nazi seizure of power, for instance, communist and refugees like the deputy to the Reichstag, Wilhelm Koenen, the leading functionary of the Communist Youth Association in the Weimar Republic, Kurt Hager (one of the most influential politician of the GDR in the 1970s and 1980s) as well as economist Jürgen Kuczynski had fled to Britain in order to develop programmes and plans for a new postwar ‘antifascist’ Germany. Kuczynski also worked for Soviet military intelligence in London. Historian Alfred Meusel and Horst Brasch (who was to direct friendship organizations in the GDR and became Deputy Minister for Culture in 1966) had also found refuge in Britain. The experiences and memories of these Communists and their British supporters continued to influence political and cultural relations between the GDR and Britain until the 1980s.9 8 L.

Noakes (1997) ‘Making Histories: Experiencing the Blitz in London’s Museums in the 1990s’ in M. Evans and K. Lunn (eds.) War and Memory in the Twentieth Century (Oxford: Berg), pp. 89–104, at pp. 90, 96f., 99–101; A. Syriatou (2004) ‘Großbritannien.’ Der Krieg wird uns zusammenhaltenʼ in M. Flacke (ed.) Mythen der Nationen. 1945 – Arena der Erinnerungen, vol. 1 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern), pp. 285–313, at p. 291; J. Ramsden (2007) ʻMythen und Realitäten des’ People’s War’ in Großbritannienʼ in J. Echternkamp and S. Martens (eds.) Der Zweite Weltkrieg in Europa. Erfahrung und Erinnerung (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh), pp. 65–77, at pp. 72–74, 77; and D. Süß (2011) Tod aus der Luft. Kriegsgesellschaft und Luftkrieg in Deutschland und England (München: Siedler Verlag), pp. 484–501, 554–61. 9 M. Keßler (2001) Exilerfahrung in Wissenschaft und Politik. Remigrierte Historiker in der frühen DDR (Cologne: Böhlau); L. Kettenacker (1991) ʻEnglische Spekulationen über die Deutschenʼ in G. Trautmann (ed.) Die häßlichen Deutschen? Deutschland im Spiegel der westlichen und östlichen Nachbarn (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft), pp. 194–208, at pp. 196f., 199f., 207; H. Hoff (2003) Großbritannien und die DDR 1955–1973. Diplomatie auf Umwegen (München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag), pp. 470, 475f.;

40  A. BAUERKÄMPER

As early as the 1950s, British and East German politicians had renewed their contacts or established new relationships. Labour polit icians like Arthur Lewis and William Owen visited the GDR, not least in order to expand trade with the East German state. The leaders of the Socialist Unity Party (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands, SED) attempted to exploit their contacts to prominent Britons for their campaign to gain diplomatic recognition and thereby enhance the diplomatic status of the East German state in international politics. Propaganda materials like the ‘Democratic German Report’ issued by former Reuter journalist John Peet glorified the GDR as a model of genuine ‘antifascism.’ As regards cultural relations, Bertolt Brecht’s Berliner Ensemble visited London for theater performances in 1956. Similarly, the famous Leipzig Orchestra played in London in 1958, thereby at least implici tly advertising the GDR as a land of culture. In the realm of high politics, the Interparlamentarische Gruppe der DDR that Wilhelm Koenen had founded in 1955 was an important propaganda organ of the SED in Britain. This largely applies to the friendship organization DeutschBritische Gesellschaft, too. Yet its contacts were restricted to its partner organization, the ‘Britain-Democratic Germany Exchange’ (established in 1965), the CPGB (who had reformist policies in 1947–1948) and left-wing politicians of the Labor Party. In Britain, supporters of the diplomatic recognition of the GDR also assembled in the ‘British committee of recognition of the GDR.’ These fellow-travelers of the East German regime were primarily attracted by the ‘antifascist’ ideology that

H.-G. Golz (2004) Verordnete Völkerfreundschaft. Das Wirken der Freundschaftsgesellschaft DDR-Großbritannien und der Britain-GDR Society – Möglichkeiten und Grenzen (Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag), pp. 114, 274, 276; and J. Scholtyseck (2003) Die Außenpolitik der DDR (München: Oldenbourg), at p. 116. On Brasch, Koenen, Kuczynski und Meusel: M. Broszat and H. Weber (1990) SBZ-Handbuch. Staatliche Verwaltungen, Parteien, gesellschaftliche Organisationen und ihre Führungskräfte in der Sowjetischen Besatzungszone Deutschlands 1945–1949 (München: Oldenbourg), pp. 876, 958, 978. Wilhelm Koenen participated in the foundation of the Deutsch-Britische Gesellschaft in der DDR in 1963. See B. Becker (1991) ʻDie DDR und Großbritannien 1945/49 bis 1973. Politische, wirtschaftliche und kulturelle Kontakte im Zeichen der Nichtanerkennungspolitikʼ (PhD diss., Universität Bochum), p. 251. On Kuczynski: M. Stibbe (2011) ʻJürgen Kuczynski and the Search for a (Non-existent) Western Spy Ring in the East German Communist Party in 1953ʼ, Contemporary European History, 20, 61–79, especially pp. 65–67. On Hager: A. Herbst, W. Ranke and J. Winkler (1994) So funktionierte die DDR, Bd. 3: Lexikon der Funktionäre (Reinbek: Rohwolt), p. 124f.

2  MARXIST HISTORICAL CULTURES, ‘ANTIFASCISM’ … 

41

they shared, at least partially. ‘Antifascism’ also fueled the political activities of left-wing Labour politicians such as Richard Crossman. They were courted by the East German rulers with particular zeal, as they were not obvious puppets of East Germany’s Communist regime. Not least, even some conservative politicians made overtures to the GDR in Britain, since they were increasingly frightened and irritated by the advancement of the Federal Republic to an influential European state, especially its meteoric rise to a major economic player. These conservatives sought to maintain a balance of power on the European continent as late as the Cold War.10 Although the political clout and influence of the British supporters of the GDR was limited, relations and exchange between the two states increased in the late 1950s. Britons who established contacts to the GDR at least partially espoused East German ‘antifascism.’ It was contrasted to the exculpatory interpretations and apologetic memories that still prevailed in the FRG. Former National Socialists in high-ranking positions in West Germany’s government like Minister for Refugees Theodor Oberländer and State Secretary Hans Globke, who directed Konrad Adenauer’s Chancellery from 1953 to 1963, were strongly criti cized in Britain, far beyond the narrow confines of the CPGB. Although Oberländer and Globke had to submit their resignations in 1960 and 1963, respectively, de-Nazification had apparently failed in West Germany, even among the elites. Against the backdrop of these concerns, the rise of the neo-Nazi party Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NPD) led to new apprehension in Britain. Not only hard-core communists, but also many socialists and trade unionists perceived the Federal Republic of Germany as a bastion of unrepentant National Socialists. By contrast, the political legitimation of the GDR as an ‘antifascist’ state met considerable support and acclaim among many British academics and intellectuals. They shared East German criticism of elite continuity in the FRG. Albert Norden’s Ausschuß für deutsche Einheit in the

10 S. Berger and N. LaPorte (2010) Friendly Enemies. Britain and the GDR, 1949–1990 (New York: Berghahn), pp. 296f., 305; Kroll, Intellektuelle, pp. 566–91; Becker, ʻDDRʼ, pp. 248–253. Also see K. Morgan (2011) ʻEin besonderer Weg oder ein Irrweg? Britische Kommunisten und die KPD/SED als stalinistisches Beispielʼ in A. Bauerkämper and F. Di Palma (eds.) Bruderparteien jenseits des Eisernen Vorhangs. Die Beziehungen der SED zu den kommunistischen Parteien West- und Südeuropas (1968–1989) (Berlin: Ch. Links Verlag), pp. 102–22. After the collapse of the GDR, Peet justified his activities as a peace mission. See J. Peet (1991) Der Spion der keiner war (Vienna: Europa Verlag), pp. 211–54.

42  A. BAUERKÄMPER

central committee of the SED, friendship organizations as well as Peet’s ‘German Democratic Report’ denounced de-Nazification in the West German state as halfhearted or even as a failure. By contrast, the GDR was portrayed as the ‘better Germany.’ This lent ‘antifascism’ credibility and legitimacy among British politicians and academics.11 Altogether, the rapidly growing influence of the FRG in Europe and on a global scale was a negative foil for all sympathizers of the GDR in Britain. Similar to most West European states such as France, Italy and the Netherlands, broad and vague conceptualizations, in particular, struck a chord in Britain. Frightened and abhorred by West Germany’s ‘economic miracle’ and the rearmament of the Federal Republic, British supporters even partially embraced the ‘antifascist’ claims of the East German state. Perceptions of Britain’s decline aggravated concerns about West Germany’s rising economic and political power. Against the backdrop of these projections, claims to diplomatic recognition by the communist rulers of East Berlin seemed apt to maintain a balance of power

11 L. Kettenacker (1997) ʻZwangsläufige deutsche Dominanz? – Über Konstanten britischer Europaperzeptionenʼ, Tel Aviver Jahrbuch für deutsche Geschichte, 26, 235–49; S. Berger and D. G. Lilleker (2002) ʻThe British Labour Party and the German Democratic Republic During the Era of Non-Recognition, 1949–1973’, Historical Journal, 45, 433–58, at pp. 446, 451, 457; S. Berger and D. G. Lilleker (2002) ʻBlutrünstige Diktatur, das bessere Deutschland oder Stolpersteine auf dem Weg zu einer friedlichen Koexistenz? Die DDR im Blick der britischen Labour Party, 1949–1973’ in A. Bauerkämper (ed.) Britain, pp. 235–65, at pp. 249–52; D. Childs (1992) ‘British Labour and Ulbricht’s State. The Fight for Recognition’ in A. M. Birke and G. Heydemann (eds.) Großbritannien und Ostdeutschland seit 1918 (München: K. G. Saur), pp. 95–106, at p. 103; D. Childs (2002) ‘The Changing British Perception of the GDR: a Personal Memoir’ in A. Bauerkämper (ed.) Britain, pp. 375–96, at p. 377f.; Hoff, Großbritannien, pp. 307–14. In the propaganda campaign of the East German state socialist regime against Oberländer and Globke, cf. M. Lemke (1999) ‘Kampagnen gegen Bonn. Die Systemkrise der DDR und die West-Propaganda der SED 1960–1963’, Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 41, 153–74, at p. 162f.; M. Lemke (1995) ʻInstrumentalisierter Antifaschismus und SED-Kampagnenpolitik im deutschen Sonderkonflikt 1960–1968ʼ in J. Danyel (ed.) Die geteilte Vergangenheit. Zum Umgang mit Nationalsozialismus und Widerstand in beiden deutschen Staaten (Berlin: Akademie), pp. 61–86, at pp. 66–68, 70–75; A. Weinke (2002) Die Verfolgung von NS-Tätern im geteilten Deutschland. Vergangenheitsbewältigungen 1949–1969 oder: Eine deutsch-deutsche Beziehungsgeschichte im Kalten Krieg (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh), pp. 68–75, 141–57, 236–57; and P.-C. Wachs (2000) Der Fall Theodor Oberländer (1905–1998). Ein Lehrstück deutscher Geschichte (Frankfurt am Main: Campus), pp. 191–308. Zu Norden: Herbst, Ranke and Winkler, DDR, p. 245. On Peet’s propaganda, see Peet, Spion, pp. 226f., 242.

2  MARXIST HISTORICAL CULTURES, ‘ANTIFASCISM’ … 

43

in Europe. This aim was not only espoused by British governments and influential party leaders, but it was also based on a widespread identification with the East German regime on the part of Marxist scholars. Historians Eric Hobsbawm, Edward P. Thompson and Perry Anderson, for instance, endorsed ‘antifascism’ through a flexible variant of the concept. In their publications on the British working class, they highlighted the role of the lower classes and marginalized groups in Britain’s history. They also shared a commitment to fight ‘fascism.’ As a corollary, they criticized ‘capitalism’ and ‘bourgeois rule.’ Even though these intellectuals by no means unreservedly endorsed the SED’s policies, the East German rulers managed to take advantage of their ‘antifascist’ credentials.12

Austria: The Myth of the ‘First Victim’ of National Socialism and ‘Antifascist’ Resistance In Austria, the concept of ‘antifascism’ was inextricably intertwined with resistance against National Socialism. In particular, a selective reading of the Moscow Declaration of the Allied powers of 30 October 1943 was employed in order to claim the Austrians’ role as objects of National Socialist occupation. In 1943, the Allied powers had emphasized that Austria had become a victim of the Nazis with the annexation by Germany in March 1938. At the same time, however, they had insisted on the responsibility of Austrians as perpetrators who had participated in Nazi oppression, terror and war crimes from 1938 to 1945. Despite this two-tiered interpretation, Austria’s political leaders successfully propagated their selective claim to the status of a victim of National Socialist expansionist policies. By contrast, they denied guilt and responsibility for Nazi policies on the part of their fellow citizens. Conservatives as well as socialists managed to implant this apologetic view into Austria’s memory culture until the 1980s. The persistence of this exculpatory interpretation was less convincing than in occupied states such as France and the Netherlands, because it did not need a full-fledged conquest to subject Austria to Nazi rule. In fact, many Austrians had welcomed the enforced accession to Germany, as the demand for unification with the northern

12 See

S. Berger’s chapter in this volume.

44  A. BAUERKÄMPER

neighboring state had been popular as early as 1919 when Austria had to accept the treaty of St. Germain.13 The myth that Austrians had resisted the policies of the German Nazis was initially based on a broad consensus between the major political parties. Although the Communist Party (Kommunistische Partei Österreichs) gained only 5.4% of the vote in the general election of 25 November 1945, it participated in the country’s government until 1947. With the onset of the Cold War, differences in the interpretations of opposition to Nazi rule grew. From 1946 onwards, especially politicians of the Austrian People’s Party (Österreichische Volkspartei, ÖVP) openly distanced themselves from communism that they increasingly criticized. This stance aimed to stabilize the new Austrian republic. At the same time, it was to integrate former National Socialists into Austria’s postwar society. Combined with the apologetic view of Austrians as the ‘first victim’ of Nazi rule, the emphasis on resistance also served to regain Austria’s autonomy vis-á-vis the Allied powers that had occupied the state. Independence was finally conceded to the country by the victorious states in the treaty of 15 May 1955. The Socialists of the Sozialistische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ, since 1991 Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs) as well as the conservative and Catholic ÖVP shared the aim to legitimize and shield the second Austrian Republic. Under these conditions of a state-supported ‘antifascism,’ it was exclusively the communists who espoused and supported a genuinely Marxist historical culture. Austria thereby differed from Britain, France and Italy.14

13 G. Bischof (1993) ʻDie Instrumentalisierung der Moskauer Erklärung nach dem Zweiten Weltkriegʼ Zeitgeschichte, 20, 346–52, 359 (quotation); R. Knight (1994) ʻDer Waldheim-Kontext. Österreich und der Nationalsozialismusʼ in G. Botz and G. Sprengnagel (eds.) Kontroversen um Österreichs Zeitgeschichte (Frankfurt am Main: Campus), pp. 78–88, at p. 80f. 14 M. Mugrauer (2009) ʻDie Politik der KPÖ in den Jahren 1945 bis 1955/56ʼ in M. Mugrauer (ed.) 90 Jahre KPÖ. Studien zur Geschichte der Kommunistischen Partei Österreichs (Vienna: Alfred Klahr Gesellschaft), pp. 37–52; M. Graf (2009) ʻDie KPÖ und Europa: Internationale Stellung und Europapolitik einer Kleinpartei (1945-heute)ʼ in F. Di Palma and W. Müller (eds.) Kommunismus und Europa, pp. 240–60, at pp. 241–44; W. Mueller (2009) ʻKalter Krieg, Neutralität und politische Kultur in Österreichʼ Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte. Beilage zur Wochenzeitung “Das Parlament” B 1/2, 11–19, at p. 15; and Kroll, Intellektuelle, pp. 312–27. On the statist legacy, cf. E. Hanisch (1994) Der lange Schatten des Staates. Österreichische Gesellschaftsgeschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts (Vienna: Ueberreuter).

2  MARXIST HISTORICAL CULTURES, ‘ANTIFASCISM’ … 

45

Yet the socialists and communists agreed in their criticism of the authoritarian state that Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuß had established in 1933. Composed of estates, it was to supersede ‘class struggle’ and secure cooperation between employers, employees and the state. However, Dollfuß had suppressed the workers’ movement and the political left. After 1945, socialists and communists therefore denounced his authoritarian rule and the regime of his successor, Kurt Schuschnigg, as a highway to National Socialism. Contrary to the ÖVP, they rejected the hierarchical order of estates that the conservative and Catholic ChristianSocialist Party had espoused in interwar Austria. The ÖVP, on its part, refuted the Socialists’ exclusive claim on resistance. Strongly rejecting any tinge of a Marxist political and historical culture, the conservatives clung to their anticommunist ideology of the Christian (i.e., Catholic) European ‘occident.’ The ÖVP rejected ‘totalitarian’ rule that they associated both with Nazism and Bolshevism. In the context of the Cold War, antagonistic political and historical cultures had emerged in Austria by the 1950s. They were inextricably intertwined with opposing and selective memories. Although this antagonism did not prevent a partial consensus on (some kind of) resistance against Nazism, references to ‘antifascism’ in politics degenerated to a ritual in the course of the 1960s. By contrast, it became a tool of identity formation and served as a foundation of a Marxist historical culture that, however, remained isolated in Austria. It was heavily concentrated in Vienna, where left-wing resistance had been strongest in the Third Reich from 1938 to 1945.15

15 G. Botz (2006) ʻDie “Waldheim-Affäre als Widerstreit kollektiver Erinnerungen”’ in B. Tódt and H. Czernin (eds.) 1986. Das Jahr, das Österreich veränderte (Vienna: Czernin Verlag), pp. 74–95, at p. 85; S. Loitfellner (2009) ‘Hitlers erstes und letztes Opfer? Zwischen “Anschluss” und Auschwitz-Prozess: Zum Umgang Österreichs mit seiner NS-Vergangenheit’ in K. von Lingen (ed.) Kriegserfahrung und nationale Identität in Europa nach 1945: Erinnerung, Säuberungsprozesse und nationales Gedächtnis (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh), pp. 150–69, at pp. 157, 165f. Quote taken from Knight ‘Waldheim-Kontext’, p. 82. Also see W. Manoschek (1995) ‘“Aus der Asche dieses Krieges wieder auferstanden.” Skizzen zum Umgang der Österreichischen Volkspartei mit Nationalsozialismus und Antisemitismus nach 1945’ in W. Bergmann, R. Erb and A. Lichtblau (eds.) Schwieriges Erbe. Der Umgang mit Nationalsozialismus und Antisemitismus in Österreich, der DDR und der BRD (Frankfurt am Main: Campus), pp. 49–64, especially pp. 49–51, 59; E. Hanisch (2006) ‘Opfer/Täter/Mythos: Verschlungene Erzählungen über die NS-Vergangenheit in Österreich’, Zeitgeschichte, 6, 318–27, at pp. 319f., 322f.; and E. Klamper (1995) ‘Ein einig Volk von Brüdern. Vergessen und Erinnern im Zeichen

46  A. BAUERKÄMPER

Italy: ‘Antifascism’ as a Legacy of Resistenza ‘Antifaschism’ was an important foundation of Marxist historical cultures in Italy, too. More generally, it served as a code in the controversies about the recent past between different social groups and political parties. Although Marxist interpretations of fascism remained marginal in Italian politics in the first three decades after 1945, they were popular among many Italians, not least because they assigned guilt and responsibility largely to the big industrialists and financiers. As a corollary, self-victimization, apologetic interpretations and exculpatory views of the recent past prevailed. Whereas Italians highlighted German oppression, especially from 1943 to 1945, they downplayed Mussolini’s Fascist regime as less violent than the Nazi dictatorship. In fact, some politicians and scholars have continued to belittle the Duce as an essentially benevolent ruler up to the present. With the exception of the neo-fascist Movimento Sociale Italiano (MSI), all parties contrasted the ‘wicked German’ (cattivo tedesco) to the ‘gentle Italian’ (bravo italiano). Not least, the broad political consensus on Fascism, Nazism and German occupation included the Resistenza that politicians and intellectuals glorified as a fight for the liberation of Italy. Beyond the confines of the ‘antifascist’ activists, Mussolini’s dictatorship was largely marginalized as a temporary ‘disease’ or a ‘bracket’ in national history by intellectuals such as Benedetto Croce.16

des Burgfriedens’, Zeitgeschichte, 5/6, 170–85, at pp. 174, 177, 179f. For an interpretation of the Austrian authoritarian state, see H. Uhl (1992) Zwischen Versöhnung und Verstörung. Eine Kontroverse um Österreichs historische Identität fünfzig Jahre nach dem ‘Anschluß’ (Vienna: Böhlau), p. 442; H. Uhl (2004) ‘Die Transformation des “österreichischen Gedächtnisses” in der Erinnerungskultur der Zweiten Republik’, Geschichte und Region, 13, 2, 23–54, at pp. 34–36. On the linkage between the Catholic concept of the ‘occident’ and anti-communism, cf. A. Bauerkämper (2009) ‘Zivilgesellschaftliches Engagement im Katholizismus? Die Debatte über das “christliche Abendland” in Deutschland, Österreich und Italien, 1945 bis 1965’ in A. Bauerkämper and J. Nautz (eds.) Zwischen Fürsorge und Seelsorge. Christliche Kirchen in den europäischen Zivilgesellschaften seit dem 18. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt am Main: Campus), pp. 175–214, at pp. 94–197. 16 K. von Lingen (2009) ‘“Giorni di Gloria”: Wiedergeburt der italienischen Nation in der Resistenza’ in K. von Lingen (ed.) Kriegserfahrung und Nationale Identität in Europa nach 1945. Erinnerung, Säuberungsprozesse und nationales Gedächtnis (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh), pp. 389–408, at p. 389. Also see C. Moos (1994) ‘Die “guten” Italiener und die Zeitgeschichte. Zum Problem der Vergangenheitsbewältigung in Italien’, Historische Zeitschrift, 259, 671–94, especially p. 681f.; F. Focardi (2003) ‘Gedenktage

2  MARXIST HISTORICAL CULTURES, ‘ANTIFASCISM’ … 

47

Italian Marxists shared the fixation on ‘antifascist’ resistance and thereby impeded an open and self-critical discussion of compliance with and even enthusiastic support for Mussolini’s dictatorship. Amnesia correlated with the glorification of the Resistenza, especially from the 1950s to the 1970s. Although it was most strongly espoused by the PCI, the myth of a successful defiance and resilience vis-à-vis the challenges of Fascist rule and Nazi occupation was deeply ingrained in Italy’s memory culture. Films such as Roberto Rossellini’s Roma Città aperta highlighted the plight of Italian resistance fighters as early as the end of 1945. The ‘anti-fascist’ narrative also accentuated the unity of the people and the partisans in their resistance to the German occupiers from 1943 to 1945. In Rossellini’s film, for instance, a priest shared the fate of a tortured communist. This narrative of a community of suffering was also enshrined in memorials such as the monument for the 335 victims of the German massacre in the Fosse Ardeatine (close to Rome). Not least, organizations of the Italian resistance fighters, for instance the Associazione nazionale tra le famiglie italiane dei martiri (ANFIM), strongly influenced the predominant ‘antifascist’ narrative. Women who had participated in the opposition to the Italian Fascists and the German Nazis presented themselves as fighters for an ‘antifascist’ postwar order. Their participation in the Resistenza was to enhance the political role of women who were eventually given the right to vote in 1946. Altogether, a commitment to ‘antifascism’ was even stronger in Italy’s Marxist political and historical culture, as Italians needed a palliative for their erstwhile commitment to Mussolini’s Fascist dictatorship that had been particularly popular in the years from 1929 to 1935. By contrast,

und politische Öffentlichkeit in Italien, 1945–1995’ in C. Cornelißen, L. Klinkhammer and W. Schwentker (eds.) Erinnerungskulturen. Deutschland, Italien und Japan seit 1945 (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch), pp. 210–21, at pp. 211f.; F. Focardi (2003) ‘Reshaping the Past: Collective Memory and the Second World War in Italy, 1945–1955’ in D. Geppert (ed.) The Postwar Challenge: Cultural, Social and Political Change in Western Europe, 1945–1958 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 41–63, at p. 45; H. Woller (2003) ‘Der Rohstoff des kollektiven Gedächtnisses. Die Abrechnung mit dem Faschismus in Italien und ihre erfahrungsgeschichtliche Dimension’ in C. Cornelißen, L. Klinkhammer and W. Schwentker (eds.) Erinnerungskulturen, pp. 67–76, at pp. 67, 70; and N. Stoltzfus and R. Bosworth (2009) ‘Memory and Representations of Fascim in Germany and Italy’ in R. Bosworth (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Fascism (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 566–85, at p. 579f.

48  A. BAUERKÄMPER

Frenchmen and Austrians had been subjected to fascism by an external power.17 The implications of the broad social consensus on ‘antifascism’ were ambivalent. On the one hand, it lent Marxist interpretations of the recent past credence. Marxist policies like the expropriation of entrepreneurs in key sectors of the economy were thereby supported, at least partially. On the other hand, the broad consensus impeded the emergence of a specifically Marxist historical culture, quite contrary to Britain. Moreover, it continued to be contested. Socialists and communists disagreed on the interpretation of the past. In particular, the PCI and the Partito Socialista Italiano (PSI) rejected the Catholic ‘antifascism’ of the Democrazia Cristiana (DC). Conversely, politicians of the DC attacked the Italian Communists, who were charged with having indoctrinated Italian prisoners of war in Soviet camps from 1941 to 1943. As a consequence, Communist politician Edoardo D’Onofrio sued Christian Democratic politicians for libel, however unsuccessfully. Apart from the legacy of the Resistenza, party political conflicts concentrated on opposing claims to the liberation of Italy. On 25 April 1945, Italian Fascism had finally collapsed in major cities in northern Italy. Yet the ‘Day of Liberation’ did not lead to reconciliation between the PCI and the PSI. On the contrary, the leaderships of the two parties organized separate commemorative celebrations as early as 1948 when they opposed each other during the election campaign.18

17 N. Kramer (2011) ‘Die “Trümmerfrau” und ihre Schwestern. Die Erinnerung an Frauen im Zweiten Weltkrieg in Westdeutschland, Großbritannien und Italien’, Ariadne. Forum für Frauen und Geschlechtergeschichte, 59, 24–31, at p. 28f.; F. N. Bohr (2010) ‘Lobby eines Kriegsverbrechers. Offizielle und “stille” Hilfe aus der Bundesrepublik für den Häftling Herbert Kappler’, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, 90, 415–36, at p. 421; and T. Kroll, Intellektuelle, pp. 422–33. 18 I. Brandt (2010) ‘Memoria, Politica, Polemica. Der 25. April in der italienischen Erinnerungskultur’ in P. Terhoeven (ed.) Italien, Blicke. Neue Perspektiven der italienischen Geschichte des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), pp. 235–56, at pp. 242–44; T. Großbölting (2005) ‘Le memorie della repubblicca. Geschichtspolitik in Italien nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg’ in B. Stollberg-Rillinger (ed.) Was heißt Kulturgeschichte des Politischen? (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot), pp. 329–53, at p. 343; K. von Lingen ‘“Giorni di Gloria’”, p. 397; F. Focardi ‘Gedenktage’, p. 214; and F. Focardi ‘Reshaping’, p. 54f.

2  MARXIST HISTORICAL CULTURES, ‘ANTIFASCISM’ … 

49

As in France, Austria, Britain and (particularly) West Germany, the gulf between Marxist and non-Marxist historical cultures widened under the impact of the escalating Cold War in the 1950s. Yet different myths also separated Italian socialists from the communists. Although the DC had espoused a broader concept of Resistenza after they had lost votes in the general election of 1953, it was only in the 1960s that overlaps between the party and the left re-emerged. When the Christian Democratic government gradually opened to the political left (apertura à sinistra) in the early 1960s, the resistance movement was elevated to a national myth. Not coincidentally, the DC, the PSI and the PCI joined in celebrating Italy’s liberation on 25 April 1963. Only the members and adherents of the MSI did not embrace the general consensus. They continued to denounce 25 April 1945 as a day of shameful national defeat.19 Yet all parties shared the large-scale silence about the popular support for Mussolini’s racialist and expansionist agenda and policies. Similarly, the war crimes that Italian soldiers had committed on the Balkans and in Africa were either ignored or belittled. All in all, ‘antifascism’ and the Resistenza became a deeply ingrained ‘civil religion’ in Italy in the 1960s, paving the way to the tacit and explicit cooperation between the Christian Democrats and the Communists in the following decade.20 In the 1970s, the terrorists of the ‘Red Brigades’ (Brigate Rosse) claimed the legacy of the resistance fight against the Italian Fascists and the German occupiers from 1943 to 1945 for themselves. This was to enhance their legitimacy, and the myth shaped their symbolic politics. Some terrorists, for example, deliberately used weapons that left-wing resistance fighters had carried in the Second World War.21 Moreover, the 19 L. Klinkhammer (2010) ‘Der neue “Antifaschismus” des Gianfranco Fini. Überlegungen zur italienischen Vergangenheitspolitik der letzten beiden Jahrzehnte’ in P. Terhoeven (ed.) Italien, pp. 257–80. 20 Quote taken from J. Petersen (2000) ‘Der Ort Mussolinis in der Geschichte Italiens nach 1945’ in C. Dipper, L. Klinkhammer and A. Nützenadel (eds.) Europäische Sozialgeschichte. Fs. Wolfgang Schieder (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot), pp. 505–24, at p. 517. Also see W. Schieder (2006) ‘Die Verdrängung der faschistischen Tätervergangenheit im Nachkriegsitalien’ in A.-W. Asserate and A. Mattioli (eds.) Der erste faschistische Vernichtungskrieg. Die italienische Aggression gegen Äthiopien 1935–1941 (Cologne: SH-Verlag), pp. 177–97, at p. 187. 21 See J. Hürter (2009) ‘Anti-Terrorismus-Politik. Ein deutsch-italienischer Vergleich 1969–1982’, Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 57, 329–48, at p. 332; A. Ventrone (2010) ‘Der “permanente Bürgerkrieg” und der Staatsbegriff der politischen Linken im

50  A. BAUERKÄMPER

Brigate Rosse was initially supported by Marxist intellectuals, and they took roots in social protest movements like the Movimento del’77. By contrast, Italy’s Communists cooperated with the Christian Democrats between 1976 and 1979. Tied to the pragmatic ‘historical compromise’ (Compromesso storico) between the two parties, Communist leaders unequivocally rejected left-wing terrorism, and they refrained from clearly endorsing radical social and political protest. Against the backdrop of this clear stance, random terrorist attacks on civilians increasingly discredited the Brigate Rosse, before the hijacking of Christian Democrat leader Aldo Moro in March 1978 eventually robbed the terrorists of its social base. After the influential politician had been murdered, the Chamber of Deputies passed restrictive legislation that was to quell terrorism in Italy. As a consequence, ‘antifascism’ gradually lost its influence, and Marxist historical cultures declined. Nevertheless, few politicians openly challenged the myth, which had been at the cradle of the new Italian Republic in 1946. In fact, ‘antifascism’ still commanded and secured a basic consensus between the major political parties. On the flipside, it continued to prevent an open discussion about the large-scale compliance with fascism among the Italians. The atrocities committed in Abyssinia, Northern Africa and South-East Europe from the 1920s to 1945, too, contradicted the myth of ‘antifascism.’22 The concept was not confined to Marxist historical cultures as late as the 1970s. In fact, it continued to be associated with liberalism and democracy. Clinging to the notions of moderation and peacefulness, Italy’s political elites attempted to counter the challenge of left-wing and rightist terrorism. The threat from the extremist fringe groups once more strengthened the concept of ‘antifascism’ and also lent Marxist Italien der 1970er Jahre’ in J. Hürter and G. E. Rusconi (eds.) Die bleiernen Jahre: Staat und Terrorismus in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und Italien, 1969–1982 (München: Oldenbourg), pp. 107–16, at p. 112; and T. Hof (2011) Staat und Terrorismus in Italien 1969–1982 (München: Oldenbourg), pp. 78, 87–89. 22 J. Wetzel (2001) ‘Der Mythos des “braven Italieners”’ in H. Graml, A. Königseder and J. Wetzel (eds.) Vorurteil und Rassenhass. Antisemitismus in den faschistischen Bewegungen Europas (Berlin: Metropol), pp. 49–74, at p. 72; P. Terhoeven (2004) ‘Frauen im Widerstand. Das Beispiel der italienischen Resistenza’, Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, 52, 608–25; and P. Terhoeven (2008) ‘“Der Tod und das Mädchen”. Linksterroristinnen im Visier der italienischen und deutschen Öffentlichkeit’ in L: Raphael and U. Schneider (eds.) Dimensionen der Moderne. Fs. Christof Dipper (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang), pp. 437–56, at pp. 447, 453f.

2  MARXIST HISTORICAL CULTURES, ‘ANTIFASCISM’ … 

51

historical cultures a new lease of life. This constellation differed from Britain where the terrorism of the Irish Republican Army was fueled by nationalistic resentments more strongly than by social protest. Similar to France, however, ‘antifascism’ was strongly espoused by left-wing intellectuals and significantly contributed to the ‘acceptance of a democracy without adjectives.’ Altogether, ‘antifascism’ remained an important legitimizing ideology of Italy’s postwar Republic. Not coincidentally, 25 May as a day of national commemoration and celebration was only questioned and criticized by the neo-Nazis.23 As indicated, however, Marxist historical cultures started to erode in the late 1970s. Conservative opponents to the Compromesso storico and some intellectuals increasingly rejected ‘antifascism’ as a pillar of Italy’s political culture. It was historian Renzo de Felice who most prominently challenged the concept as a foundation of Italy’s postwar republic. In his studies of Italian Fascism as well as in his multi-volume biography of Mussolini, de Felice highlighted the broad consensus that the Fascist regime had commanded, in particular immediately after the conquest of Ethiopia in 1935–1936. At the same time, the influential conservative Italian historian even retrospectively praised Mussolini as an Italian patriot who had allegedly served his country as much as the antifascist resistance fighters. De Felice also revalued Mussolini’s Republic of Salò, which had been under German tutelage from 1943 to 1945. This interpretation corresponded to attempts to downgrade antifascist resistance to a civil war between Italians. Belittling Italian Fascism and demonizing German National Socialism, De Felice even shared some interpretations of the Italian neo-Fascists of Giorgio Almirante’s Movimento Sociale Italiano. This open rejection of ‘antifascism’ contrasted the debate in Italy with the discussions in France where moral and political equations of collaboration and Résistance remained confined to the neo-fascist Front National. In the last resort, however, De Felice did not aim at a rehabilitation of Mussolini’s Fascism, but at depriving ‘antifascism’ of its particular moral dignity, reducing its influence and undermining Italy’s strong Marxist historical culture.24

23 Quote from G. E. Rusconi (1994) ‘Die italienische Resistenza auf dem Prüfstand’, Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 42, 379–402, at p. 402 (italizised in the original text). 24 E. Perra (2008) ‘Narratives of Innocence and Victimhood: The Reception of the Miniseries Holocaust in Italy’, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 22, 411–40, at pp. 411f.,

52  A. BAUERKÄMPER

In the late 1980s, the erosion of ‘antifascism’ as a pillar of Marxist historical culture proceeded. In politics, it was the chairman of the PSI, Bettino Craxi, who surprisingly approached neo-fascist politician Gianfranco Fini in 1987. According to Craxi, ‘antifascism’ had become a ritual by the late 1980s. He also questioned the Communists’ democratic credentials in order to promote the political independence of his Socialist Party from the PCI. In historiography, too, the Resistenza lost its central position in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Claudio Pavone, for instance, interpreted the resistance fight in northern Italy from 1943 to 1945 not only as a war of liberation, but also as a social conflict and a civil war. On the flipside, historians started to investigate the racist policies of the Italian Fascists as well as the war crimes committed by Italian officers and soldiers during the Second World War. Triggered by the debate on the miniseries ‘Holocaust’ in 1979, Italian historians have also paid increasing attention to Fascist anti-Semitism and the extermination of the Jews on the peninsula in the course of the 1980s. Although the impact on popular views of Fascism has remained limited, apologetic interpretations have been questioned.25 In the early 1990s, Italy’s Marxist historical culture almost collapsed. Between the elections of April 1992 and March 1994, the traditional parties—the DC, the PSI and the PCI as well as the Republicans, the Social Democrats and the Liberals—were routed. Shaken by continuous and damaging charges of corruption, the Socialists and the Communists almost disappeared as viable forces in Italy’s political culture. The country’s society, too, was split into two antagonistic camps. The gulf between traditional ‘antifascist’ commitment and the new

414, 417, 420, 425–28. Also see A. Bauerkämper (2012) ‘Das umkämpfte Gedächtnis. Die Flucht Herbert Kapplers aus Italien 1977 und deutsch-italienische Erinnerungskonflikte’, Zeitgeschichte, 39, 178–204; I. Brandt ‘Memoria’, pp. 246f. For De Felice’s interpretation, see R. De Felice (1977) Der Faschismus. Ein Interview mit Michael Ledeen (Stuttgart: Clett-Kotta). 25 O.

Österberg (2006) ‘Taming Ambiguities: The Representation of the Holocaust in Post-war Italy’ in K.-G. Karsson and U. Zander (eds.) The Holocaust on Post-war Battlefields. Genocide as Historical Culture (Malmö: Sekel Bokförlag), pp. 21–52, at p. 34f.; I. Pogguiloni (2002) ‘Translating Memories of War and Co-belligerency into Politics. The Italian Post-war Experience’ in J.-W. Müller (ed.) Memory and Power in Postwar Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) pp. 223–43, at p. 237; and Schieder ‘Verdrängung’, p. 189f.

2  MARXIST HISTORICAL CULTURES, ‘ANTIFASCISM’ … 

53

anticommunist populism even reminded some commentators of the divisions from 1943 to 1945. Although the end of the Cold War has undermined the political legitimacy of Communist parties in all major West European countries, it virtually destroyed Italy’s Marxist political and historical culture.26 As it was associated with the discredited rule of the old parties, the previously predominant narrative of the Resistenza has almost evaporated since the 1990s. In fact, the coalition governments of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who took Fini’s neo-fascists of the Alleanza Nazionale (AN) on board, endorsed apologetic views of Italian Fascism and Mussolini’s dictatorship. That regime has been belittled by l­eading politicians. At the same time, the inclusion of the AN, the successor party to the MSI, rocked Italy’s political culture. The Alleanza rejected the entrenched interpretation of 25 April as a ‘Day of Liberation’ and proposed to rename it into the ‘Day of Reconciliation.’ On 25 April 1994, Fini therefore took part in a religious service that commemorated all Italian victims of the Second World War (including the soldiers who had fought for Mussolini until 1945). Equating the Fascists with their opponents, the leader of the AN explicitly rejected the ‘antifascist’ paradigm that had been the foundation of Italy’s Marxist culture and profoundly influenced Italian politics. Another politician of the neo-fascist party, Francesco Storace, demanded to revise school textbooks that had allegedly been manipulated in order to distort Italy’s recent history in favor of the ‘antifascist’ narrative. Altogether, the collapse of the traditional party system and the demise of the entrenched political culture have undermined ‘antifascism.’ Although the paradigm was not only shared by socialists and communists, its decline shattered Marxist historical cultures in Italy more profoundly than in Austria, Britain or France.27

26 K. von Lingen (2006) ‘“Resistenza-Mythos” und die Legende vom “Sauberen Krieg an der Südfront”. Konstruktion von Kriegserinnerung in Italien und Deutschland 1945– 2005’ in B. Faulenbach and F.-J. Jelich (eds.) ‘Transformationen’ der Erinnerungskulturen in Europa nach 1989 (Essen: Klartext), pp. 329–64, at p. 345. 27 F. Focardi ‘Gedenktage’, pp. 217, 219; I. Brandt ‘Memoria’, p. 249f.; L. Klinkhammer ‘Antifaschismus’, pp. 257–60; N. Stoltzfus and R. Bosworth ‘Memory’, p. 580f.; and T. Großbölting ‘Le memorie della repubblica’, p. 350f.

54  A. BAUERKÄMPER

France: ‘Antifascism’ as a Fragile Consensus Between Gaullists and Communists In the French Fourth and Fifth Republics, the leader of ‘Free France’ in London, Charles de Gaulle, as well as the Communists and the Socialists emphasized the resistance fight against the German occupiers. At least until the 1970s, the national sacrifice in the combat against the German occupation troops and Marshall Philippe Pétain’s collaborationist regime were glorified. However, Marxist historical cultures remained separated from the nationalist narratives of de Gaulle’s supporters. The ‘antifascism’ espoused by the PCF highlighted the resistance of the labour movement in general and the Communists in particular. Not coincidentally, the PCF endorsed the spectacular strikes that the communist-inspired trades union association, the Confédération générale du travail, supported in May 1947. As it defended the policies of the USSR in the emerging Cold War, the party leadership under the orthodox Communist Maurice Thorez increasingly denounced the Socialists in 1947–1948.28 By contrast, French nationalists and Catholics accentuated the specifically bourgeois and religious opposition to the occupation authorities and Pétain’s collaboration. Both the Gaullist and the Communist narrative, however, silenced or marginalized the memories of the humiliating defeat of France in 1940, submission to Nazi rule, compliance and collaboration until 1944. Helpless victims like the Jews were not included in these versions of ‘antifascism.’ In a similar vein, Marxist and nationalist historiography put the blame for war crimes committed in France on the German occupiers, whereas French participation was covered up. This selective ‘antifascism,’ which was deeply ingrained in Marxist historical culture as well as in French politics, also resulted from the geographical distance between France and the sites of the mass extermination of the Jews in Eastern Europe. It was only in 1995 when President Jacques

28 U. Pfeil (2016) ‘Europapolitik und Europavorstellungen des PCF’ in F. Di Palma and W. Müller (eds.) Kommunismus und Europa (Berlin: Ch. Links Verlag), pp. 159–79, at p. 161f.; A. Meyer (2005) Täter im Verhör. Die “Endlösung der Judenfrage” in Frankreich 1940–1944 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft), pp. 297f., 310, 349, 356; O. Wieviorka (2012) Divided Memory. French Recollections of World War II from the Liberation to the Present (Stanford: Stanford University Press), pp. 171, 173; and Kroll, Intellektuelle, pp. 134–220.

2  MARXIST HISTORICAL CULTURES, ‘ANTIFASCISM’ … 

55

Chirac officially admitted that the extermination of the Jews would have been impossible without French support.29 Immediately after the war, high-ranking French collaborators like Pétain and his Prime Minister Pierre Laval had been sentenced to death. Due to his reputation as the ‘savior’ of France in the First World War, Pétain was eventually pardoned. He died in confinement in July 1951. More generally, the collaborationist leaders were purged from 1944 to 1946. Marxists strongly supported this épuration that corresponded to the glorification of the ‘antifascist’ resistance fight of the French against the German occupiers and Pétain’s authoritarian regime. In the 1960s and 1970s, the quest for consensus and security predominated in France as much as in Italy. Attempting to heal old wounds and to bridge the gulf between the nationalists and the Communists, the president of the new Fifth Republic (established in 1958), Charles de Gaulle, proclaimed national reconciliation. Against the backdrop of this political rapprochement, Marxist historical cultures increasingly influenced public debates on French history during the Second World War. Historiography, too, took up Marxist approaches that stressed ‘class struggle’ as a key feature of ‘antifascism.’ Not least, the KPF continued to cultivate its resistance fight and stuck to the ideal of the ‘martyr.’30 From the late 1970s onwards, however, Marxist historical culture lost its integrating power and its influence. In the realm of politics, tensions among socialists heightened. Contrary to the PCI, the PCF had eventually supported the suppression of the ‘Prague Spring’ in Czechoslovakia. Moreover, its commitment to ‘Eurocommunism’ remained halfhearted in the 1970s. The French Communists oscillated between their commitment to orthodox Soviet doctrines and a more pragmatic approach that was to pave the way to their participation in François Mitterrand’s first government from 1981 to 1983. The PCF was also divided between supporters of the USSR and the adherents of the new Eurocommunism

29 A. Meyer, Täter im Verhör, pp. 297f., 310, 349, 356; and O. Wieviorka, Divided Memory, pp. 171, 173. 30 Quote taken from P. Lagrou (2002) ‘Frankreich’ in V. Knigge and N. Frei (eds.) Verbrechen erinnern. Die Auseinandersetzung mit Holocaust und Völkermord (Munich: C.H. Beck Verlag), pp. 163–75, at p. 173. Also see Richard J. Golsan (2006) ‘The Legacy of World War II in France. Mapping the Discourses of Memory’ in R. N. Lebow, W. Kansteiner and C. Fogu (eds.) The Politics of Memory in Post-War Europe (Durham, NC: Duke University Press), pp. 73–101, at p. 93.

56  A. BAUERKÄMPER

that was most strongly endorsed by the PCI and Santiago Carrillo’s Spanish Partido Comunista de España. Because of these fissures and splits, the influence of Marxist ‘antifascism’ declined in France. Yet its erosion was also due to a far-reaching reevaluation of the mass extermination of the Jews. Starting with the miniseries ‘Holocaust’ in 1979, the Jewish victims gradually became prominent in French memory culture. The specifics of the Holocaust, however, defied an easy integration into Marxist historical cultures. Although left-wing French intellectuals shared this problem with their colleagues in West European states, the split between the Communists and Socialists in 1983 lastingly undermined the attractiveness of Marxist historical culture.31

Conclusion: ‘Antifascism’ as a Code. Memories of the Second World War and Marxist Historical Cultures in Europe in the Cold War Far beyond the confines of Marxism, ‘antifascism’ was attractive to some social and political groups in Western Europe. As a code, it facilitated interchange about central problems of domestic and foreign policy. Moreover, it served politicians and intellectuals to take positions in conflicts about the relationship between Western democracies and the communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe. In Marxist historical cultures, ‘antifascism’ justified criticism of the capitalist economy and Western democracies that were stigmatized as window dressing, especially by communists. As this interpretation was not universally shared by socialists, Marxist political and historical cultures were by no means uniform and homogeneous. As a pillar of Marxist ideology, however, non-orthodox concepts and understandings of ‘antifascism’ even met at least fleeting support among socialists and social democrats. By contrast, conservative notions of ‘antifascism’ usually rejected a revolution or a profound transformation of capitalist economy and bourgeois society.

31 U. Pfeil (2010) ‘Der Mythos von den “Bruderparteien”. Die Beziehungen zwischen der SED und der Parti Communiste Français seit den siebziger Jahren’ in A. Bauerkämper and F. Di Palma (eds.) Bruderparteien, pp. 69–84; F. Di Palma (2010) ‘Die SED, die Kommunistische Partei Frankreichs (PCF) und die Kommunistische Partei Italiens (PCI) von 1968 bis in die Achtzigerjahre. Ein kritischer Einblick in das Dreiecksverhältnis’, Deutschland Archiv, 43, 80–89, at p. 88.

2  MARXIST HISTORICAL CULTURES, ‘ANTIFASCISM’ … 

57

As a foundation of postwar historiography and a central component of historical culture in the Cold War, however, ‘antifascism’ was popular far beyond the confines of communism and socialism. Its ­attractiveness was not least due to its apologetic nature. Whereas Marxist ‘antifascism’ put the blame on capitalists and financiers, it did not highlight the broad support for fascism as well as collaboration under Nazi occupation. Following initial purges, former Nazis, fascist and collaborationists were able to reintegrate into their societies, especially after the onset of the Cold War in the late 1940s. In this respect, Marxist ‘antifascism’ served a similar purpose in Western and Eastern Europe. Yet it was reduced to the resistance of one tiny group of the population in the communist dictatorships. In fact, endorsement of Communist antifascism became a litmus test of loyalty to the USSR in the new ‘People’s Democracies,’ as soon as the Soviet Union had banned the independent activities of antifascist committees, not only in the Soviet zone of occupation in Germany, but also in states such as Czechoslovakia and Poland. ‘Antifascism’ thereby turned into a doctrine that was imposed by the rulers ‘from above,’ although it was also popular among ordinary citizens in East European ‘People’s Democracies.’ By contrast, Marxist historical cultures and ‘antifascism’ were challenged by competing historical cultures in Western Europe.32 In postwar democracies, ‘antifascism’ underpinned Marxist historical cultures which, however, reached out beyond communists and socialists. In fact, non-Marxists utilized ‘antifascism’ in order to highlight the problems of coming to terms with the Nazi past in the Federal Republic of Germany. When the country rose to a preeminent economic power in Europe in the 1960s and 1970s, suspicions and distrust grew in the neighboring states that had been occupied by the Third Reich. In particular, the appointment of former Nazis to high-ranking and influential positions in the Federal Republic was strongly criticized in states such as France, Italy, the Netherlands and Norway. Not accidentally, the SED’s 32 J. Michelmann, Aktivisten, pp. 360, 364, 369–72. On the selectivity of ‘antifascism’, see J. Danyel (1995) ‘Die Opfer- und Verfolgtenperspektive als Gründungskonsens? Zum Umgang mit der Widerstandstradition und der Schuldfrage in der DDR’ in J. Danyel (ed.) Vergangenheit, pp. 31–46, at pp. 34, 36, 42; J. Danyel (2001) ‘Der 20. Juli’ in E. François and H. Schulze (eds.) Deutsche Erinnerungsorte, vol. 2 (Munich: C.H. Beck), pp. 220– 37, at p. 233; A. Weinke (2002) Verfolgung, pp. 336, 352, 354; and C. Classen (2004) Faschismus und Antifaschismus. Die nationalsozialistische Vergangenheit im ostdeutschen Hörfunk, 1945–1953 (Cologne: Böhlau), pp. 76f., 183, 263, 312–15.

58  A. BAUERKÄMPER

claim to represent the ‘better Germany’ struck a chord among West European non-Marxists, too.33 In their states, ‘antifascism’ thus served as a tool to gain moral superiority vis-à-vis the suspected West German neighbors. Altogether, ‘antifascism’ was strongly related to a wide scope of different and occasionally even opposing modes of political legitimation throughout postwar Europe. It served different ends. Not least, ‘antifascism’ created and transformed identities and views of others, for instance by associating the Federal Republic with its Nazi past. As a code, ‘antifascism’ was deeply anchored in Marxist historical cultures. Although its influence was by no means restricted to communists and socialists, non-orthodox understandings of the concept were too vague and tainted with Soviet-style dictatorships that openly exploited and instrumentalized ‘antifascism.’ As a tool of interpreting the past, it remained tied to Marxist political cultures that were heterogeneous and fractured themselves.

References Bauerkämper, A. (2002) ʻEinleitung: Großbritannien und die DDR. Wahrnehmungen, Beziehungen und Verflechtungen im Ost-West-Konfliktʼ in A. Bauerkämper (ed.) Britain and the GDR: Relations and Perceptions in a Divided World (Berlin: Philo), pp. 7–41. Bauerkämper, A. (2005) ʻEin asymmetrisches Verhältnis. Gesellschaftliche und kulturelle Kontakte zwischen Großbritannien und der DDR von den sechziger bis zu den achtziger Jahrenʼ, Archiv für Sozialgeschichte, 45, 43–58. Bauerkämper, A. (2009) ‘Zivilgesellschaftliches Engagement im Katholizismus? Die Debatte über das “christliche Abendland” in Deutschland, Österreich und Italien, 1945 bis 1965’ in A. Bauerkämper and J. Nautz (eds.) Zwischen Fürsorge und Seelsorge. Christliche Kirchen in den europäischen Zivilgesellschaften seit dem 18. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt am Main: Campus), pp. 175–214. Bauerkämper, A. (2012) ‘Das umkämpfte Gedächtnis. Die Flucht Herbert Kapplers aus Italien 1977 und deutsch-italienische Erinnerungskonflikte’, Zeitgeschichte, 39, 178–204. Bauerkämper, A. (2012) Das umstrittene Gedächtnis. Die Erinnerung an Nationalsozialismus, Faschismus und Krieg in Europa seit 1945 (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh). 33 J. Pekelder (2002) Die Niederlande und die DDR. Bildformung und Beziehungen 1949–1989 (Münster: Agenda Verlag), pp. 287, 295, 325, 353.

2  MARXIST HISTORICAL CULTURES, ‘ANTIFASCISM’ … 

59

Becker, B. (1991) ʻDie DDR und Großbritannien 1945/49 bis 1973. Politische, wirtschaftliche und kulturelle Kontakte im Zeichen der Nichtanerkennungspolitikʼ (PhD diss., Universität Bochum). Berger, S. and LaPorte, N. (2010) Friendly Enemies. Britain and the GDR, 1949–1990 (New York: Berghahn). Berger, S. and Lilleker, D. G. (2002) ʻBlutrünstige Diktatur, das bessere Deutschland oder Stolpersteine auf dem Weg zu einer friedlichen Koexistenz? Die DDR im Blick der britischen Labour Party, 1949–1973’ in A. Bauerkämper (ed.) Britain and the GDR: Relations and Perceptions in a Divided World (Berlin: Philo), pp. 235–65. Berger, S. and Lilleker, D. G. (2002) ʻThe British Labour Party and the German Democratic Republic During the Era of Non-Recognition, 1949–1973’, Historical Journal, 45, 433–58. Bischof, G. (1993) ʻDie Instrumentalisierung der Moskauer Erklärung nach dem Zweiten Weltkriegʼ, Zeitgeschichte, 20, 346–52. Bohr, F. N. (2010) ‘Lobby eines Kriegsverbrechers. Offizielle und “stille” Hilfe aus der Bundesrepublik für den Häftling Herbert Kappler’, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, 90, 415–36. Botz, G. (2006) ʻDie “Waldheim-Affäre als Widerstreit kollektiver Erinnerungen”’ in B. Tódt and H. Czernin (eds.) 1986. Das Jahr, das Österreich veränderte (Vienna: Czernin Verlag), pp. 74–95. Brandt, I. (2010) ‘Memoria, Politica, Polemica. Der 25. April in der italienischen Erinnerungskultur’ in P. Terhoeven (ed.) Italien, Blicke. Neue Perspektiven der italienischen Geschichte des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), pp. 235–56. Broszat, M. and Weber, H. (1990) SBZ-Handbuch. Staatliche Verwaltungen, Parteien, gesellschaftliche Organisationen und ihre Führungskräfte in der Sowjetischen Besatzungszone Deutschlands 1945–1949 (München: Oldenbourg). Childs, D. (1992) ‘British Labour and Ulbricht’s State. The Fight for Recognition’ in A. M. Birke and G. Heydemann (eds.) Großbritannien und Ostdeutschland seit 1918 (München: K. G. Saur), pp. 95–106. Childs, D. (2002) ‘The Changing British Perception of the GDR: a Personal Memoir’ in A. Bauerkämper (ed.) Britain and the GDR: Relations and Perceptions in a Divided World (Berlin: Philo), pp. 375–96. Classen, C. (2004) Faschismus und Antifaschismus. Die nationalsozialistische Vergangenheit im ostdeutschen Hörfunk, 1945–1953 (Cologne: Böhlau). Danyel, J. (1995) ‘Die Opfer- und Verfolgtenperspektive als Gründungskonsens? Zum Umgang mit der Widerstandstradition und der Schuldfrage in der DDR’ in J. Danyel (ed.) Die geteilte Vergangenheit. Zum Umgang mit Nationalsozialismus und Widerstand in beiden deutschen Staaten (Berlin: Akademie), pp. 31–46.

60  A. BAUERKÄMPER Danyel, J. (2001) ‘Der 20. Juli’ in E. François and H. Schulze (eds.) Deutsche Erinnerungsorte, vol. 2 (Munich: C.H. Beck), pp. 220–37. De Felice, R. (1977) Der Faschismus. Ein Interview mit Michael Ledeen (Stuttgart: Clett-Kotta). Di Palma, F. (2010) ‘Die SED, die Kommunistische Partei Frankreichs (PCF) und die Kommunistische Partei Italiens (PCI) von 1968 bis in die Achtzigerjahre. Ein kritischer Einblick in das Dreiecksverhältnis’, Deutschland Archiv, 43, 80–89. Focardi, F. (2003) ‘Gedenktage und politische Öffentlichkeit in Italien, 1945–1995’ in C. Cornelißen, L. Klinkhammer and W. Schwentker (eds.) Erinnerungskulturen. Deutschland, Italien und Japan seit 1945 (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch), pp. 210–21. Focardi, F. (2003) ‘Reshaping the Past: Collective Memory and the Second World War in Italy, 1945–1955’ in D. Geppert (ed.) The Postwar Challenge: Cultural, Social and Political Change in Western Europe, 1945–1958 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 41–63. García, H., Yusta, M., Tabet, X. and Clímaco, C. (eds.) (2016) Rethinking Antifascism: History, Memory and Politics, 1922 to the Present (New York: Berghahn). Golsan, R. J. (2006) ‘The Legacy of World War II in France. Mapping the Discourses of Memory’ in R. N. Lebow, W. Kansteiner and C. Fogu (eds.) The Politics of Memory in Post-War Europe (Durham, NC: Duke University Press), pp. 73–101. Golz, H.-G. (2004) Verordnete Völkerfreundschaft. Das Wirken der Freundschaftsgesellschaft DDR-Großbritannien und der Britain-GDR Society – Möglichkeiten und Grenzen (Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag). Graf, M. (2009) ʻDie KPÖ und Europa: Internationale Stellung und Europapolitik einer Kleinpartei (1945-heute)ʼ in F. Di Palma and W. Müller (eds.) Kommunismus und Europa (Berlin: Ch. Links Verlag), pp. 240–60. Großbölting, T. (2005) ‘Le memorie della repubblicca. Geschichtspolitik in Italien nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg’ in B. Stollberg-Rillinger (ed.) Was heißt Kulturgeschichte des Politischen? (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot), pp. 329–53. Hanisch, E. (1994) Der lange Schatten des Staates. Österreichische Gesellscha­ ftsgeschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts (Vienna: Ueberreuter). Hanisch, E. (2006) ‘Opfer/Täter/Mythos: Verschlungene Erzählungen über die NS-Vergangenheit in Österreich’, Zeitgeschichte, 6, 318–27. Herbst, A., Ranke, W. and Winkler, J. (1994) So funktionierte die DDR, Bd. 3: Lexikon der Funktionäre (Reinbek: Rohwolt). Hof, T. (2011) Staat und Terrorismus in Italien 1969–1982 (München: Oldenbourg). Hoff, H. (2003) Großbritannien und die DDR 1955–1973. Diplomatie auf Umwegen (München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag).

2  MARXIST HISTORICAL CULTURES, ‘ANTIFASCISM’ … 

61

Howarth, M. (2001) ʻDas Berliner Dreieck. Großbritannien und die beiden deutschen Staaten 1989/90ʼ, Deutschland Archiv (DA), 34, 955–66. Howarth, M. (2002) ʻThe Berlin Triangle. Britain and the Two German States in the 1980sʼ in A. Bauerkämper (ed.) Britain and the GDR: Relations and Perceptions in a Divided World (Berlin: Philo), pp. 173–98. Hürter, J. (2009) ‘Anti-Terrorismus-Politik. Ein deutsch-italienischer Vergleich 1969–1982’, Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 57, 329–48. Kaeselitz, H. (1998) ʻPositionen westeuropäischer Kommunistischer Parteien im Übergang zur Politik des Kalten Kriegesʼ, Utopie kreativ, 96, 61–70. Keßler, M. (2001) Exilerfahrung in Wissenschaft und Politik. Remigrierte Historiker in der frühen DDR (Cologne: Böhlau). Kettenacker, L. (1991) ʻEnglische Spekulationen über die Deutschenʼ in G. Trautmann (ed.) Die häßlichen Deutschen? Deutschland im Spiegel der westlichen und östlichen Nachbarn (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft), pp. 194–208. Kettenacker, L. (1997) ʻZwangsläufige deutsche Dominanz? – Über Konstanten britischer Europaperzeptionenʼ, Tel Aviver Jahrbuch für deutsche Geschichte, 26, 235–49. Klamper, E. (1995) ‘Ein einig Volk von Brüdern. Vergessen und Erinnern im Zeichen des Burgfriedens’, Zeitgeschichte, 5/6, 170–85. Klinkhammer, L. (2010) ‘Der neue “Antifaschismus” des Gianfranco Fini. Überlegungen zur italienischen Vergangenheitspolitik der letzten beiden Jahrzehnte’ in P. Terhoeven (ed.) Italien, pp. 257–80. Knight, R. (1994) ʻDer Waldheim-Kontext. Österreich und der Nationalsozialismusʼ in G. Botz and G. Sprengnagel (eds.) Kontroversen um Österreichs Zeitgeschichte (Frankfurt am Main: Campus), pp. 78–88. Kramer, N. (2011) ‘Die “Trümmerfrau” und ihre Schwestern. Die Erinnerung an Frauen im Zweiten Weltkrieg in Westdeutschland, Großbritannien und Italien’, Ariadne. Forum für Frauen und Geschlechtergeschichte, 59, 24–31. Kroll, T. (2007) Kommunistische Intellektuelle in Westeuropa. Frankreich, Österreich, Italien und Großbritannien im Vergleich (Cologne: Böhlau). Lagrou, P. (2002) ‘Frankreich’ in V. Knigge and N. Frei (eds.) Verbrechen erinnern. Die Auseinandersetzung mit Holocaust und Völkermord (Munich: C.H. Beck Verlag), pp. 163–75. Larres, K. (2000) ʻBritain and the GDR: Political and Economic Relations, 1949–1989ʼ in K. Larres and E. Meehan (eds.) Uneasy Allies: British-German Relations and European Integration Since 1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 63–98. Lee, S. (1995) ʻPerception and Reality: Anglo-German Relations During the Berlin Crisis 1958–1959ʼ, German History, 13, 47–69. Lemke, M. (1995) ʻInstrumentalisierter Antifaschismus und SEDKampagnenpolitik im deutschen Sonderkonflikt 1960–1968ʼ in J. Danyel

62  A. BAUERKÄMPER (ed.) Die geteilte Vergangenheit. Zum Umgang mit Nationalsozialismus und Widerstand in beiden deutschen Staaten (Berlin: Akademie), pp. 61–86. Lemke, M. (1999) ‘Kampagnen gegen Bonn. Die Systemkrise der DDR und die West-Propaganda der SED 1960–1963’, Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 41, 153–74. Loitfellner, S. (2009) ‘Hitlers erstes und letztes Opfer? Zwischen “Anschluss” und Auschwitz-Prozess: Zum Umgang Österreichs mit seiner NS-Vergangenheit’ in K. von Lingen (ed.) Kriegserfahrung und nationale Identität in Europa nach 1945: Erinnerung, Säuberungsprozesse und nationales Gedächtnis (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh), pp. 150–69. Manoschek, W. (1995) ‘“Aus der Asche dieses Krieges wieder auferstanden.” Skizzen zum Umgang der Österreichischen Volkspartei mit Nationalsozialismus und Antisemitismus nach 1945’ in W. Bergmann, R. Erb and A. Lichtblau (eds.) Schwieriges Erbe. Der Umgang mit Nationalsozialismus und Antisemitismus in Österreich, der DDR und der BRD (Frankfurt am Main: Campus), pp. 49–64. Meyer, A. (2005) Täter im Verhör. Die “Endlösung der Judenfrage” in Frankreich 1940–1944 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft). Michelmann, J. (2002) Aktivisten der ersten Stunde. Die Antifa in der Sowjetischen Besatzungszone (Cologne: Böhlau). Moos, C. (1994) ‘Die “guten” Italiener und die Zeitgeschichte. Zum Problem der Vergangenheitsbewältigung in Italien’, Historische Zeitschrift, 259, 671–94. Morgan, K. (2011) ʻEin besonderer Weg oder ein Irrweg? Britische Kommunisten und die KPD/SED als stalinistisches Beispielʼ in A. Bauerkämper and F. Di Palma (eds.) Bruderparteien jenseits des Eisernen Vorhangs. Die Beziehungen der SED zu den kommunistischen Parteien Westund Südeuropas (1968–1989) (Berlin: Ch. Links Verlag), pp. 102–22. Mueller, W. (2009) ʻKalter Krieg, Neutralität und politische Kultur in Österreichʼ, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte. Beilage zur Wochenzeitung “Das Parlament” B 1/2, 11–19. Mugrauer, M. (2009) ʻDie Politik der KPÖ in den Jahren 1945 bis 1955/56ʼ in M. Mugrauer (ed.) 90 Jahre KPÖ. Studien zur Geschichte der Kommunistischen Partei Österreichs (Vienna: Alfred Klahr Gesellschaft), pp. 37–52. Müller, W. (2016) ʻDie KPdSU und Europa im Kalten Krieg: Blockpolitik im Osten, Antiblockpolitik im Westen’ in F. Di Palma and W. Müller (eds.) Kommunismus und Europa. Europapolitik und -vorstellungen europäischer kommunistischer Parteien im Kalten Krieg (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh), pp. 29–51. Münkler, H. (1998) ʻAntifaschismus und antifaschistischer Widerstand als Gründungsmythos der DDRʼ, Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 45, 16–29. Noakes, L. (1997) ‘Making Histories: Experiencing the Blitz in London’s Museums in the 1990s’ in M. Evans and K. Lunn (eds.) War and Memory in the Twentieth Century (Oxford: Berg), pp. 89–104.

2  MARXIST HISTORICAL CULTURES, ‘ANTIFASCISM’ … 

63

Österberg, O. (2006) ‘Taming Ambiguities: The Representation of the Holocaust in Post-war Italy’ in K.-G. Karsson and U. Zander (eds.) The Holocaust on Postwar Battlefields. Genocide as Historical Culture (Malmö: Sekel Bokförlag), pp. 21–52. Peet, J. (1991) Der Spion der keiner war (Vienna: Europa Verlag). Pekelder, J. (2002) Die Niederlande und die DDR. Bildformung und Beziehungen 1949–1989 (Münster: Agenda Verlag). Perra, E. (2008) ‘Narratives of Innocence and Victimhood: The Reception of the Miniseries Holocaust in Italy’, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 22, 411–40. Petersen, J. (2000) ‘Der Ort Mussolinis in der Geschichte Italiens nach 1945’ in C. Dipper, L. Klinkhammer and A. Nützenadel (eds.) Europäische Sozialgeschichte. Fs. Wolfgang Schieder (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot), pp. 505–24. Pfeil, U. (2010) ‘Der Mythos von den “Bruderparteien”. Die Beziehungen zwischen der SED und der Parti Communiste Français seit den siebziger Jahren’ in A. Bauerkämper and F. Di Palma (eds.) Bruderparteien jenseits des Eisernen Vorhangs. Die Beziehungen der SED zu den kommunistischen Parteien Westund Südeuropas (1968–1989) (Berlin: Ch. Links Verlag), pp. 69–84. Pfeil, U. (2016) ‘Europapolitik und Europavorstellungen des PCF’ in F. Di Palma and W. Müller (eds.) Kommunismus und Europa (Berlin: Ch. Links Verlag), pp. 159–79. Pogguiloni, I. (2002) ‘Translating Memories of War and Co-belligerency into Politics. The Italian Post-war Experience’ in J.-W. Müller (ed.) Memory and Power in Postwar Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 223–43. Ramsden, J. (2007) ʻMythen und Realitäten des’ People’s War’ in Großbritannienʼ in J. Echternkamp and S. Martens (eds.) Der Zweite Weltkrieg in Europa. Erfahrung und Erinnerung (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh), pp. 65–77. Rusconi, G. E. (1994) ‘Die italienische Resistenza auf dem Prüfstand’, Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 42, 379–402. Schieder, W. (2006) ‘Die Verdrängung der faschistischen Tätervergangenheit im Nachkriegsitalien’ in A.-W. Asserate and A. Mattioli (eds.) Der erste faschistische Vernichtungskrieg. Die italienische Aggression gegen Äthiopien 1935–1941 (Cologne: SH-Verlag), pp. 177–97. Scholtyseck, J. (2003) Die Außenpolitik der DDR (München: Oldenbourg). Stibbe, M. (2001) ʻJürgen Kuczynski and the Search for a (Non-existent) Western Spy Ring in the East German Communist Party in 1953ʼ, Contemporary European History, 20, 61–79. Stoltzfus, N. and Bosworth, R. (2009) ‘Memory and Representations of Fascim in Germany and Italy’ in R. Bosworth (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Fascism (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 566–85. Süß, D. (2011) Tod aus der Luft. Kriegsgesellschaft und Luftkrieg in Deutschland und England (München: Siedler Verlag).

64  A. BAUERKÄMPER Syriatou, A. (2004) ‘Großbritannien. Der Krieg wird uns zusammenhaltenʼ in M. Flacke (ed.) Mythen der Nationen. 1945 – Arena der Erinnerungen, vol. 1 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern), pp. 285–313. Terhoeven, P. (2004) ‘Frauen im Widerstand. Das Beispiel der italienischen Resistenza’, Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, 52, 608–25. Terhoeven, P. (2008) ‘“Der Tod und das Mädchen”. Linksterroristinnen im Visier der italienischen und deutschen Öffentlichkeit’ in L. Raphael and U. Schneider (eds.) Dimensionen der Moderne. Fs. Christof Dipper (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang), pp. 437–56. Uhl, H. (1992) Zwischen Versöhnung und Verstörung. Eine Kontroverse um Österreichs historische Identität fünfzig Jahre nach dem ‘Anschluß’ (Vienna: Böhlau). Uhl, H. (2004) ‘Die Transformation des “österreichischen Gedächtnisses” in der Erinnerungskultur der Zweiten Republik’, Geschichte und Region, 13, 2, 23–54. Ventrone, A. (2010) ‘Der “permanente Bürgerkrieg” und der Staatsbegriff der politischen Linken im Italien der 1970er Jahr’ in J. Hürter and G. E. Rusconi (eds.) Die bleiernen Jahre: Staat und Terrorismus in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und Italien, 1969–1982 (München: Oldenbourg), pp. 107–16. von Lingen, K. (2006) ‘“Resistenza-Mythos” und die Legende vom “Sauberen Krieg an der Südfront”. Konstruktion von Kriegserinnerung in Italien und Deutschland 1945–2005’ in B. Faulenbach and F.-J. Jelich (eds.) ‘Transformationen’ der Erinnerungskulturen in Europa nach 1989 (Essen: Klartext), pp. 329–64. von Lingen, K. (2009) ‘“Giorni di Gloria”: Wiedergeburt der italienischen Nation in der Resistenza’ in K. von Lingen (ed.) Kriegserfahrung und Nationale Identität in Europa nach 1945. Erinnerung, Säuberungsprozesse und nationales Gedächtnis (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh), pp. 389–408. Wachs, P.-C. (2000) Der Fall Theodor Oberländer (1905–1998). Ein Lehrstück deutscher Geschichte (Frankfurt am Main: Campus). Weinke, A. (2002) Die Verfolgung von NS Tätern im geteilten Deutschland. Vergangenheitsbewältigungen 1949–1969 oder: Eine deutsch-deutsche Beziehungsgeschichte im Kalten Krieg (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh). Wetzel, J. (2001) ‘Der Mythos des “braven Italieners”’ in H. Graml, A. Königseder and J. Wetzel (eds.) Vorurteil und Rassenhass. Antisemitismus in den faschistischen Bewegungen Europas (Berlin: Metropol), pp. 49–74. Wieviorka, O. (2012) Divided Memory. French Recollections of World War II from the Liberation to the Present (Stanford: Stanford University Press). Woller, H. (2003) ‘Der Rohstoff des kollektiven Gedächtnisses. Die Abrechnung mit dem Faschismus in Italien und ihre erfahrungsgeschichtliche Dimension’ in C. Cornelißen, L. Klinkhammer and W. Schwentker (eds.) Erinnerungskulturen, pp. 67–76.

CHAPTER 3

Marxist Historians, Communist Historical Cultures and Transnational Relations in Western Europe in the 1950s and 1960s Thomas Kroll

Since its beginnings, the interpretation of the past played an important role in the European labor movement. The historiography and the dissemination of historical knowledge served in various forms to legitimize the socialist and communist movements’ goals in the ‘bourgeois societies’ of Western Europe. At the same time, the sovereignty over the interpretation of history was in itself an indispensable resource in the power struggles between rivaling leadership groups and ideological currents in the Western European leftist parties. This constellation was particularly formative for the ‘historical cultures’ of Western European communist parties during the first two decades after the Second World

T. Kroll (*)  Historisches Institut, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Jena, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2019 S. Berger and C. Cornelissen (eds.), Marxist Historical Cultures and Social Movements during the Cold War, Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03804-5_3

65

66  T. KROLL

War.1 In this era, the communist party leadership attempted to present an image of history, in which the current political line appeared as a logical consequence of the nation’s history, of the ideological foundations of Marxism-Leninism, and last but not least of the policy guidelines of the Soviet Union. Implementing these goals, specifically established committees and cultural commissions supervised the presentation of the history.2 Often the production of the ‘party history’ was controlled by veteran functionaries who stood out for their unconditional loyalty vis-à-vis their leadership and the ‘fatherland of socialism,’ ensuring that history was presented according to Moscow’s directives and augmented with quotes from the classics.3 Until the late 1950s, the Stalinist master narrative, prescribed in the ‘short course’ of the Communist Party’s history of the Soviet Union, was much more influential in these histories than Marx, Engels or Lenin. Furthermore, according to this interpretation of history the party’s top officials were presented as incarnations of a long history of the national working class struggling against the bourgeoisie and imperialism, such as Maurice Thorez, who was, until well into the 1960s, portrayed in a best-selling paperback as a ‘son of his people’ and leader of the French nation and republic.4 During the Cold War, this ideologically influenced ‘vulgata’ formed the basis for the comprehensive political pedagogy of the communists who sought to convey to the party base a Marxist-Leninist historical consciousness, confidence in victory, and a willingness to submit oneself in the struggle against capitalism.5 Among the media disseminating these views of history were the communist press, which was individually tailored to its various members, party schools, and last but not least the

1 For the concept “culture of history” see G. G. Iggers, Q. E. Wang and S. Mukherjee (2013) Geschichtskulturen. Weltgeschichte der Historiografie von 1750 bis heute (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). 2 See G. Arfè (1994) ‘I comunisti e la loro storia’ in P. Macry and A. Massafra (eds.) Fra storia e storiografia (Bologna: Il Mulino), pp. 245–58, 246–52. 3 E. Sereni (1978) La rivoluzione italiana (Rome: Editori Riuniti). 4 M. Thorez (1949) Fils du peuple (Paris: Editions sociales). 5 See G. Eley (2010) ‘Marxist Historiography’ in Stefan Berger, Heiko Feldner and Kevin Passmore (eds.) Writing History: Theory and Practice, 2nd ed. (London: Bloomsbury Academic), pp. 61–75, p. 67.

3  MARXIST HISTORIANS, COMMUNIST HISTORICAL CULTURES … 

67

instruments of modern mass culture of the 1950s and 1960s whose effectiveness the communists quickly recognized.6 The above-sketched form of the ‘party history’ constituted a central element of communist historical cultures in Western Europe. In addition, however, a Marxist historiography was developed after the Second World War, which was practiced by communist professional historians, satisfying academic standards.7 These historians pursued a new interpretation of history—not only of the working class but also of the nation. Such an enterprise corresponded to the deeply rooted conviction of the communist milieu that Marxism-Leninism was scientifically based theory, allowing for objective insights and being superior to bourgeois concepts of history.8 Therefore, the communist parties promoted the new Marxist historiography by financing academic journals, cultural and research institutions such as the Gramsci Institute in Rome or the Institut Maurice Thorez in Paris.9 However, tensions quickly arose between the ‘history functionaries’ of the party and professional historians, whose conception of history, despite similar political convictions, followed different academic guiding principles.10 These differences became more pronounced by the fact that Marxist historians, unlike the ‘history functionaries,’ had not been influenced by the Bolshevization of the 1920s, but rather belonged to younger generations, which often had joined the communist movement during the popular front or through the resistance movements against the German occupation forces in France or Italy.11 This generational profile applies, for instance, to the Historians’ 6 S. Bellassi (2000) Pubblico e privato nella rappresentazione del PCI (1947–1956) (Rome: Carocci); S. Gundle (1995) I comunisti italiani tra Hollywood e Mosca. La sfida della cultura di massa (1943–1991) (Florence: Giunti). 7 On Marxist historiography, see G. G. Iggers (2012) ‘The Marxist Tradition of Historical Writing in the West: A Retrospect from the Beginning to the Twenty First Century’, Storia della storiografia, LXII, 63–77. 8 See for instance K. Laybourn (2006) Marxism in Britain. Dissent, Decline and Reemergence 1945–c.2000 (London and New York: Routledge), pp. 11–56. 9 See C. Guiat (2003) The French and Italian Communist Parties: Comrades and Culture (London: Frank Cass Publishers), p. 4; A. Vittoria (1992) Togliatti e gli intellettuali. Storia dell’Istituto Gramsci negli anni Cinquanta e Sessanta (Rome: Editori Riuniti); and Zazzara, La storia, pp. 66–73. 10 M. Agulhon (2005) Histoire et politique à gauche. Réflexions et témoignages (Paris: Perrin), p. 9. 11 See T. Kroll (2007) Kommunistische Intellektuelle in Westeuropa. Frankreich, Österreich, Italien und Großbritannien im Vergleich (1945–1956) (Cologne: Böhlau).

68  T. KROLL

Group of the Communist Party of Great Britain, whose ‘history from below’ approach was to be highly influential. Similar circles of Marxist historians existed in France and Italy as well.12 While the structures of the Marxist history cultures of the communist parties are known in their outlines on the national level, little is known about their transnational relationships,13 although research on contemporary history during the last years has found that the relations between the European communist parties had considerable influence on the development of policy and ideology during the Cold War.14 Hence, this essay will examine and assess the significance of the transnational intellectual exchange in the historical cultures of Western European communist movements between the end of the Second World War and the 1960s. This is not to say that the era between the late 1940s and the mid1960s was a good time for the free exchange among communist intellectuals. The communist nationalism of the popular front years became more radical after 1945 and took on chauvinist features in the early period of the Cold War. The communist parties presented themselves as the standard bearers of the national cultural heritage, and their leaders were celebrated, along the lines of the Stalinist personality cult, as embodiments not only of the working class but also of the nation as a whole. The critical examination of Stalinism during the XXth Congress of the CPSU in 1956 did very little to open up the party to new ideas and remained steeped in taboos well into the 1960s.15 Despite such obstacles, transnational exchange did play a significant role in the development of the Marxist historiography and the historical 12 See H. J. Kaye (1984) The British Marxist Historians (Oxford: Polity Press), pp. 221– 49; D. Dworkin (1997) Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies (Durham and London: Duke University Press), pp. 182– 218; and P. Favilli (2006) Marxismo e storia. Saggio sull’innovazione storiografica in Italia (1945–1970) (Milan: Franco Angeli), pp. 179–220, 258–71. 13 See the methodological discussions by M. Middell and F. Hadler (2007) ‘Challenges to the History of Historiography in the Age of Globalization’ in Q. E. Wang and F. L. Fillafer (eds.) The Many Faces of Clio (New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books), pp. 293–306. 14 See for example A. Bauerkämper and F. Di Palma (2011) Bruderparteien jenseits des Eisernen Vorhangs. Die Beziehungen der SED zu den kommunistischen Parteien West- und Südeuropas (1968–1989) (Berlin: Ch. Links). 15 See Kroll, Kommunistische Intellektuelle, pp. 157–79; A. Agosti (1999) Bandiere rosse. Un profilo storico dei comunismi europei (Rome: Editori Riuniti), pp. 145–252.

3  MARXIST HISTORIANS, COMMUNIST HISTORICAL CULTURES … 

69

cultures of communist movements. This will be demonstrated by taking as an example communist historians from Great Britain, France and Italy who considered themselves to be Marxists and developed the historiographic program of a social history from below.16 Considering the state of research, it appears reasonable to focus on exemplary transnational debates and an international group of Marxist social historians from the 1950s and 1960s who researched the history of the French Revolution.

Marxist Historians in Communist Historical Culture The fact that historians did play a prominent role in the historical cultures of the communist parties does not, however, implicate that only academics produced historical knowledge. Party functionaries, writing memoirs and educational material, as well as journalists, were just as important since they conveyed the view of history desired by the party leadership. Nevertheless, there were professional historians in all three countries, mostly young scholars, who were committed to developing a ‘new’ Marxist social history as an academic discipline. They aimed to modernize and surpass traditional historiography within academia, founding journals to serve as platforms.17 In Great Britain, some members of the Historians’ Group, among them Eric Hobsbawm and Christopher Hill, founded the journal Past and Present (1952); in France, communist historians such as Albert Soboul, Maurice Agulhon, Annie Kriegel, François Furet and Madeleine Rébérioux were to become important protagonists, some of them getting involved in Le Mouvement Social (1960)18; in Italy, the journal Studi Storici was started in 1958, led by Gastone Manacorda, contributing significantly to the development of a Marxist social history inspired by Antonio Gramsci’s theories.19 16 E. J. Hobsbawm (1956) ‘Wohin gehen die englischen Historiker?’ Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, IV, 950–63. 17 See M. Angelini (2012) Fare storia. Culture e pratiche della ricerca in Italia da Gioacchino Volpe a Federico Chabod (Rome: Carocci), pp. 201–34. 18 See G. Lemarchand (2013) ‘Marxisme et histoire en France depuis la Deuxiéme Guerre mondiale (Partie I)’, Cahiers d’Histoire. Revue d’histoire critique, CXX, 171–80; R. Ceamanos Llorens (2004) De la historia del movimiento obrero a la historia social. L’Actualité de l’Histoire (1951–1960) y Le Mouvement Social (1960–2000) (Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias). 19 See G. Zazzara (2011) La storia a sinistra. Ricerca e impegno politico dopo il fascismo (Rome: Laterza), pp. 117–18.

70  T. KROLL

As communists, these university historians had to submit themselves, to varying degrees, to the party discipline, which was the reason why their political and historical work was often marked by tensions.20 On the one hand, the historians were involved in the CP’s propaganda work and its hierarchy. During the Cold War’s ‘battle of ideas,’ historians wrote articles for the party press, conducted trainings and gave talks, mostly on topics related to the history of communism and the working class, or on the resistance movements against Nazi Germany. Their tasks were clearly defined, most strictly in France’s communist milieu, as the historian Claude Willard impressed upon his colleagues. Communist historians ought to draw upon the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin and be inspired by Soviet historiography. Furthermore, they were expected to expose the ‘fabrications’ of bourgeoisie historiography and convert other ‘respectable’ historians to a ‘national and academic historiography.’ As part of the class struggle, Marxist historians should adopt the proletariat’s position, to strengthen it in its struggle against the bourgeoisie.21 In the 1950s, this kind of engagement also meant the obligation to write articles for the CP’s cultural journals, participating in the personality cult of Stalin or the respective party leader. Even distinguished historians such as Albert Soboul, who was certainly no orthodox ‘Stalinist’ at the beginning of the 1950s, did not abstain from this kind of engagement, dutifully reviewing the work of Maurice Thorez and praising it in ritualized language.22 In their academic publications, historians abstained from using Marxist-Leninist phraseology of the party propaganda, employing instead a ‘mild’ variant of Marxism, which they considered compatible with the standards of academic writing. Only this way they could hope to gain acceptance for their studies at the universities, and thus their academic career. Unlike in Great Britain, in Italy and France many young Marxist historians did actually succeed in academic careers because they were sponsored by leftist doyens of the older generation, such as Georges Lefebvre and Ernest Labrousse in France, or Delio Cantimori in

20 See for the Italian case D. Coli (1987) ‘Idealismo e marxismo nella storiografia italiana degli anni ’50 e ’60’ in P. Rossi (ed.) Teoria e storia della storiografia negli ultimi vent’anni (Milan: Il Saggiatore), pp. 38–58, p. 57. 21 See C. Prochasson (2013) François Furet. Les Chemins de la mélancolie (Paris: Stock), pp. 53–54. 22 A. Soboul (1951) ‘Œuvres de Maurice Thorez’, La Pensée, XXXV, 119–22.

3  MARXIST HISTORIANS, COMMUNIST HISTORICAL CULTURES … 

71

Italy, wielding considerable influence in the politics of academia despite being sympathizer or even member of a communist party.23 From today’s perspective, the scholarly version of Marxism, as practiced by historians in the 1940s and 1950s, is rather unorthodox and not particularly exciting. The young historians did not intend to provide an accurate exegesis and historiographical implementation of Marxist theory, but rather a theoretical foundation of a sociohistorical perspective. In this sense, we can discern several elements, which formed, despite different national traditions, the foundation of the historians’ ‘academic Marxism’ in Western Europe. Firstly, there was the conviction that every historical analysis needed to start by examining the economic productive forces and relations of production. Secondly, class struggles were considered to be the driving force in history. And finally, many Marxist historians held that history, as a scholarly discipline, should be theoretically based and analytical, understand historical processes dialectically, and offer a comprehensive explanation of the course of human history.24

Exchanges Transnational processes of reception and exchange were of fundamental importance for the establishment of the new Marxist historiography. The young Marxists presented themselves as cosmopolitans and internationalists who were receptive to scientific developments in other countries.25 This applies at first to the history of the Soviet Union, in particular the October Revolution, which was covered extensively in the parties’ publications. In Italy, a special issue of Palmiro Togliatti’s Rinascita was dedicated to the 40th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution. French historians of the younger generation, too, published in party-affiliated journals extensive articles on the history of the Soviet Union and Soviet historiography, for instance Maurice Agulhon, who in 1953 emphasized 23 See M. Vovelle (1999) ‘La mia strada alla storia’, Studi Storici, XL, 657–80, 661; Zazzara, La storia, pp. 3–49. 24 T. Aprile (2010) ‘Marxisme et histoire’ in C. Delacroix et al. (eds.) Historiographies, Concept et débats, I (Paris: Gallimard), pp. 503–17; G. Procacci (1952) ‘Marc Bloch’, Belfagor, 7, 662–75, 669; and E. Hobsbawm (1998) Wieviel Geschichte braucht die Zukunft? (Munich: Beck), pp. 186–203, 191–92. 25 E. Hobsbawm (1960) ‘Per lo studio delle classi subalterne’, Società, XVI, 436–49, 438.

72  T. KROLL

the high academic standing of the research done by his Soviet colleagues on the political thinking of Alexis de Tocqueville.26 In Great Britain, Christopher Hill had published already in 1947 an account of Lenin’s role in the Russian Revolution of 1917, which went through several reprints and was highly successful among the Western European left.27 Against this backdrop, it does not surprise that Hobsbawm and the editorial staff from Past and Present presented the International Congress of Historians in Rome 1955 as a milestone of European historiography, since for the first time after many years Soviet historians came together to talk with their colleagues from Western Europe.28 One should not, however, overestimate the extent of the preparedness regarding exchange and reception. The debate on the Marxist historiography of the Soviet Union and other countries served first and foremost to confirm one’s own practice and national historiography. This can be seen in the reciprocal reception of Western European Marxists in the 1950s, for example, in a review by the historian Paolo Alatri on the Italian translation of an essay collection by Christopher Hill on the English Revolution.29 In this case, the British social historians are presented as role models for the Marxist awakening of Italian national historiography. Alatri does point out that Hill had received a strong impetus from Soviet historiography, however, his scholarly innovation is traced back solely to his critical examination of Great Britain’s national historical tradition through the Marxist perspective. Thanks to Marxist theory Hill was able to break with the Whig tradition, enabling him to interpret the years from 1640 to 1660 as a British version of the bourgeoisie revolution, which overcame feudalism and paved the way for capitalism. Thereby Hill had been able to refute the traditional thesis of the Puritan 26 M. Agulhon (1954) ‘Critique et Histoire chez les historiens soviétiques’, Nouvelle Critique, LIX, 98–114, 107–8; see also G. Lefebvre (1953) ‘Histoire de France et historiens soviétique’, Annales E.S.C., VIII, 74–76. 27 C. Hill (1953) Lenin and the Russian Revolution, 3rd ed. (London: English University Press), p. XIV. 28 See ‘The Tenth International Congress of the Historical Sciences’ (1955) Past and Present, VIII, 83–90, 84–85 and in addition K. D. Erdmann (1987) Die Ökumene der Historiker. Geschichte der Internationalen Historikerkongresse und des Comité International des Sciences Historiques (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), pp. 299–336, p. 316. 29 P. Alatri (1957) ‘Christopher Hill, saggi sulla rivoluzione inglese del 1640, Milano, Feltrinelli, 1957’, Rinascita, IV, 567–68. See also M. Cuaz (1985) ‘Christopher Hill e l’interpretazione marxista della rivoluzione inglese’, Studi Storici, XXVI, pp. 535–65.

3  MARXIST HISTORIANS, COMMUNIST HISTORICAL CULTURES … 

73

Revolution without reducing religion ‘economistically’ to a mere phenomenon of the superstructure. Alatri’s remark, that one has to interpret religion dialectically, can be understood as a form of circumspect dissociation from Soviet historiography—an attitude that resulted from his reading of Antonio Gramsci and his understanding that culture plays a central role in the (party-organized) establishment of working-class hegemony.30 In this context, it is also important to remember that Alatri belonged to a group of young historians who fought as partisans in the Resistenza and considered communism as an opportunity to radically modernize Italian society. Apparently, the reception of the writings of British Marxist historians reflected and strengthened the generational self-image of the Italian group, which, referring to Marx and Gramsci, aimed to revise their own national historical image.31

Transnational Debates When analyzing such transnational exchanges in the 1950s, we need to bear in mind that it was not their purpose to create the foundations of a transnational Marxist historiography but rather to critically examine in the European context which insights could be useful for the revision of one’s own national historiography.32 This matter was also related to the debate, led since the late 1940s, about the transition from feudalism to capitalism.33 The communist economist Maurice Dobb from Cambridge, another member of the Communist Historians Group, in 1946 held that it were the inner contradictions of feudalism’s production methods that were ultimately responsible for the crisis of feudalism, leading to the rise of capitalism.34 On the other side, Paul Sweezy traced the crisis of 30 Favilli,

Marxismo, p. 190. P. Villani (1987) ‘La vicenda della storiografia italiana: continuità e fratture’ in P. Rossi (ed.) La storiografia contemporanea (Milano: Il saggiatore), pp. 391–99, p. 393. 32 On this point, see Favilli, Marxismo, p. 278. 33 P. Sweezy and M. Dobb et  al. (1984) Der Übergang vom Feudalismus zum Kapitalismus (Frankfurt am Main: Syndikat). 34 Maurice Dobb (1970) Die Entwicklung des Kapitalismus. Vom Spätfeudalismus bis zur Gegenwart (Cologne: Kiepenheuer). See S. R. Epstein (2007) ‘Rodney Hilton, Marxism and the Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism’ Past and Present, Supplement, Vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford Academic Press), pp. 248–69; M. S. Kimmel (1977) ‘The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism. Rodney Hilton’, American Journal of Sociology, LXXXIII, 213–15. 31 See

74  T. KROLL

feudalism to the growth of trade and thereby to an external factor. The role of the feudalist state was debated as well, with Christopher Hill arguing that it developed increasingly efficient methods to suppress popular movements. At the peak of the debate even Giuliano Procacci joined the dispute, intervening, alongside Hill, in favor of Dobb: Feudalism should not be treated as a static system when, in fact, the birth of capitalism from its core could only be explained with its very dynamism.35 The international interest in the Marxist debate on the origins of capitalism can be explained by the fact that the question—what forces lay behind social change—was highly charged during the postwar period. This is true even more for the 1950s, when euphoric hopes for an imminent socialist revolution of the capitalist societies had been dashed.36 Another indicator is the avid interest in Eric Hobsbawm’s now famous essay on the ‘General crisis’ of the seventeenth century which was widely discussed and published in numerous languages.37 In Italy, the lively interest can be explained by the fact that this international debate (just like the debate between Dobb and Sweezy) was led at the same time as the national controversy surrounding the Marxist agrarian historian Emilio Sereni who, in 1947, discussing in an influential book the particular path of enforcing capitalism in Italy’s agriculture, attempted to explain the backwardness of the Mezzogiorno.38 Furthermore, in the early 1950s the reception of Gramsci’s writings begun, which had been published in Italy under the direction of the party chairman Palmiro Togliatti in order to win intellectuals over to communism.39 While Italian historians quickly applied ideas such as Gramsci’s concept of the ‘subaltern class’—for instance in studies on the working class

35 See D. Bidussa (2010) ‘Giuliano Procacci e la storia contemporanea in Italia come disciplina (1952–66)’, Studi Storici, LI, 557–71, 564; G. Procacci (1955) Classi sociali e monarchia assoluta nella Francia della prima metà del secolo XVI (Torino: Einaudi), pp. 11–13. 36 See G. M. Meriggi (2009) ‘Osservazioni sull’uso del marxismo nella storia sociale’ in C. A. Barberini (ed.) Marx e la storia (Milan: UNICOPLI), pp. 79–94, 79–80. 37 E. Hobsbawm (1954) ‘The General Crisis of the European Economy of the 17th Century’ Past and Present, V, 33–53 and (1959/60) ‘Il secolo XVII nello sviluppo del capitalismo’, Studi Storici, I, pp. 661–76. 38 E. Sereni (1947) Il capitalismo nelle campagne (1860–1900) (Turin: Einaudi). See also Favilli, Marxismo, pp. 233–49. 39 See Kroll, Kommunistische Intellektuelle, pp. 464–74.

3  MARXIST HISTORIANS, COMMUNIST HISTORICAL CULTURES … 

75

movement40—Gramsci’s writings received only marginal attention in Western Europe prior to the 1970s.41 To what degree these cross-border debates influenced the historiographical practice of Marxist historians, or historical cultures of communist parties, is difficult to ascertain. The circle of recipients remained relatively small until the 1960s, since the international exchange relied primarily on individual commitment by a few ‘border crossers’ and their personal networks.

International Networks in Marxist Historiography The transnational cooperation of a group of Marxist historians, who already in the 1950s and early 1960s exerted significant influence on communist historical cultures, can be traced and examined in the historical writings on the French Revolution.42 Eric Hobsbawm even used the phrase ‘international Marxist team of French Revolutionary historians’ to denote the collaborative work of historians from different countries.43 The most prominent members of this group were the British historian George Rudé (1910–1993), the French historian Albert Soboul (1914–1982), Walter Markov (1909–1993) who was teaching in Leipzig, and the Italian Armando Saitta (1919–1991) who, in contrast to his companions, belonged to the socialist party and not the communist party.44 Although hailing from four different countries, with quite different political and intellectual backgrounds, they did form some kind of generational group because they all joined the left during the 1930s or during the Résistance and were influenced by the political ideals of the popular front. Moreover, these young historians all retained

40 E. Ragionieri (1953) Un comune socialista: Sesto Fiorentino (Rome: Edizioni Rinascita), p. 10. 41 See also D. Richet (1954) ‘Gramsci et l’histoire de la France’, La Pensée, LV, 61–78; A. Tosel (1995) ‘In Francia’ in E. Hobsbawm (ed.) Gramsci in Europa e in America (Rome: Laterza), pp. 5–26, 6–8; D. Forgacs (1995) ‘In Gran Bretagna’, pp. 55–69. 42 See A. De Francesco (2006) Mito e storiografia della „Grande rivoluzione“. La Rivoluzione francese nella cultura politica italiana del ’900 (Napoli: Guida), pp. 343–76. 43 E. Hobsbawm in Socialist History Society (1995). George Rudé, 1910–1993: Marxist Historian, Memorial Tributes (London: Socialist History Society), p. 6. 44 The British Richard Cobb, the Norwegian K. Tønnesson, and the Australian Barry Rose, too, were loosely associated with the circle for a time, but they did not belong to the core group.

76  T. KROLL

close links to Georges Lefevbre, considering themselves his students or ‘disciples.’45 The group’s social and intellectual key figure was Albert Soboul,46 who taught at an elite high school during the 1950s and later acceded to the chair for the history of the French Revolution at the Sorbonne.47 His studies on the political social history of the Parisian sans-culottes were intellectually groundbreaking,48 his flat in Paris serving as meeting point of the group member who often stayed at the French capital, debating, researching in its archives, and last but not least forming a circle of friends.49 Soboul’s leading role has been stressed time after time in the autobiographical writings of the circle’s members. This assessment can be confirmed by surveying the journals in which the young historians were involved as authors or editors. Soboul was the only author whose texts appeared in translation in all countries: in one of the first issues of Past and Present, 1953 in the Milanese Movimento Operaio,50 and 1955 even in the East Berlin Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft.51 As a specialist for the history of ‘Jacobin Italy,’ Saitta initiated an anthology with the trade publisher Laterza which included a seminal text by Soboul in Italian translation, making a forceful intervention in the debates surrounding the ‘historiographical left.’52 After founding the journal 45 See J. Friguletti (2000) ‘Dispersing the Crowd. The Changing Reputation of George Rudé as a Historian of the French Revolution’, Proceedings of the Western Society of French History, XXVIII, 301–9, 301 and A. Soboul (1955b) ‘Zum 80. Geburtstag von Georges Lefebvre’, Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, III, 124–30. 46 See also R. R. Palmer (1960) ‘Popular Democracy in the French Revolution’, French Historical Studies, I, 445–69. 47 C. Mazauric (2004), Albert Soboul (1914–1982) Un histoirien en son temps (Lavardac: Éditions d’Albret), pp. 60–83. 48 See for example the review of G. Procacci (1960) ‘Albert Soboul, Les sans-culottes parisiens’, Belfagor, XV, pp. 241–46. 49 G. Rudé (1982) ‘Albert Soboul: un témoignage personnel’, Annales historiques de la Révolution française, LIV, 557–61, 447, 557. 50 A. Soboul (1953) ‘Classi e lotte delle classi durante la Rivoluzione francese’, Movimento Operaio, II, 173–200. 51 A. Soboul (1955a) ‘Untersuchungen über die Französische Revolution und Revolutionsregierung’, Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, III, 884–903. 52 See Zazzara, La storia, p. 11; E. di Rienzo (2003) ‘“L’histoire de si” et “L’histoire des faits”. Quelques perspectives de recherche à propos de l’historiographie italienne sur la période révolutionnaire, 1948–2000’, Annales historiques de la Révolution française, CCCXXXIV, 119–38, 121–25.

3  MARXIST HISTORIANS, COMMUNIST HISTORICAL CULTURES … 

77

Critica storica, Saitta provided Soboul’s studies on the sans-culottes with an international stage.53 Saitta also promoted the reception of George Rudé’s research on the role of the ‘masses’ during the revolution,54 the preliminary studies of which, with help from Soboul and Lefebvre, had previously been prominently placed in France.55 Turning to British historians, in the 1950s Hobsbawm was able to extend his influence in Italy when he published a text inspired by Gramsci’s ‘subaltern classes’ in the Società and in his book Primitive Rebels, which provided a significant push to the research of rural revolutionary movements.56 Not least remarkable is the close cooperation between Western European Marxists and the GDR historian Walter Markov,57 who researched the history of revolutionary popular movement of the Enragés as well as the biography of Jacques Roux.58 Already in the 1950s, therefore, historians working on the revolution developed a reciprocal reception, a network of close contacts, and a common historiographical program. The group intended, first of all, to apply the Marxist theory of class, and the notion of class struggle, to the analysis of the French Revolution.59 The young historians’ ultimate goal was

53 Georges Lefebvre, Albert Soboul, George Rudé and R. C. Cobb (1958) Sansculotti e contadini nella rivoluzione francese (Bari: Laterza). The edition’s introduction can also be found in A. Saitta (1997) Momenti e figure nella civiltà europea, Vol. V (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura), pp. 61–84. 54 G. Rudé (1959) The Crowd in the French Revolution (London and Oxford: Oxford University Press); G. Rudé (1962) ‘I sanculotti: una discussione tra storici marxisti’, Critica storica, I, 369–98. 55 G. Rudé (1952) ‘La composition sociale des insurrections parisiennes’, Annales historiques de la Révolution française, 286–88; G. Rudé (1953) ‘Les ouvriers parisiens dans la Révolution française’ La Pensée, XLVIII/XLIX, pp. 108–28. 56 Hobsbawm, Per lo studio; see also Michael Löwy (2000) ‘Captain Swing à Pancho Villa. Résistances paysannes dans l’historiographie d’Eric Hobsbawm’, Diogène, 189, 3–13. 57 See W. Markov (1961) Maximilien Robespierre 1758–1794 (Berlin: Rütten und Loenig). 58 W. Markov (1955) Grenzen des Jakobinerstaats, in W. Krauss and H. Mayer (eds.) Grundpositionen der französischen Aufklärung (Berlin: Rütten and Loenig), pp. 209–42 and W. Markov (1979) Kognak und Königsmörder (Berlin: Aufbau-Verlag), pp. 178–84. 59 A. Soboul (1953) ‘À propos des récents articles de George Rudé’, Annales historiques de la Révolution française, XXXIX, 289–91, 290; see also J. Amarigo and B. Norton (1991) ‘Marxist Historians and the Question of Class in the French Revolution’, History and Theory, XXX, 37–55, 48.

78  T. KROLL

to establish a ‘history from below,’ which leaned on the works of George Lefebvre, the doyen of the historiography of the French Revolution.60 Based on his research in social and regional history, Lefebvre had portrayed the peasants of northern France as a movement, which acted independently from the bourgeoisie revolution in Paris and pursued its own political goals.61 The group surrounding Soboul picked this idea up and sought to write a social history of the French Revolution which included all social groups relevant to the political struggles and treated the ‘lower classes’ as autonomous agents.62 The approach and the research projects of this group also gave a major impetus to the development of a history from below in Great Britain, which was received all over the world since the 1960s and represented the most influential school of European historiography in the twentieth century after the Annales School. As the network surrounding Soboul demonstrates, transnational relations and transfers did provide a significant impetus toward the development of a scientific reinvention of Marxist historiography. Therefore, ‘interconnections [can be understood] as a driving force of modernisation’63 of historiography. However, innovation did not merely spring from the free exchange of ideas. That Western European Marxist historians rather had to pave a way through the complex power structures in communist historical cultures is exemplified by the genesis and reception of the studies of Albert Soboul. During the 1950s, Soboul focused on the question of how to interpret the relation between the popular movement of the sans-culottes and the Jacobin revolutionary government (1793/1794). The interest in this question arose, on the one hand, from his membership in the CP, where Soboul since the end of the 1930s

60 W. Markov (1960) ‘Georges Lefebvre en Allemagne’, Annales historiques de la Révolution française, LI, 90–96, 96; E. Hobsbawm (1985) ‘History from Below—Some Reflections’ in F. Krantz (ed.) History from Below (Montréal: Concordia University), pp. 63–73, 64–65. 61 S. Buzzi (2002) ‘Georges Lefebvre (1874–1959), ou une histoire sociale possible’, Mouvement social, CC, 177–95. 62 A. Soboul (1959) ‘Georges Lefebvre, historien du nord (1874–1959)’, Revue du Nord, 164, 339–43; see also C. Mazauric (2009) L’Histoire de la Révolution Française et la pensée marxiste (Paris: puf), p. 49. 63 See M. Middell (2010) ‘Introduction: Transnationalism in Europe’ in W. Eberhard and C. Lübke (eds.) The Plurality of Europe: Identities and Spaces (Leipzig: Universitätsverlag), pp. 493–96, p. 493.

3  MARXIST HISTORIANS, COMMUNIST HISTORICAL CULTURES … 

79

actively participated in the public presentation of the revolution in the communist milieu, and on the other hand from the debate about the historiography in the socialist-Jacobin tradition of Jaurès und Mathiez. In order to solve his predicament, Soboul meticulously evaluated the archives of the sections of the Parisian ‘Commune’ and finally wrote a social history of the sans-culottes.64 With his study, which he submitted as a thèse d’état and published as a book in 1958, Soboul was able to prove that the radical sans-culottes movement was supported by heterogeneous social classes (artisans, master craftsmen, shopkeepers and merchants, laborers). For Soboul, the sans-culottes were not a proletarian avant-garde striving for socialist revolution, but a movement of radicalized small producers with a backward-oriented ideal of society. Yet, for a certain period they did support the Jacobin dictatorship, taking over a progressive function in the revolution, without being dominated by the Jacobin leaders and their program. Nevertheless did the sans-culottes make a decisive contribution to the abolishment of the ‘feudalism’ defended by the aristocracy, pushed forward the ‘bourgeoisie revolution’ and paved the way for ‘capitalism.’ In this complex revolutionary process, the bourgeoisie turned into the modern class which in the following century established the capitalist economic system in France. Only due to the support of the sans-culottes, as Soboul stressed in a contribution to the Dobb-Sweezy debate, did the Jacobin dictatorship and their terror regime become the ‘essential driving force’ in the development of a bourgeois capitalist society in France.65 This interpretation of the revolution was based on an original use of Marx’ class concept, which allowed Soboul to interpret the revolution as a ‘unit’ without depicting it as a schematic or linear development.66 While Soboul’s study on the sans-culottes quickly became a classic in academia, in communist party circles he had to struggle to overcome political reservations. In the PCF, the interpretation of the French Revolution had been a delicate task since the popular front of the 1930s,

64 A. Soboul (1958) Les Sans-culottes parisiens en l’an II; Histoire politique et sociale des sections de Paris, 2 juin 1793 –9 thermidor an II (La Roche-sur-Yon: Potier). 65 A. Soboul (1956) ‘Du féodalisme au capitalisme. Contribution à propos de la Révolution française’, La Pensée, 26–32, 32; idem (1954) ‘Classes et luttes de classe sous la Révolution française’, La Pensée, LIII, 39–62. 66 Soboul, Classi, p. 185.

80  T. KROLL

since unlike in the 1920s, communism had to be legitimized as a result of a national tradition originating in the revolution.67 Every new historical interpretation of the revolution written by a communist was simultaneously a political statement which had to be measured against the Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy and be judged by the official party interests. The politically astute Soboul was quite aware of this, and therefore none of his publications missed a polemic against the 1946 published book by Trotskyist Daniel Guérin who had characterized the sansculottes, in light of the ‘permanent revolution,’ as a proletarian avantgarde with a strong class consciousness.68 Despite this position, Soboul came into conflict with his party already in 1952 because his interpretation of the French Revolution could not be completely reconciled with the views by Stalin and Lenin who argued that the Jacobin dictatorship played a central role for the success of the bourgeoisie revolution and for the liberation struggles of the revolutionary classes. According to Lenin, the masses needed the help of a revolutionary avant-garde to cast off the ‘trade-union consciousness’ and develop a proper ‘revolutionary consciousness.’69 Although Soboul could substantiate his views with quotes from Marx, the party instructed a ‘history functionary’ to consider his writings and to direct harsh criticism against his interpretation of the relation between the sans-culottes and the Jacobin dictatorship.70 Consequently, Jean Poperen attacked Soboul in the Cahiers du Communisme, claiming that he had failed to interpret the revolution ‘consistent with Marxist-Leninist tenets’ and had not sufficiently dissociated himself from the traditional historiography. This weighted even heavier, the party journal added, taking into account that Soboul had not sufficiently appreciated the results of Soviet research.71 In the tense

67 See François Hincker (1988) ‘La lecture communiste de la Revolution française par le Pcf’, Communisme, XX/XXI, 101–10. 68 See Soboul, Classi, p. 192; D. Guérin (1946) La tutte de classes sous la Première République. Bourgeoisie e “bras nus” (1793–1797) (Paris: Gallimard). 69 See E. Schmitt (1976) Einführung in die Geschichte der Französischen Revolution (Munich: Beck), pp. 32–33. 70 See F. Hincker (1997) ‘Quand les Cahiers communistes exécutaient Soboul…’ in Christine Le Bozec and Eric Wautres (eds.) Pour la Révolution française (Rouen: Université de Rouen), pp. 509–14, 510–12. 71 J. Poperen (1952) ‘Albert Soboul: La Révolution Française (1789–1799)’, Cahiers du Communisme, XXIX, 203–10, 210.

3  MARXIST HISTORIANS, COMMUNIST HISTORICAL CULTURES … 

81

situation of the early 1950s, Soboul not only faced a marginalization of his historical theses, there was even the threat of the exclusion from the party. Hit hard by these accusations, Soboul intensified his researches and mobilized his international network. First of all, Rudé seconded Soboul, defending his interpretation in French journals, and later in a debate with the Soviet historians Sacher and Lotté.72 In the meantime, Soboul spread his theses in the GDR, where Markov let him publish in the Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft and facilitated the translation of his works into German.73 Together the two historians published several German-language works on the history of the revolution, and in addition Soboul held a guest lecture at the University of Leipzig.74 The relations between Marxist historians in France and Eastern Germany were institutionalized toward the end of the 1950s, continuing in the 1960s as national history conferences.75 Initiatives like these made Soboul highly regarded in the GDR, and he was even celebrated as ‘pioneer of international socialist collaboration.’76 His prestige was further enhanced by the fact that Soboul expanded his network to include a growing number

72 G. Rudé (1953) ‘Les ouvriers parisiens dans la Révolution française’, La Pensée, XLVIII/XLIX, 108–28; G. Rudé (1962) ‘Quelques réflexions sur la composition, le rôle, les idées et les formes d’action des sans-culottes dans la Révolution françaises’, Critica storica, I, 369–83. 73 Soboul, Untersuchungen; W. Markov and A. Soboul (eds.) (1957) Die Sansculotten von Paris: Dokumente zur Geschichte der Volksbewegung 1793–1794 (Berlin: Akademieverlag); A. Soboul (1962) Die Sektionen von Paris im Jahre II (Berlin: Rütten and Loenig). See also M. Middell (2002) ‘Le séjour d’Albert Soboul en 1954 point de départ d’une coopération fructueuse’, Études babouvistes, 80–90. 74 W. Markov (1982) ‘Albert Soboul et l’historiographie d’expression allemande’, Annales historiques de la Révolution française, LIV, 567–71, 567–68. See also Middell, Le séjour, p. 82. 75 See Erstes Kolloquium von Historikern Frankreichs und der DDR (1960) Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, VII–VIII, pp. 1345–51; S. Heitkamp (2003) Walter Markov. Ein DDR-Historiker zwischen Parteidoktrin und Profession (Leipzig: Rosa-LuxemburgStiftung), pp. 190–98. 76 In German: ‘Bahnbrecher der internationalen sozialistischen Gemeinschaftsarbeit’. W. Berthold (1976) ‘Laudatio für Albert Marius Soboul’ in H. Scheel (ed.) Nachdenken über die Geschichte unserer Zeit anlässlich der Ehrung für Walter Markov und Albert M. Soboul am 4. Oktober 1974 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag), pp. 23–27, p. 26.

82  T. KROLL

of Soviet historians.77 The integration into the group of historians from ‘real socialist’ countries earned Soboul’s works considerable reputation in PCF circles. The cautious cultural-political opening of the communist movement after Stalin’ death, too, allowed Soboul to promote his Marxist interpretation of the French Revolution in the circles of the intellectuals and the leading functionaries of the PCF.78 Due to the outlined network of transnational relations, which the group surrounding Soboul cleverly used as a resource in the struggle for the sovereignty of interpretation, the innovative Marxist ‘history from below’ was slowly gaining ground in France’s communist historical culture.79 Marxist perspectives in the academic historiography on the one hand and party-influenced interpretations of the past on the other therefore maintained a tense relationship in Western European communism, having been paramount in shaping the development and structure of Marxist historical cultures after 1945. Translated from the German by Konrad Linke.

References Agosti, A. (1999) Bandiere rosse. Un profilo storico dei comunismi europei (Rome: Editori Riuniti). Agulhon, M. (1954) ‘Critique et Histoire chez les historiens soviétiques’, Nouvelle Critique, LIX, 98–114. Agulhon, M. (2005) Histoire et politique à gauche. Réflexions et témoignages (Paris: Perrin). Alatri, P. (1957) ‘Christopher Hill, saggi sulla rivoluzione inglese del 1640, Milano, Feltrinelli, 1957’, Rinascita, IV, 567–68. Amarigo, J. and Norton, B. (1991) ‘Marxist Historians and the Question of Class in the French Revolution’, History and Theory, XXX, 37–55. Angelini, M. (2012) Fare storia. Culture e pratiche della ricerca in Italia da Gioacchino Volpe a Federico Chabod (Rome: Carocci).

77 See V. Daline (1983) ‘Hommage à Albert Soboul’, Annales historiques de la Révolution française, CCLIII, pp. 359–63; V. Poghosyan (2014) ‘La correspondance de Boris Porchnev et d’Albert Soboul. Un témoignage de l’amitié entre historiens soviétiques et français’, Annales historiques de la Révolution française, 376, 163–77. 78 Soboul, Classes, p. 39. 79 A. M. Soboul (1975) ʻGedanken zur Geschichte’ in Nachdenken über die Geschichte unserer Zeit (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag), pp. 28–34.

3  MARXIST HISTORIANS, COMMUNIST HISTORICAL CULTURES … 

83

Aprile, T. (2010) ‘Marxisme et histoire’ in C. Delacroix et  al. (eds.) Historiographies, Concept et débats, I (Paris: Gallimard), pp. 503–17. Arfè, G. (1994) ‘I comunisti e la loro storia’ in P. Macry and A. Massafra (eds.) Frau storia e storiografia (Bologna: Il Mulino), pp. 245–58. Bauerkämper, A. and Di Palma, F. (2011) Bruderparteien jenseits des Eisernen Vorhangs. Die Beziehungen der SED zu den kommunistischen Parteien Westund Südeuropas (1968–1989) (Berlin: Ch. Links). Bellassi, S. (2000) Pubblico e privato nella rappresentazione del PCI (1947–1956) (Rome: Carocci). Berthold, W. (1976) ‘Laudatio für Albert Marius Soboul’ in H. Scheel (ed.) Nachdenken über die Geschichte unserer Zeitanlässlich der Ehrung für Walter Markov und Alber m. Soboul am 4. Oktober 1974 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag), pp. 23–27. Bidussa, D. (2010) ‘Giuliano Procacci e la storia contemporanea in Italia come disciplina (1952–66)’, Studi Storici, LI, 557–71. Buzzi, S. (2002) ‘Georges Lefebvre (1874–1959), ou une histoire sociale possible’, Mouvement Social, CC, 177–95. Ceamanos Llorens, R. (2004) De la historia del movimiento obrero a la historia social. L’Actualité de l’Histoire (1951–1960) y Le mouvement Social (1960– 2000) (Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias). Coli, D. (1987) ‘Idealismo e marxismo nella storiografia italiana degli anni ’50 e ’60’ in P. Rossi (ed.) Teoria e storia della storiografia negli ultimi vent’anni (Milan: Il Saggiatore), pp. 38–58. Cuaz, M. (1985) ‘Christopher Hill e l’interpretazione marxista della rivoluzione inglese’, Studi Storici, XXVI, pp. 535–65. Daline, V. (1983) ‘Hommage à Albert Soboul’, Annales historiques de la Révolution française, CCLIII, pp. 359–63. De Francesco, A. (2006) Mito e storiografia della „Grande rivoluzione“. La Rivoluzione francese nella cultura politica italiana del ’900 (Napoli: Guida). di Rienzo, E. (2003) ‘“L’histoire de si” et “L’histoire des faits”. Quelques perspectives de recherche à propos de l’historiographie italienne sur la période révolutionnaire, 1948–2000’, Annales historiques de la Révolution française, CCCXXXIV, 119–38. Dobb, M. (1970) Die Entwicklung des Kapitalismus. Vom Spätfeudalismus bis zur Gegenwart (Cologne: Kiepenheuer). Dworkin, D. (1997) Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies (Durham and London: Duke University Press). Eley, G. (2010) ‘Marxist Historiography’ in S. Berger, H. Feldner and K. Passmore (eds.) Writing History: Theory and Practice, 2nd ed. (London: Bloomsbury Academic), pp. 61–75.

84  T. KROLL Epstein, S. R. (2007) ‘Rodney Hilton, Marxism and the Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism’ Past and Present, Supplement, vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford Academic Press), pp. 248–69. Erdmann, K. D. (1987) Die Ökumene der Historiker. Geschichte der Internationalen Historikerkongresse und des Comité International des Sciences Historiques (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), pp. 299–336. Favilli, P. (2006) Marxismo e storia. Saggio sull’innovazione storiografica in Italia (1945–1970) (Milan: Franco Angeli), pp. 179–220, 258–71. Friguletti, J. (2000) ‘Dispersing the Crowd. The Changing Reputation of George Rudé as a Historian of the French Revolution’, Proceedings of the Western Society of French History, XXVIII, 301–9. Guérin, D. (1946) La tutte de classes sous la Première République. Bourgeoisie e “bras nus” (1793–1797) (Paris: Gallimard). Guiat, C. (2003) The French and Italian Communist Parties: Comrades and Culture (London: Frank Cass Publishers). Gundle, S. (1995) I comunisti italiani tra Hollywood e Mosca. La sfida della cultura di massa (1943–1991) (Florence: Giunti). Heitkamp, S. (2003) Walter Markov. Ein DDR-Historiker zwischen Parteidoktrin und Profession (Leipzig: Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung), pp. 190–98. Hill, C. (1953) Lenin and the Russian Revolution, 3rd ed. (London: English University Press). Hincker, F. (1988) ‘La lecture communiste de la Revolution française par le Pcf’, Communisme, XX/XXI, 101–10. Hincker, F. (1997) ‘Quand les Cahiers communistes exécutaient Soboul…’ in C. Le Bozec and E. Wautres (eds.) Pour la Révolution française (Rouen: Université de Rouen), pp. 509–14. Hobsbawm, E. (1954) ‘The General Crisis of the European Economy of the 17th Century’, Past and Present, V, 33–53 Hobsbawm, E. (1956) ‘Wohin gehen die englischen Historiker?’, Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, IV, 950–63. Hobsbawm, E. (1959/60) ‘Il secolo XVII nello sviluppo del capitalismo’, Studi Storici, I, 661–76. Hobsbawm, E. (1960) ‘Per lo studio delle classi subalterne’, Società, XVI, 436–49. Hobsbawm, E. (1985) ‘History from Below—Some Reflections’ in F. Krantz (ed.) History from Below (Montréal: Concordia University), pp. 63–73. Hobsbawm, E. (1995) George Rudé, 1910–1993: Marxist Historian, Memorial Tributes (London: Socialist History Society). Hobsbawm, E. (1998) Wieviel Geschichte braucht die Zukunft? (Munich: Beck). Iggers, G. G. (2012) ‘The Marxist Tradition of Historical Writing in the West: A Retrospect from the Beginning to the Twenty First Century’, Storia della storiografia, LXII, 63–77.

3  MARXIST HISTORIANS, COMMUNIST HISTORICAL CULTURES … 

85

Kaye, H. J. (1984) The British Marxist Historians (Oxford: Polity Press). Kimmel, M. S. (1977) ‘The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism. Rodney Hilton’, American Journal of Sociology, LXXXIII, 213–15. Kroll, T. (2007) Kommunistische Intellektuelle in Westeuropa. Frankreich, Österreich, Italien und Großbritannien im Vergleich (1945–1956) (Cologne: Böhlau). Laybourn, K. (2006) Marxism in Britain. Dissent, Decline and Reemergence 1945–c.2000 (London and New York: Routledge). Lefebvre, G. (1953) ‘Histoire de France et historiens soviétique’, Annales E.S.C., VIII, 74–76. Lefebvre, G. et al. (1958) Sansculotti e contadini nella rivoluzione francese (Bari: Laterza). Lemarchand, G. (2013) ‘Marxisme et histoire en France depuis la Deuxiéme Guerre mondiale (Partie I)’, Cahiers d’Histoire. Revue d’histoire critique, CXX, 171–80. Löwy, M. (2000) ‘Captain Swing à Pancho Villa. Résistances paysannes dans l’historiographie d’Eric Hobsbawm’, Diogène, 189, 3–13. Markov, W. (1955) ‘Grenzen des Jakobinerstaats’ in W. Krauss and H. Mayer (eds.) Grundpositionen der französischen Aufklärung (Berlin: Rütten and Loenig), pp. 209–42. Markov, W. (1960) ‘Georges Lefebvre en Allemagne’, Annales historiques de la Révolution française, LI, 90–96. Markov, W. (1961) Maximilien Robespierre 1758–1794 (Berlin: Rütten und Loenig). Markov, W. (1979) Kognak und Königsmörder (Berlin: Aufbau-Verlag). Markov, W. (1982) ‘Albert Soboul et l’historiographie d’expression allemande’, Annales historiques de la Révolution française, LIV, 567–71. Markov, W. and Soboul, A. (eds.) (1957) Die Sansculotten von Paris: Dokumente zur Geschichte der Volksbewegung 1793–1794 (Berlin: Akademieverlag). Mazauric, C. (2004) Albert Soboul (1914–1982) Un histoirien en son temps (Lavardac: Éditions d’Albret), pp. 60–83. Mazauric, C. (2009) L’Histoire de la Révolution Française et la pensée marxiste (Paris: puf). Meriggi, G. M. (2009) ‘Osservazioni sull’uso del marxismo nella storia sociale’ in C. A. Barberini (ed.) Marx e la storia (Milan: UNICOPLI), pp. 79–94. Middell, M. (2002) ‘Le séjour d’Albert Soboul en 1954 point de départ d’une coopération fructueuse’, Études babouvistes, 80–90. Middell, M. (2010) ‘Introduction: Transnationalism in Europe’ in W. Eberhard and C. Lübke (eds.) The Plurality of Europe: Identities and Spaces (Leipzig: Universitätsverlag), pp. 493–96. Middell, M. and Hadler, F. (2007) ‘Challenges to the History of Historiography in the Age of Globalization’ in Q. E. Wang and F. L. Fillafer (eds.) The Many Faces of Clio (New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books), pp. 293–306.

86  T. KROLL Palmer, R. R. (1960) ‘Popular Democracy in the French Revolution’, French Historical Studies, I, 445–69. Poghosyan, V. (2014) ‘La correspondance de Boris Porchnev et d’Albert Soboul. Un témoignage de l’amitié entre historiens soviétiques et français’, Annales historiques de la Révolution française, 376, 163–77. Poperen, J. (1952) ‘Albert Soboul: La Révolution Française (1789–1799)’, Cahiers du Communisme, XXIX, 203–10. Procacci, G. (1952) ‘Marc Bloch’, Belfagor, 7, 662–75. Procacci, G. (1955) Classi socialie monarchia assoluta nella Francia della prima metà del secolo XVI (Torino: Einaudi). Procacci, G. (1960) ‘Albert Soboul, Les sans-culottes parisiens’, Belfagor, XV, pp. 241–46. Prochasson, C. (2013) François Furet. Les Chemins de la mélancolie (Paris: Stock). Ragionieri, E. (1953) Un comune socialista: Sesto Fiorentino (Rome: Edizioni Rinascita). Richet, D. (1954) ‘Gramsci et l’histoire de la France’, La Pensée, LV, 61–78. Rudé, G. (1952) ‘La composition sociale des Insurrections parisiennes’, Annales historiques de la Révolution française, 286–88. Rudé, G. (1953) ‘Les ouvriers parisiens dans la Révolution française’, La Pensée, XLVIII/XLIX, 108–28. Rudé, G. (1959) The Crowd in the French Revolution (London and Oxford: Oxford University Press). Rudé, G. (1962) ‘I sanculotti: una discussione tra storici marxisti’, Critica storica, I, 369–98. Rudé, G. (1962) ‘Quelques réflexions sur la composition, le rôle, les idées et les formes d’action des sans-culottes dans la Révolution françaises’, Critica storica, I, 369–83. Rudé, G. (1982) ‘Albert Soboul: un témoignage personnel’, Annales historiques de la Révolution française, LIV, 557–61. Schmitt, E. (1976) Einführung in die Geschichte der französischen Revolution (Munich: Beck), pp. 32–33. Sereni, E. (1947) Il capitalismo nelle campagne (1860–1900) (Turin: Einaudi). Sereni, E. (1978) La rivoluzione italiana (Rome: Editori Riuniti). Soboul, A. (1951) ‘OEuvres de Maurice Thorez’, La Pensée, XXXV, 119–22. Soboul, A. (1953) ‘À propos des récents articles de George Rudé’, Annales historiques de la Révolution française, XXXIX, 289–91. Soboul, A. (1953) ‘Classi e lotte delle classi durante la Rivoluzione francese’, Movimento Operaio, II, 173–200. Soboul, A. (1954) ‘Classes et luttes de classe sous la Révolution française’, La Pensée, LIII, 39–62. Soboul, A. (1955a) ‘Untersuchungen über die Französische Revolution und Revolutionsregierung’, Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, III, 884–903.

3  MARXIST HISTORIANS, COMMUNIST HISTORICAL CULTURES … 

87

Soboul, A. (1955b) ‘Zum 80. Geburtstag von Georges Lefebvre’, Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, III, 124–30. Soboul, A. (1956) ‘Du féodalisme au capitalisme. Contribution à propos de la Révolution française’, La Pensée, 26–32. Soboul, A. (1958) Les Sans-culottes parisiens en l’an II; Histoire politique et sociale des sections de Paris, 2 juin 1793 –9 thermidor an II (La Roche-sur-Yon: Potier). Soboul, A. (1959) ‘Georges Lefebvre, historien du nord (1874–1959)’, Revue du Nord, 164, 339–43. Soboul, A. (1962) Die Sektionen von Paris im Jahre II (Berlin: Rütten and Loenig). Soboul, A. (1975) ʻGedanken zur Geschichte’ in Nachdenken über die Geschichte unserer Zeit (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag), pp. 28–34. Sweezy, P. et al. (1984) Der Übergang vom Feudalismus zum Kapitalismus (Frankfurt am Main: Syndikat). Thorez, M. (1949) Fils du peuple (Paris: Editions sociales). Tosel, A. (1995) ‘In Francia’ in E Hobsbawm (ed.) Gramsci in Europa e in America (Rome: Laterza), pp. 5–26. Villani, P. (1987) ‘La vicenda della storiografia italiana: continuità e fratture’ in P. Rossi (ed.) La storiografia contemporanea (Milano: Il saggiatore), pp. 391–99. Vittoria, A. (1992) Togliatti e gli intellettuali. Storia dell’Istituto Gramsci negli anni Cinquanta e Sessanta (Rome: Editori Riuniti). Vovelle, M. (1999) ‘La mia strada alla storia’, Studi Storici, XL, 657–80, 661. Zazzara, G. (2011) La storia a sinistra. Ricerca e impegno politico dopo il fascismo (Rome: Laterza).

CHAPTER 4

Left-Wing Historiography in Italy During the 1950s Gilda Zazzara

Left-Wing Historiography and Contemporary History Marxist-inspired historiography in Italy after 1945 has covered an extensive range of topics and methodology. The appeal of Marxism as a political and methodological theory has drawn in scholars of various generations and educational backgrounds; these scholars have devoted themselves to the study of political economics and cultures in a time span that ranges from ancient to contemporary history. In this essay, I shall confine myself to considering the experience of a generation of historians aligned politically to the left, who completed their own education after the end of World War II and started working in the 1950s. More precisely,

Translated by Jennifer Radice. G. Zazzara (*)  Università Ca’ Foscari, Venice, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2019 S. Berger and C. Cornelissen (eds.), Marxist Historical Cultures and Social Movements during the Cold War, Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03804-5_4

89

90  G. ZAZZARA

I shall refer to those who directed their researches towards what was then defined as ‘most recent history’, since there was not yet any field of studies in the universities named contemporary history. It was in this context that the historians encountered the world of politics at closer range, both as a personal experience of militancy and as a stimulus from outside the strictly professional field that is to say from the political parties and from public discussion. Alberto Caracciolo, one of the scholars in this group, stated that ‘in European culture historiography has always been a form of political knowledge’.1 It is clear that this is still more noticeable in the case of contemporary history, which began—according to Geoffrey Barraclough’s famous definition—‘when the problems which are actual in the world today first take visible shape’.2 Italy’s ‘actual’ problems after 1945 were those relating to the building of democracy after the catastrophe of Fascism and the war; problems, therefore, relating to the rapport between state and society, the profile of the ruling classes, the role of the masses and their political representatives and the thorny problem of economic development. For the historians, rethinking Italy’s contemporary history meant taking a road that had strayed radically from Fascism. The totalitarian regime had destroyed not only the socialist movement’s organizations but also the possibility of developing their practical and theoretical cultures. Marxist historians were not the only ones to take this road. Nevertheless, it was possible to identify in the ‘historiographic Left’—a composite and changeable area from the perspective of purely political choices—the intellectual sector that was the most committed to a thematic and methodological renovation of historical Italian studies.3 Most of the scholars who contributed to this area were also militant communists, socialists, anarchists and Liberal Socialists, but they will be considered here mainly from the perspective of their education as historians through universities and some centres of external academic research. 1 A. Caracciolo (1986) ‘Fra storiografie nazionali e storia sociale’ in G. Arnaldi et al. (eds.) Incontro con gli storici (Rome and Bari: Laterza), pp. 19–36, 25–26. See also A. Caracciolo (1990) ‘Dal marxismo all’ecostoria’, Meridiana, IV, 9, 205–22. 2 G. Barraclough (1964) An Introduction to Contemporary History (London: C. A. Watts & Co.), p. 12. 3 G. Manacorda (1974) ‘Sinistra storiografica e dialettica interna’ in O. Cecchi (ed.) La ricerca storica marxista in Italia (Rome: Editori Riuniti), pp. 15–30.

4  LEFT-WING HISTORIOGRAPHY IN ITALY DURING THE 1950S 

91

I consider that such places—here I have in mind the Feltrinelli Library, the Gramsci Foundation and the National Institute for the History of the Italian Liberation Movement (INSMLI)—played an important part in the consolidation of the discipline of history, creating a cultural and poli­tical space that also embraced publishing and general support for the birth of contemporary history.4 Indeed, as David Bidussa has noted: ‘The history of the labour movement as recorded in Italian historiography is not a problem of cultural hegemony: it concerns the creation of a discipline’.5 The universities’ first contemporary history competition was not to be announced until 1960.6 Significantly, none of the three winners were of the Marxist persuasion: the academic establishment, educated for the most part during the Fascist period, objected for many years to historians of the Left on the grounds that their studies had an entirely political purpose, that they were not pertinent to rigorous research, or else that their topics had not yet risen to the high rank of history. The political dimension of historical research was opposed by their critics as a violation of the ‘rules of the game’ but defended by their supporters as an option that was inseparable from specific disciplinary obligations.7 Among the ‘rules of the game’ was the paradigm of the necessary ‘time distance’ of the scholar from the events being studied, as a guarantee of his or her neutrality. Yet this ‘rule’ had already been violated right up to the top ranks of historiography after World War I. Among the effects of that brutality experienced by the masses was a new and significant switch of interest on the part of the historians towards ‘most recent history’.8 4 G. Zazzara (2011) La storia a sinistra. Ricerca e impegno politico dopo il fascismo (Rome and Bari: Laterza). 5 D. Bidussa (1998) ‘Storia e storiografia sul movimento operaio nell’Italia del secondo dopoguerra. Gli anni della formazione (1945–1956)’ in L. Cortesi and A. Panaccione (eds.) Il socialismo e la storia. Studi per Stefano Merli (Milano: Angeli), pp. 183–230, p. 192. 6 ‘Relazione della commissione giudicatrice del concorso alla cattedra di storia contemporanea dell’Università di Firenze’ (1961), Bollettino ufficiale del Ministero della Pubblica istruzione, 12, 2096–101. 7 M. Legnani (2000) Al mercato della storia. Il mestiere di storico tra scienza e consumo (Rome: Carocci). 8 B. Bracco (1998) Storici italiani e politica estera. Tra Salvemini e Volpe 1917–1925 (Milan: Angeli); P. Cavina and L. Grilli (1998) Gaetano Salvemini e Gioacchino Volpe: dalla storia medievale alla storia contemporanea (Pisa: Edizioni della Normale); and F. Cossalter (2007) Come nasce uno storico contemporaneo. Gioacchino Volpe tra guerra, dopoguerra, fascismo (Rome: Carocci).

92  G. ZAZZARA

A Generation of Heirs and Rivals During the Fascist period, Marxism was banned as a political movement and a methodology. In that period, as Norberto Bobbio has recorded: ‘If the tradition of the liberal State is a field in which an authoritative historian can still proceed with a degree of freedom, […] the historical problems of socialism and communism are a minefield’.9 The world of academia and high culture underwent a far-reaching Fascistization: in 1931 university professors were required to swear allegiance to the regime and only 12 of them avoided doing this. Among these was only one ancient history scholar, the Catholic Gaetano De Sanctis.10 The alignment of the regime’s culture—in the shape of open propaganda, dissembling or ‘thoughts that were no longer thought’—was particularly intense among those historians who were working closer to the present time.11 In 1925, the government created the first professorships of the history of the Risorgimento, the movement that led to the unification of Italy in 1861. This disciplinary sector was closely watched by those in power, since the Risorgimento could have been interpreted as the prerequisite for the national adoption of Fascism.12 The anti-Fascist Piero Gobetti scornfully defined the teaching of Risorgimento history as ‘professorships of apology salaried by official myth’.13 The interpretation of contemporary Italian history was indeed the subject in the 1920s of a final free confrontation between the two opposing syntheses of the idealist philosopher Benedetto Croce, a symbol of moderate liberal anti-Fascism, and the historian Gioacchino Volpe, who had supported Fascism with conviction and assumed

9 N. Bobbio (1973) ‘La cultura e il fascismo’ in G. Quazza et al. (eds.) Fascismo e società italiana (Turin: Einaudi), pp. 209–46, p. 226. 10 H. Goetz (2000) Il giuramento rifiutato. I docenti universitari e il regime fascista, 2nd ed. (Milan: La Nuova Italia); G. Boatti (2001) Preferirei di no (Turin: Einaudi). 11 A. Momigliano (1950) ‘Gli studi italiani di storia greca e romana dal 1859 al 1939’ in R. Mattioli and C. Antoni (eds.) Cinquant’anni di vita intellettuale italiana 1896–1946. Scritti in onore di Benedetto Croce per il suo ottantesimo anniversario, 2 vols., vol. I (Naples: Esi), p. 120. 12 M. Baioni (2006) Risorgimento in camicia nera. Studi, istituzioni, musei nell’Italia fascista (Rome: Carocci). 13 P. Gobetti (2011) Risorgimento senza eroi. Studi sul pensiero piemontese nel Risorgimento, remake (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura), p. 14.

4  LEFT-WING HISTORIOGRAPHY IN ITALY DURING THE 1950S 

93

important roles as a cultural representative.14 The clash between the two opposing histories of Italy—both antithetical in their judgement of liberal Italy—confirmed the intrinsic politicization of recent history, the idea that this history was completely implicated in the conflicts of legitimization of power.15 In the 1930s, some of Italy’s greatest historians were working around topics of modern history under the guidance of Volpe at the School of Modern and Contemporary History in Rome. These historians were to become points of reference for the first post-war generation.16 A great many Marxist scholars had direct connections with Carlo Morandi, Federico Chabod and Walter Maturi. Another point of reference for them, not to be ignored, was Delio Cantimori.17 This great historian of European culture between the modern and the contemporary had studied the idealistic philosophy of Giovanni Gentile, the most representative of the regime’s intellectuals.18 After the war, Cantimori joined the Italian Communist Party (PCI), translated the first volume of Marx’s Das Kapital and dedicated various university courses to it.19 Right up to his death in 1966, Cantimori maintained a constant dialogue with young students ‘of the Marxist tendency’ (Cantimori preferred this definition to ‘following Marxism’, evoking the presence of a ‘direction’): that is to say, a constant dialogue that oscillated between controversy, fatherly scolding, encouragement and genuine support with their studies.20 14 E. Gentile (1983) ‘Breve storia delle storie d’Italia dall’Unità alla Repubblica’ in R. De Felice (ed.) Storia dell’Italia contemporanea, vol. VII, Cultura e società 1870–1975 (Naples: Edizioni scientifiche italiane), pp. 253–322. 15 B. Croce (1991) Storia d’Italia dal 1871 al 1915, 2nd ed. (Naples: Bibliopolis); G. Volpe (1991) L’Italia in cammino. L’ultimo cinquantennio, ed. G. Belardelli (Rome and Bari: Laterza). 16 M. Angelini (2010) Fare storia. Culture e pratiche della ricerca in Italia da Gioacchino Volpe a Federico Chabod (Rome: Carocci); M. Angelini (2010) ‘Transmitting Knowledge: The Professionalisation of Italian Historians (1920s–1950s)’, Storia della Storiografia, monographic issue 57. 17 On Delio Cantimori there is a huge bibliography. For an overall view, see P. Craveri (1975) ‘Cantimori, Delio’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, vol. XVIII (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana), ad vocem (also online). 18 G. Turi (1995) Giovanni Gentile. Una biografia (Florence: Giunti). 19 K. Marx (1952) Il processo di produzione del capitale (Rome: Edizioni Rinascita). See also D. Cantimori (1959) Studi di storia (Turin: Einaudi). 20 D. Cantimori (1967) Conversando di storia (Bari: Laterza), p. 114.

94  G. ZAZZARA

Cantimori’s public and private encounters with young Marxists were always based on professional ethics and the seriousness and rigour of the historian’s work. In a university that was still a long way from becoming an organization for instructing the masses, the links between tutor and student had a character that was not merely hierarchical but also intimate, personal, even devotional. A testimony to this affectionate dimension of scholarship can be found, beyond the rhetoric proper to this genre, in the epitaphs dedicated to the tutors after their death.21 A meeting with tutors of the 1930s took place mainly at the scientific and (in the wider sense) professional level. It was certainly not the students who ‘brought to trial’ their tutors because of their tortuous journeys through Fascism, from which all of them (except for Volpe) had distanced themselves in various ways. Young Marxist scholars chose from their works whatever was right for their cultural project: many, for example, had recourse to Morandi for some of his writings that recommended a vast programme of research on the history of socialism and political parties.22 But the work that attracted most attention among the students was that of another of Volpe’s pupils, Nello Rosselli, who had in actual fact undertaken the reconstruction of the history of socialism but whose work was interrupted by Fascist hired killers who assassinated him in France, along with his brother Carlo.23 But these intellectuals had in mind above all the most authoritative historiography of the 1930s for the transference of the professional manner and the critical method, that is to say the ‘profession’ of the historian. This intangible cultural patrimony was of fundamental importance to ensure that Marxist-inspired historiography was recognized by legitimate learned bodies and not dismissed as mere propaganda or disguised journalism. One scholar of that generation, the communist Enzo Santarelli, used for himself and his colleagues the useful definition of the 21 See, for example, E. Ragionieri (1950) ‘Ricordo di Carlo Morandi’, Belfagor, 3, 350–53; G. Manacorda (1966) ‘Ricordo di Delio Cantimori’, Studi Storici, 3, 639–43. 22 C. Morandi (1945) I partiti politici nella storia d’Italia (Firenze: Le Monnier); C. Morandi (1946) ‘Per una storia del socialismo in Italia’, Belfagor, 2, 162–68. 23 N. Rosselli (1927) Mazzini e Bakounine. Dodici anni di movimento operaio in Italia (1860–1872) (Turin: Bocca). On the murder of the brothers Rosselli, see M. Franzinelli (2007) Il delitto Rosselli (9 giugno 1937). Anatomia di un omicidio politico (Milan: Mondadori).

4  LEFT-WING HISTORIOGRAPHY IN ITALY DURING THE 1950S 

95

‘heirs-rivals’ of bourgeois historiography: political rivals, but cultural heirs.24 The work and individual and collective strategies employed by the scholars must therefore be viewed in the light of the conditioning of the ‘scientific field’ in which they intended to place themselves.25

Inside and Outside the University After 1945, the study of history was strongly attractive to young intellectuals and often drew them away from university courses in other disciplines such as literature, art and law. The ruinous collapse of the Fascist state and the dramatic experience of total war introduced into the world of culture a need for true awareness of society, causing the intellectuals to reject the ideology, aesthetics and rhetoric of Fascism. Historiography, along with films and literature, was suddenly hit by a new realism.26 Benedetto Croce’s liberal historicism and his ethical and political version of historiography did not meet this need for pragmatism. Marxism supplied new conceptual tools for the revision of Italy’s history. As is known, the reception (and the reworking, never interrupted) of the remarkable writings of Antonio Gramsci, made available in an edition edited by the Communist Party from 1948, played a significant role in this process.27 Gramsci’s non-dogmatic Marxism, his constant reflection over a long period on the characteristics of Italian society and his setting-up of new conceptual tools inspired numerous journeys of historiographic verification.28 The new studies focused mainly on the history of the working class and peasant movement. The most urgent problem was the role played by the lower classes in Italy’s history and their contribution to economic 24 E. Santarelli (1955) ‘Storia del movimento operaio e storia nazionale’, Movimento Operaio, VII, 2, 294–300, 299. The concept of ‘heirs-rivals’ is adopted also by S. Woolf (1981) ‘La Storia d’Italia’, Italia Contemporanea, 142, 125–34. See also G. Zazzara (2017) ‘Santarelli, Enzo’ in Dizionario biografico degli italiani, vol. XC (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana), ad vocem (also online). 25 On the structure of the ‘field of cultural production’ see P. Bourdieu (1992) Les règles de l’art. Genèse et structure du champ littéraire (Paris: Seuil). 26 N. Ajello (1979) Intellettuali e Pci (1944–1958) (Rome and Bari: Laterza), p. 349. 27 Gramsci’s prison notebooks were published between 1948 and 1951 for Einaudi in a ‘thematic edition’; in 1975 the Istituto Gramsci published a new ‘philological edition’. See the English edition: A. Gramsci (1992) Prison Notebooks, 3 vols. (New York: Columbia University Press). 28 See, for example, G. Candeloro (1956–1986) Storia dell’Italia moderna, 11 vols. (Milan: Feltrinelli).

96  G. ZAZZARA

and political evolution through socialist theory and the class struggle. This was a field that had to be re-established and reinvented almost from the beginning; the available writings were hard to come by and fragmented even though, as Paolo Favilli noted, important references were emerging from the past.29 We can trace back to this common framework the early works of Alberto Caracciolo on the peasant movement in Lazio; Elio Conti on the origins of socialism in Florence and Luciano Cafagna in Rome; Ernesto Ragionieri on the socialist municipality in Sesto Fiorentino; Gastone Manacorda on the Socialist Party’s congresses; and Paolo Spriano on Turin’s working class, to name just a few.30 These writers often added extracts from archives and versions of documents of socialist and Marxist thinking to their monographs in local publications.31 These authors were members of the left-wing parties (especially the PCI) but at the same time were men who aspired to a professional career in a university. As I have indicated, they found themselves faced with an academic establishment that was mistrustful (if not hostile) to their concerns; these had no outlet in national historical periodicals. They found the space for acquiring knowledge and discussions outside the university in a new network of ‘private’ places, unconnected with institutions or academia and promoted and supported by the political world in various ways. Cafagna always recalled that ‘not even Cantimori, though he was close to some of us, was unreservedly sympathetic to our attempts. He was annoyed by the idea that a generation of historians could be formed outside normal academic channels. If there was an evolution in

29 P. Favilli (2006) Marxismo e storia. Saggio sull’innovazione storiografica in Italia (1945–1970) (Milan: Angeli); P. Favilli (1996) Storia del marxismo italiano. Dalle origini alla grande guerra (Milan: Angeli). 30 E. Conti (1950) Le origini del socialismo a Firenze 1860–1880 (Rome: Edizioni Rinascita); A. Caracciolo (1952) Il movimento contadino nel Lazio (1870–1922) (Rome: Edizioni Rinascita); L. Cafagna (1953) Anarchismo e socialismo a Roma negli anni della “febbre edilizia” e della crisi 1881–1891 (Milan: Feltrinelli); G. Manacorda (1953) Il movimento operaio italiano attraverso i suoi congressi. 1853–1892 (Rome: Edizioni Rinascita); E. Ragionieri (1953) Un comune socialista. Sesto Fiorentino (Rome: Edizioni Rinascita); and P. Spriano (1958) Socialismo e classe operaia a Torino dal 1892 al 1913 (Turin: Einaudi). 31 For example the letters of Marx and Engels with their Italian correspondents, later collected in K. Marx and F. Engels (1955) Scritti italiani, ed. G. Bosio (Rome and Milan: Edizioni Avanti!).

4  LEFT-WING HISTORIOGRAPHY IN ITALY DURING THE 1950S 

97

our group towards economic and historical history, this came through self-education’.32 The Feltrinelli Library, the Gramsci Foundation and the National Institute for the History of the Italian Liberation Movement, all of them born in the 1950s, oversaw this process of ‘self-education’. Despite the differences in their internal organization and cultural mission, these three centres had aspects in common. Above all, they valued the objectives of safeguarding documents by preserving archives and establishing libraries. To make the most of their own documentary resources, they encouraged the most promising students to make good use of them for detailed research. In addition, they offered them opportunities to meet scholars and members of the public through promoting seminars, conferences and periodicals. Finally, historians discussed their own work in these places directly with politicians and intellectuals who had personal experience of the great conflicts of the twentieth century. In my opinion, this meeting of minds—not without its awkward moments and self-criticism—opened up historiography to a sensitiveness towards the subjectivity of testimonies that were not irrelevant to the development of an important Italian school of oral history.33 In the 1950s, these places enabled the development of competencies that were specifically related to the field of contemporary history, in contrast to the university world that was trying to discourage it. What I should like to emphasize particularly is that these interests were certainly conceived in a strong bond with the left-wing parties: to put it briefly, as a contribution to the affirmation of a socialist culture in Italy but not as a service to politics. What supplied a shelter to the ideological rigidity of the Cold War and, for the Marxist historiographer, to the alignment with Zhdanovism was precisely the ambition of the youngest students to be acknowledged in the scientific and university field. In short, Fascism and Stalinism had not managed to destroy a very symbolic product of the longer process of professionalizing historical studies, namely the autonomy of research, in order to behave iuxta propria principia and to submit to the scrutiny of equals.

32 Statement of Luciano Cafagna, quoted in N. Ajello (1979), Intellettuali e Pci (1944– 1958) (Rome and Bari: Laterza), p. 349. 33 B. Bonomo (2013) Voci della memoria. L’uso delle fonti orali nella ricerca storica (Rome: Carocci).

98  G. ZAZZARA

The Communist Pole: The Feltrinelli Library of Milan and the Gramsci Foundation of Rome The Feltrinelli Library of Milan came into being in 1951 with a legacy of books acquired by Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, a scion of the Lombardian industrial bourgeoisie who had joined the PCI.34 In the space of a few years, Feltrinelli had acquired 40,000 volumes in Italy and the rest of Europe; these included monographs, periodicals and pamphlets relating to the origins of socialism, the international working-class movement and European thinking about economics from the eighteenth century onwards. In order to record the material and set up the library, Feltrinelli assembled a small group of young communist and socialist intellectuals. The ‘Feltrinelli Project’ aimed to build the philological foundations for a renewal of Italian culture and to save documents and traditions that were believed to be endangered in the Cold War climate. Feltrinelli’s models were Amsterdam’s International Institute of Social History, which in the 1930s had boldly hidden important archives about the working-class movement from destruction by the Nazis, and the French Institute of Social History in Paris, because of its attention to the subjective nature of the militants.35 In 1952, Feltrinelli took over the periodical ‘Movimento operaio’ (‘Working-class Movement’), founded three years earlier by the socialist Gianni Bosio. Bosio was a creative intellectual and organizer of culture with popular origins. He had enrolled at Padua University in 1942, but then transferred to Milan because he had not managed to find any tutor in Padua who was prepared to allow him to present a graduation thesis on the history of Italian Marxism at the end of the nineteenth century.36

34 On Feltrinelli, see the book by his son C. Feltrinelli (1999) Senior Service (Milan: Feltrinelli). On the Biblioteca (from 1960 Institute) Feltrinelli, see D. Bidussa (2000) ‘I caratteri originari della fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli’, Società e Storia, XXIII, 90, 677– 706; D. Bidussa (1999) ‘La Biblioteca Feltrinelli dall’ “accumulazione originaria” alla nascita degli “Annali” (1950–1959)’, Studi Storici, XL, 4, 945–91; and G. Petrillo (1998) ‘The Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli of Milan’, Journal of Contemporary History, 4, 513–28. 35 A. van der Horst and E. Koen (eds.) (1989) Guide to the International Archives and Collections at the IISH (Amsterdam: International Institute of Social History); M. Dreyfus (1983) Guide des centres de documentation en histoire ouvrière et sociale (Paris: Editions ouvrières). 36 ‘E Gianni Bosio disse’ (2009), Il de Martino, monographic issue, 19–20.

4  LEFT-WING HISTORIOGRAPHY IN ITALY DURING THE 1950S 

99

Bosio’s periodical was a true ‘training ground’ for the young Marxist historians, since it accepted their first essays on the origins of the socialist movement, giving space to methodological arguments and, more generally, creating a cultural network of experts and enthusiasts.37 In these same years, Feltrinelli financed another of Bosio’s projects, closely linked to the documentary inspiration of the periodical. It was a huge general research project on the working-class periodical’s press from the unification to the beginning of Fascism. Franco Della Peruta, then an employee of the Feltrinelli Library, was entrusted with the coordination of the project; he was to become one of the greatest historians of the democratic and socialist movement.38 Della Peruta supervised over 100 researchers who sought out all the periodicals relating to the working-class movement in local archives and libraries in every Italian province. Provincial ‘militant intellectuals’—students and teachers—and some of the main scholars of post-war socialist history took part in this network. Beyond the publishing results (of the many volumes anticipated, only two were completed), the research into the periodical’s press was of considerable value for ‘self-education’, to quote Cafagna’s words. Attempts—consistent with the teachings of Antonio Gramsci—were made through the press to understand how the lower classes fitted into Italy’s history and to reconstruct philologically their culture before and after the birth of the Socialist Party.39 Both ‘Working-class Movement’ and the project to create a bibliography of the working-class press came to an end in 1956. In particular as far as the periodical was concerned, the closure has been mainly interpreted as a consequence of the breakdown of the ‘unity of action’ between communists and socialists following the Soviet invasion of Hungary. In truth, the discussions among the editorial staff had mainly involved the methodological aspects of the work and the more general cultural project of Marxist historiography. As for its members, the plan drawn up by Bosio for ‘Working-class Movement’ was too limited to a local dimension and to the vision of a working-class movement as 37 See the general index in the last issue of the review (1956): ‘Indice generale’, Movimento Operaio, VIII, 6. 38 Franco Della Peruta died in 2012. See, among others, the portrait of M. Bertolotti, ‘Franco Della Peruta’, Belfagor, LXVII, 1, 45–60. 39 G. Zazzara (2016) ‘La Bibliografia della stampa periodica operaia e socialista italiana’ in G. Berta and G. Bigatti (eds.) La Biblioteca-Istituto Feltrinelli. Progetto e storia (Milan: Feltrinelli), pp. 220–41.

100  G. ZAZZARA

an alternative concept, hostile to the State. In particular, the history of socialism, especially among communist historians, indicated the march of the proletariat towards the conquest of political and economic power. This vision was closely linked to the Soviet myth, but also fitted in perfectly with Palmiro Togliatti’s ‘Italian way to socialism’, with its vision of a hegemonic working class within a network of wider social alliances.40 In order to win over the middle-class intellectuals and weld them to the party line, the Gramsci Foundation was created in Rome in 1950.41 This centre depended directly on the Cultural Commission of the PCI, headed at that time by the Marxist historian Emilio Sereni.42 The purpose of the Foundation was to exploit Gramsci’s legacy, oversee the publication of his works and, by following his teachings, promote Marxism in Italy. The Foundation became part of a network of the party’s cultural initiatives, including the Edizioni Rinascita and the periodical ‘Società’ whose premises it shared. In its early years, the Gramsci Foundation struggled to launch a genuinely recognizable activity. For the most part, it developed internal initiatives, aimed at Rome’s young intellectuals including a large group of historians. In 1954, these historians were invited to hear a report entitled The Orientation and Tasks of Marxist Historiography in Italy by a political leader, Arturo Colombi, who was in charge of the ideological section of the party’s Central Committee. Colombi cited Stalin’s History of the Communist Party as an example for the historians and attacked Manacorda’s recent book about socialist congresses because in his opinion Manacorda was not firm enough in his condemnation of reformist socialism; he begged the scholars to dedicate themselves to national history, rather than local.43 What happened next was

40 D. Sassoon (1980) Togliatti e la via italiana al socialismo. Il Pci dal 1944 al 1956 (Turin: Einaudi). For a complete reference list, see A. Vittoria (2006) Storia del PCI 1921– 1991 (Rome: Carocci). 41 From 1954 Istituto Gramsci. 42 His most influential book is E. Sereni (1947) Il capitalismo nelle campagne (1860– 1900) (Turin: Einaudi). See also G. Vecchio (2011) ‘Emilio Sereni, comunista. Note per una biografia’ in E. Bernardi (ed.) Emilio Sereni. Lettere (1945–1956) (Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino), pp. 335–444. 43 A. Vittoria (1992) Togliatti e gli intellettuali. Storia dell’Istituto Gramsci negli anni Cinquanta e Sessanta (Rome: Editori Riuniti).

4  LEFT-WING HISTORIOGRAPHY IN ITALY DURING THE 1950S 

101

‘absolutely unprecedented’44 for the PCI of that era: many of those present intervened in rejecting Colombi’s report, which claimed to dictate rules to historians in accordance with the worst sort of Zdanovist culture, forgetting ‘the existence of an historical Italian culture, of which we Marxist historians form a part’.45 The most important consequence of this encounter was Togliatti’s intervention: in a letter to the director of the Gramsci Foundation, he severely criticized Colombi’s approach, which had been presented to the discussion with the historians as a judgement of them from the outside. ‘In this way’, stated the PCI leader, ‘Marxism is discredited and support is given to the slanderous opinion that for us scientific truth does not exist; only political convenience, so that we judge and condemn with massive condescension’.46 Although some of the participants at the meeting proposed that Togliatti’s letter should be published straight away, the affair remained secret but not without consequences: a few months later the office-­holders at the Cultural Commission and the Gramsci Foundation were replaced. The directorship of the Foundation was entrusted to a man of letters, Alessandro Natta, who came from Italy’s most prestigious academic institution, Pisa’s Scuola Normale Superiore. Natta’s objective was to transform the Foundation into an open ‘school of Marxism’, with series of lectures according to the university model. Among the themes suggested were State and Society in Italy from Italian Unification to the End-ofCentury Crisis and The History of Fascism and Anti-Fascism (1914–1934). The 1956 crisis—along with the events in Poland and Hungary and the ‘revelations’ of the 20th Congress of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party—had repercussions within the two main historical institutions linked to the PCI. The famous letter announcing their dissociation from the Soviet invasion of Hungary, signed by about 100 intellectuals, was drafted at the house of Cafagna, who collaborated with both the Gramsci Foundation and the Feltrinelli Library; various other historians connected with the activities of these institutions

44 G. Manacorda (1990) ‘Partito e cultura’ (1992) in C. Natoli, L. Rapone and B. Tobia (eds.) Il movimento reale e la coscienza inquieta. Italia liberale e il socialismo e altri scritti tra storia e memoria (Milan: Angeli), pp. 287–92, p. 289. 45 Manacorda’s reply is published in ‘Gastone Manacorda: storia e politica’ (2003), Studi storici, monographic issue 3–4, 1016–25. 46 Togliatti’s letter is quoted in full in A. Vittoria, Togliatti e gli intellettuali.

102  G. ZAZZARA

were among the signatories.47 But the crisis also served to clarify matters, making it all the more urgent for the historians to put in place a self-regulating system, subjected to processes of validation and reputation among equals. The closing down of ‘Working-class Movement’, predictably, gave birth to many other methodical initiatives, the most authoritative and long-lived of these being the periodicals ‘Studi storici’ and the Biblioteca Feltrinelli’s ‘Annali’. In short, ‘left-wing historiography’ could claim by the end of the 1950s to have reached a stage of maturity that allowed it to initiate new and more ambitious projects.

The Anti-Fascist Pole: The Historical Institutes of the Resistance I think that it is appropriate to associate the National Institute for the History of the Italian Liberation Movement (INSMLI), founded in Milan in 1949 along with its journal ‘Il Movimento di Liberazione in Italia’ (‘The Italian Liberation Movement’), with the Feltrinelli Library and the Gramsci Foundation. That Institute came into being ‘through a private initiative by men of the Resistance, with the significant help of professional historians’.48 Ferruccio Parri, former leader of the recently disbanded Action Party and head of the military Resistance, became president of the new Institute. He had been the first prime minister of free Italy, heading the governments of anti-Fascist unity. As for the INSMLI, it was associated not so much with Marxist historiography (even though it was attended by many Marxist historians) but more appropriately with anti-Fascist historiography. The INSMLI offered to be the coordination centre for a local network of similar institutions (the first ones had already come into existence in Turin and Genoa in 1947) that would continue to develop throughout the Republic, starting with the cities in which the partisan movement had been the most prominent. Today the ‘confederation’ of the institutes is made up of 65 centres in the whole of Italy.49

47 N.

Ajello (1979) Intellettuali e Pci. Collotti (2000) ‘L’INSMLI e la rete degli Istituti associati. Cinquant’anni di vita’, Italia Contemporanea, LII, 219, 181–91, 182. In 2017 the INSMLI changed its name to National Institute ‘Ferruccio Parri’. 49 G. Grassi (1993) Resistenza e storia d’Italia. Quarant’anni di vita dell’Istituto nazionale e degli istituti associati 1949–1989 (Milan: Angeli). 48 E.

4  LEFT-WING HISTORIOGRAPHY IN ITALY DURING THE 1950S 

103

In 1974, ‘The Italian Liberation Movement’ changed its name to ‘Contemporary Italy’ and is today one of the most acknowledged scientific journals of the sector.50 Like the Feltrinelli Library and the Gramsci Foundation, the institutes for Resistance history emerged as part of a documentary project, concerned in this instance with safeguarding the political and military source material relating to the National Liberation Committees (CLN) and the training of partisans. After a long discussion, it was decided not to donate these documents to the State archives (which at that time were held by the Ministry of the Interior) for fear that they might be filed away and forgotten or indeed used against former combatants. And the partisan movement did indeed suffer a severe political and judicial onslaught during the Cold War years.51 The institutes made slow progress with their work, since they had to deal with many practical and financial problems relating to their offices and staff. The work started with the publishing of complete documents in the journal, the promotion of study bursaries and making contact with the first international networks such as Henri Michel’s ‘Comité d’histoire de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale’ and the Fédération Internationale des Résistantes.52 The history of the Resistance—a very recent experience, in which could be detected in particular the political dimension and rationale of the republican constitution—represented the most exposed frontier of contemporary history. But as Jacques Le Goff has noted, the fall of Fascism and World War II were for Italian people such a searing experience that they represented a sort of ‘new beginning’ in contemporary history, comparable to the national unification.53 The historical institutes of the Resistance came into being as a ‘historiographic heresy’,

50 M. Legnani (1986) ‘“Italia Contemporanea” tra interno ed esterno’, Italia Contemporanea, XXXVIII, 163, 107–16. 51 G. Neppi Modona (1997), ‘La magistratura dalla Liberazione agli anni cinquanta. Il difficile cammino verso l’indipendenza’ in F. Barbagallo et al. (eds.) Storia dell’Italia repubblicana, vol. III, L’Italia nella crisi mondiale. L’ultimo ventennio, t. 2, Istituzioni, politiche, culture (Turin: Einaudi), pp. 83–137. 52 G. Vaccarino (1950) ‘Le mouvement de Libération national en Italie (1943–1945)’, Cahiers d’Histoire de la guerre, 3, 77–112. 53 J. Le Goff (1988) Histoire et mémoire, 2nd ed. (Paris: Gallimard), p. 31.

104  G. ZAZZARA

openly challenging the dogma of the neutrality that was guaranteed to the scholar by the time that had elapsed since the events being studied.54 Precisely because of this, a premature (and never again interrupted) deliberation on the epistemological charter of contemporary history took hold in the institutes’ network. In 1952, a conference entitled ‘The Historiography of the Resistance and Its Methodological Problems’ was organized in Milan. Among the most important reports—almost a programmatic manifesto—was one on the ‘probability of the history of recent events’, which recorded that ‘as for the use of contemporary documents, the same norms that historical methodology applies to less recent or ancient documents will apply here’.55 The following year the publishing house Einaudi (the one that published Gramsci’s Quaderni) issued Roberto Battaglia’s History of the Resistance: this was the first general summary of the events of that period.56 Battaglia’s biography is an exemplar of how the experience of armed anti-Fascism had deviated the paths of intellectuals towards contemporary history. Until the start of the civil war, Battaglia had been ‘an unworried art history scholar’, who calmly passed through the Fascist years, when intellectuals had been left ‘free as air to study Machiavelli or Dante, Michelangelo or Leonardo, as long as they didn’t annoy anyone or interfere with things that were not their business’.57 After the 1943 armistice, Battaglia had joined the Resistance; he became a commanding officer with the partisans and joined the PCI when the Action Party was disbanded. Even his cultural interests were disrupted by his war experiences, driving him away from art history to contemporary history. Battaglia still belonged to a generation of historical witnesses, but his synthesis—Claudio Pavone defined it as ‘the best general history of the Resistance, which even today must be recommended to students for their first approach to the subject’—served to open up a space to topics

54 S. Magagnoli (1994) ‘Dagli istituti “militanti” agli istituti “scientifici”’, Italia Contemporanea, XLVI, 195, 435–45, 436. 55 P. Pieri (1953) ‘È possibile la storia di avvenimenti molto recenti?’, Il Movimento di Liberazione in Italia, V, 22, 7–15, 12. 56 R. Battaglia (1953) Storia della Resistenza italiana (8 settembre 1943–25 aprile 1945) (Turin: Einaudi). 57 R. Battaglia (1994) Un uomo, un partigiano (Bologna: il Mulino), pp. 19, 22.

4  LEFT-WING HISTORIOGRAPHY IN ITALY DURING THE 1950S 

105

that had been deliberately censured by scholastic teachings.58 And this commitment to updating scholastic programmes was a characteristic (and long-lasting) feature of the Resistance Institutes’ activity; they formed a solid rapport with schoolteachers. The Institutes’ directors, although they were chosen by means of a precise measure of politics (all the political parties who had had a role in the war of Liberation would have had to be represented) did not wish to be associated with the ex-servicemen. For this reason, they soon opened their doors to the younger generation, no longer only to eyewitnesses and wartime protagonists. From the second half of the 1950s, some essays began to be published in the periodical ‘The Liberation Movement in Italy’; these essays were the first to reconstruct the phenomenon of the armed Resistance in various parts of Italy, making use of the documents preserved by the Institutes. In 1959, ten years after its birth, the INSMLI organized—for the first time in a university—a conference entitled The Historiography of the Resistance. Parri introduced the work of the conference, stating that it was now time to emerge from the straitjacket of the history of 1943– 1945 and write ‘a history of the Fascist regime as an antithesis’, that is to say from the anti-Fascist perspective.59 Battaglia praised the passing ‘from memoirs to an historical essay’ and ‘the integration of Resistance studies with the academic traditions of the university’.60 A number of students who had been involved in the original research into Resistance history intervened in the debate, claiming the contribution of a generation that was not personally involved with the war but capable of studying the Resistance ‘in accordance with methodological rigour and philological accuracy, in the same way as they would study, for example, the Middle Ages or the Risorgimento’.61 In those years Guido Quazza, a pupil of Maturi, allowed his students to write their first degree thesis on the subject of the Resistance. He himself had been a commanding officer with the partisans in Piedmont and

58 C. Pavone (1995) Alle origini della Repubblica. Scritti su fascismo, antifascismo e continuità dello Stato (Turin: Bollati Boringhieri), p. 194. 59 See the conference proceedings in Il Movimento di Liberazione in Italia, XI, 57, 14. 60 Ibidem, 130. 61 Ibidem, 147.

106  G. ZAZZARA

was an active supporter of the Socialist Party after the war.62 After his first studies of modern political history, Quazza turned resolutely to the history of the Resistance, as a scholar but especially as a promoter and organizer of historical studies. In 1972, he would be elected as president of the INSMLI, replacing Parri. Quazza still belonged to the protagonists’ generation, but he was also an academic who was deeply engaged in the renewal of the university’s teaching methods and its democratization.63 Indeed, under his presidency the Institutes, who were gradually changing their name into Institutes ‘of Resistance history and contemporary society’, undertook the transition from Fascism to republican Italy and the problem of the ‘continuity of the State’ as their general research programme.

A Battle Won? For scholars of contemporary history, and for the institutes outside academia where they offered to work, the 1950s were a lengthy phase of accumulation of competences and consolidation of knowledge. Despite the widely held opinion that ‘university history had been controlled since immediately after the war by left-wing exponents’, the climb up the university ladder would be long and hard-fought for many of them.64 With the change in the general social profile—the launch of centre-left governments, industrial modernization and above all the recovery of the working-class movement and anti-Fascism—contemporary history and the historiography of the Left was to bring in an era of greater public influence and professional development. Among the outcomes of the unexpected explosion of anti-Fascist ideals among young people, which was expressed in the anti-government demonstrations in the summer of 1960, a series of public lectures on contemporary history was organized in the main Italian cities. Eyewitnesses and historians were summoned to speak to a vast audience of interested citizens about the twentieth century, its

62 G. Quazza (1966) ‘Diario partigiano’ in G. Quazza (ed.) La Resistenza italiana. Appunti e documenti (Turin: Giappichelli Editore), pp. 127–247. 63 G. Zazzara (2016) ‘Quazza, Guido’ in Dizionario biografico degli italiani, vol. LXXXV (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana), ad vocem (also online). 64 G. Panico (2007) ‘Divagazioni su un complotto smascherato’ in G. D’Angelo (ed.) Aspetti e temi della storiografia italiana del Novecento (Salerno: Edizioni del Paguro), pp. 267–94.

4  LEFT-WING HISTORIOGRAPHY IN ITALY DURING THE 1950S 

107

conflicts and its protagonists.65 Without doubt, the lectures were directed at the context of what Silvio Lanaro has defined as ‘a persistent identification of the history of Fascism with the memory of anti-Fascism’.66 Yet these lectures—which provoked a strong demand for knowledge of the more recent past among the generations of the ‘economic miracle’— incited the scholars to face up to the history of Fascism with more commitment. Up till then, the interpretation of Fascism had remained within the paradigms drawn up in the heat of the political struggle, with the limitation of a clear simplification of a complex phenomenon: the communists’ thesis of a ‘capitalistic dictatorship’, the ‘parenthesis’ of the Liberals and the radical democrats’ ‘autobiography of the nation’.67 The only book relating to the general history of Fascism, mainly a political chronicle, was the one by the liberal (and anti-communist) Luigi Salvatorelli.68 In the 1960s, the Fascist theme forced its way on to the agenda of Italian historians. The first organized study project was undertaken by Renzo De Felice, a pupil of Chabod and Cantimori, who had already abandoned the PCI in 1956 and had kept his distance from the Marxist trend with which he had grown up.69 In 1965, De Felice published the first volume of his biography of Benito Mussolini, a monumental work that from then onwards would be at the centre of debate among Italian historians.70 De Felice’s theories—which were clarified and enunciated in the following years, until the famous Interview on Fascism in 1975— began by discussing the network between Fascism and big capital and more generally between Fascism and backwardness, which underlay the interpretation of official Marxism.71

65 The most important series of lectures was organized in Turin; see F. Antonicelli (1961) Trent’anni di storia italiana (1915–1945) (Turin: Einaudi). 66 S. Lanaro (1979) Nazione e lavoro. Saggio sulla cultura borghese in Italia 1870–1925 (Venice: Marsilio), p. 8. 67 R. De Felice (2007) Le interpretazioni del fascismo (Rome and Bari: Laterza); E. Gentile (2002) Il fascismo storia e interpretazione (Rome and Bari: Laterza). 68 L. Salvatorelli and G. Mira (1952) Storia del fascismo. L’Italia dal 1919 al 1945 (Rome: Edizioni Novissima). 69 E. Gentile (2003) Renzo De Felice. Lo storico e il personaggio (Rome and Bari: Laterza). 70 R. De Felice (1965) Mussolini il rivoluzionario. 1883–1920 (Turin: Einaudi). 71 R. De Felice (1975) Intervista sul fascismo (Rome and Bari: Laterza).

108  G. ZAZZARA

All the left-wing historiographers were hostile to De Felice’s ‘revisionism’, accusing him of wanting to ‘normalize’ or even to ‘rehabilitate’ the experiment of a dictatorship. Under the guidance of Quazza, the Resistance Institutes became the intermediary that with great dedication opposed De Felice with a historiography that was strongly inspired by anti-Fascist values.72 The confrontation between anti-Fascism and ‘anti-anti-Fascism’ replaced the confrontation between Marxism (mainly Gramsci’s) and idealism (Croce’s) from the previous decade.73 It was on the theme of Fascism that the historians close to the PCI engineered the greatest delay. The first history of the 20-year period of Fascist rule, written by a Marxist historian, did not emerge until 1967; it was signed up by Santarelli for a series directed by Ragionieri. It was an extensive and balanced reconstruction aimed at a wider readership than just specialists, making use also of Fascist sources (and therefore not only anti-Fascist writings and memoirs), praiseworthy in its efforts to place Italian Fascism in an international framework but lacking new information and original interpretative ideas.74 The discovery soon afterwards of a series of lectures given by Togliatti in Moscow in 1935 was to have a much greater impact. These lectures were full of prolific guidelines to understanding Fascism, not only as a ‘fierce capitalist reaction’ but also as an original political formation that had succeeded in organizing the social sectors of the masses. In the 1970s, however, communist historians dealt with the thinking of Gramsci and Togliatti on Fascism mainly from the viewpoint of the party’s history, missing the opportunity of a wider confrontation with the history of Italian society between the two world wars.75

72 G.

De Luna (1996) ‘Quazza, l’anti-De Felice’, L’Unità, 8 luglio 1996. Coli (1987) ‘Idealismo e marxismo nella storiografia italiana degli anni ’50 e ’60’ in P. Rossi (ed.) La storiografia contemporanea. Indirizzi e problemi (Milan: Il Saggiatore), pp. 39–58. 74 E. Santarelli (1967) Storia del movimento e del regime fascista, 2 vols. (Rome: Editori Riuniti). 75 P. Togliatti (2004) Sul fascismo (Rome and Bari: Laterza). In 1967 Paolo Spriano published the first volume of his Storia del partito comunista (5 vols., 1967–1975); see also P. Spriano (1979) Intervista sulla storia del Pci (Rome and Bari: Laterza). In the same year Ernesto Ragionieri started the publication of Togliatti’s writings (5 vols., 1967–1984). 73 D.

4  LEFT-WING HISTORIOGRAPHY IN ITALY DURING THE 1950S 

109

The 1968 student movement and the growth of a huge swathe of the radical left, revolutionary and neo-Marxist—but also the emergence of subversive neo-Fascist conspiracies, starting with the massacre of Piazza Fontana in 1969—opened up a phase of intense politicization of Italian society, which contemporary historiography could not ignore.76 Fascism and the Resistance became subjects that could be publicly discussed not only as events of the past but also in the light of their return, of their possible revival in the present. The historiographic debate went beyond the confines of the professional politicians and specialists and aroused the interest of the wider and more committed strata of civil society. For the historians, this meant an involvement that was no longer limited to the double track of the academic world on the one hand and the political parties (with the mediation of their historical institutes) on the other, but dragged them into the terrain of the media, journalism and the public in a broad sense. It was a time of heated debate, of sharp and sometime violent tones; but it was also a period of extraordinary centrality of knowledge and historical discourse in Italian culture. With the ‘ebb’ of the collective movements in the 1980s, and still more with the crisis of the Italian parties and the fall of the Communist Bloc, contemporary historiography would also have to keep its voice down and widen its horizons after the long-drawn-out political ‘inebriation’.77 The institutional consolidation of contemporary history (the first degree course in history had been created in 1972), the massive recruitment of a new generation of tutors and researchers in the universities, the introduction of twentieth-century events into the school syllabus, the opening up to international and interdisciplinary encounters: all these gave university teaching a more solid professional context. Yet if we delve into the intellectual paths taken by Italy’s most reliable historians on Fascism and the working-class movement, we shall still find unpaid educational debts and important root causes in the lesson of post-war Marxist historians.

76 For a general overview, see P. Ginsborg (1990) A History of Contemporary Italy: Society and Politics. 1943–1988, original ed. (in Italian) 1989 (London: Penguin Books). 77 N. Gallerano (1987) ‘Fine del caso italiano? La storia politica tra “politicità” e “scienza”’ in La storia contemporanea oggi: una discussione, Movimento operaio e socialista, monographic issue 1–2, 5–25.

110  G. ZAZZARA

References Ajello, N. (1979) Intellettuali e Pci (1944–1958) (Rome and Bari: Laterza). Angelini, M. (2010) ‘Transmitting Knowledge: The Professionalisation of Italian Historians (1920s–1950s)’, Storia della Storiografia (Monographic Issue 57). Angelini, M. (2010) Fare storia. Culture e pratiche della ricerca in Italia da Gioacchino Volpe a Federico Chabod (Rome: Carocci). Antonicelli, F. (1961) Trent’anni di storia italiana (1915–1945) (Turin: Einaudi). Baioni, M. (2006) Risorgimento in camicia nera. Studi, istituzioni, musei nell’Italia fascista (Rome: Carocci). Barraclough, G. (1964) An Introduction to Contemporary History (London: C. A. Watts & Co.). Battaglia, R. (1953) Storia della Resistenza italiana (8 settembre 1943–25 aprile 1945) (Turin: Einaudi). Battaglia, R. (1994) Un uomo, un partigiano (Bologna: il Mulino). Bidussa, D. (1998) ‘Storia e storiografia sul movimento operaio nell’Italia del secondo dopoguerra. Gli anni della formazione (1945–1956)’ in L. Cortesi and A. Panaccione (eds.) Il socialismo e la storia. Studi per Stefano Merli (Milano: Angeli), pp. 183–230. Bidussa, D. (1999) ‘La Biblioteca Feltrinelli dall’ ‘accumulazione originaria’ alla nascita degli ‘Annali’ (1950–1959)’, Studi Storici, XL, 4, 945–91. Bidussa, D. (2000) ‘I caratteri originari della fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli’, Società e Storia, XXIII, 90, 677–706. Boatti, G. (2001) Preferirei di no (Turin: Einaudi). Bobbio, N. (1973) ‘La cultura e il fascismo’ in G. Quazza et al. (eds.) Fascismo e società italiana (Turin: Einaudi), pp. 209–46. Bonomo, B. (2013) Voci della memoria. L’uso delle fonti orali nella ricerca storica (Rome: Carocci). Bourdieu, P. (1992) Les règles de l’art. Genèse et structure du champ littéraire (Paris: Seuil). Bracco, B. (1998) Storici italiani e politica estera. Tra Salvemini e Volpe 1917– 1925 (Milan: Angeli). Cafagna, L. (1953) Anarchismo e socialismo a Roma negli anni della “febbre edilizia” e della crisi 1881–1891 (Milan: Feltrinelli). Candeloro, G. (1956–1986) Storia dell’Italia moderna, vol. 11 (Milan: Feltrinelli). Cantimori, D. (1959) Studi di storia (Turin: Einaudi). Cantimori, D. (1967) Conversando di storia (Bari: Laterza). Caracciolo, A. (1952) Il movimento contadino nel Lazio (1870–1922) (Rome: Edizioni Rinascita). Caracciolo, A. (1986) ‘Fra storiografie nazionali e storia sociale’ in G. Arnaldi et al. (eds.) Incontro con gli storici (Rome and Bari: Laterza), pp. 19–36.

4  LEFT-WING HISTORIOGRAPHY IN ITALY DURING THE 1950S 

111

Caracciolo, A. (1990) ‘Dal marxismo all’ecostoria’, Meridiana, IV, 9, 205–22. Cavina, P. and Grilli, L. (1998) Gaetano Salvemini e Gioacchino Volpe: dalla storia medievale alla storia contemporanea (Pisa: Edizioni della Normale). Coli, D. (1987) ‘Idealismo e marxismo nella storiografia italiana degli anni ’50 e ’60’ in P. Rossi (ed.) La storiografia contemporanea. Indirizzi e problemi (Milan: Il Saggiatore), pp. 39–58. Collotti, E. (2000) ‘L’INSMLI e la rete degli Istituti associati. Cinquant’anni di vita’, Italia Contemporanea, LII, 219, 181–91. Conti, E. (1950) Le origini del socialismo a Firenze 1860–1880 (Rome: Edizioni Rinascita). Cossalter, F. (2007) Come nasce uno storico contemporaneo. Gioacchino Volpe tra guerra, dopoguerra, fascismo (Rome: Carocci). Craveri, P. (1975) ‘Cantimori, Delio’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, XVIII (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana), ad vocem (also online). Croce, B. (1991) Storia d’Italia dal 1871 al 1915, 2nd ed. (Naples: Bibliopolis). De Felice, R. (1965) Mussolini il rivoluzionario. 1883–1920 (Turin: Einaudi). De Felice, R. (1975) Intervista sul fascismo (Bari: Laterza). De Felice, R. (2007) Le interpretazioni del fascismo (Rome and Bari: Laterza). De Luna, G. (1996) ‘Quazza, l’anti-De Felice’, L’Unità, 8 luglio. Dreyfus, M. (1983) Guide des centres de documentation en histoire ouvrière et sociale (Paris: Editions ouvrières). Favilli, P. (1996) Storia del marxismo italiano. Dalle origini alla grande guerra (Milan: Angeli). Favilli, P. (2006) Marxismo e storia. Saggio sull’innovazione storiografica in Italia (1945–1970) (Milan: Angeli). Feltrinelli, C. (1999) Senior Service (Milan: Feltrinelli). Franzinelli, M. (2007) Il delitto Rosselli (9 giugno 1937). Anatomia di un omicidio politico (Milan: Mondadori). Gallerano, N. (1987) ‘Fine del caso italiano? La storia politica tra “politicità” e “scienza”’, La storia contemporanea oggi: una discussione, Movimento operaio e socialista, Monographic Issue 1–2, 5–25. Gentile, E. (1983) ‘Breve storia delle storie d’Italia dall’Unità alla Repubblica’ in R. De Felice (ed.) Storia dell’Italia contemporanea, VII, Cultura e società 1870–1975 (Naples: Edizioni scientifiche italiane), pp. 253–322. Gentile, E. (2002) Il fascismo storia e interpretazione (Rome and Bari: Laterza). Gentile, E. (2003) Renzo De Felice. Lo storico e il personaggio (Rome and Bari: Laterza). Ginsborg, P. (1990) A History of Contemporary Italy: Society and Politics. 1943– 1988, Original ed. (in Italian), 1989 (London: Penguin Books). Gobetti, P. (2011) Risorgimento senza eroi. Studi sul pensiero piemontese nel Risorgimento, remake (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura). Goetz, H. (2000) Il giuramento rifiutato. I docenti universitari e il regime fascista, 2nd ed. (Milan: La Nuova Italia).

112  G. ZAZZARA Gramsci, A. (1992) Prison Notebooks, vol. 3 (New York: Columbia University Press). Grassi, G. (1993) Resistenza e storia d’Italia. Quarant’anni di vita dell’Istituto nazionale e degli istituti associati 1949–1989 (Milan: Angeli). Lanaro, S. (1979) Nazione e lavoro. Saggio sulla cultura borghese in Italia 1870– 1925 (Venice: Marseilles). Le Goff, J. (1988) Histoire et mémoire, 2nd ed. (Paris: Gallimard). Legnani, M. (1986) ‘“Italia Contemporanea” tra interno ed esterno’, Italia Contemporanea, XXXVIII, 163, 107–16. Legnani, M. (2000) Al mercato della storia. Il mestiere di storico tra scienza e consumo (Rome: Carocci). Magagnoli, S. (1994) ‘Dagli istituti “militanti” agli istituti “scientifici”’, Italia Contemporanea, XLVI, 195, 435–45. Manacorda, G. (1953) Il movimento operaio italiano attraverso i suoi congressi. 1853–1892 (Rome: Edizioni Rinascita). Manacorda, G. (1966) ‘Ricordo di Delio Cantimori’, Studi Storici, 3, 639–43. Manacorda, G. (1974) ‘Sinistra storiografica e dialettica interna’ in O. Cecchi (ed.) La ricerca storica marxista in Italia (Rome: Editori Riuniti), pp. 15–30. Manacorda, G. (1990) ‘Partito e cultura’ (1992) in C. Natoli, L. Rapone and B. Tobia (eds.) Il movimento reale e la coscienza inquieta. Italia liberale e il socialismo e altri scritti tra storia e memoria (Milan: Angeli), pp. 287–92. Momigliano, A. (1950) ‘Gli studi italiani di storia greca e romana dal 1859 al 1939’ in R. Mattioli and C. Antoni (eds.) Cinquant’anni di vita intellettuale italiana 1896–1946. Scritti in onore di Benedetto Croce per il suo ottantesimo anniversario, 2 vols., vol. I (Naples: Esi), p. 120. Morandi, C. (1945) I partiti politici nella storia d’Italia (Firenze: Le Monnier). Morandi, C. (1946) ‘Per una storia del socialismo in Italia’, Belfagor, 2, 162–68. Neppi Modona, G. (1997), ‘La magistratura dalla Liberazione agli anni cinquanta. Il difficile cammino verso l’indipendenza’ in F. Barbagallo et al. (eds.) Storia dell’Italia repubblicana, vol. 3, L’Italia nella crisi mondiale. L’ultimo ventennio, t. 2, Istituzioni, politiche, culture (Turin: Einaudi), pp. 83–137. Panico, G. (2007) ‘Divagazioni su un complotto smascherato’ in G. D’Angelo (ed.) Aspetti e temi della storiografia italiana del Novecento (Salerno: Edizioni del Paguro), pp. 267–94. Pavone, C. (1995) Alle origini della Repubblica. Scritti su fascismo, antifascismo e continuità dello Stato (Turin: Bollati Boringhieri). Petrillo, G. (1998) ‘The Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli of Milan’, Journal of Contemporary History, 4, 513–28. Pieri, P. (1953) ‘È possibile la storia di avvenimenti molto recenti?’, Il Movimento di Liberazione in Italia, V, 22, 7–15. Quazza, G. (1966) ‘Diario partigiano’ in G. Quazza (ed.) La Resistenza italiana. Appunti e documenti (Turin: Giappichelli Editore), pp. 127–247.

4  LEFT-WING HISTORIOGRAPHY IN ITALY DURING THE 1950S 

113

Ragionieri, E. (1950) ‘Ricordo di Carlo Morandi’, Belfagor, 3, 350–53. Ragionieri, E. (1953) Un comune socialista. Sesto Fiorentino (Rome: Edizioni Rinascita). Rosselli, N. (1927) Mazzini e Bakounine. Dodici anni di movimento operaio in Italia (1860–1872) (Turin: Bocca). Salvatorelli, L. and Mira, G. (1952) Storia del fascismo l’Italia dal 1919 al 1945 (Rome: Edizioni di Novissima). Santarelli, E. (1955) ‘Storia del movimento operaio e storia nazionale’, Movimento Operaio, VII, 2, 294–300. Santarelli, E. (1967) Storia del movimento e del regime fascista, vol. 2 (Rome: Editori Riuniti). Sassoon, L. D. (1980) Togliatti e la via italiana al socialismo. Il Pci dal 1944 al 1956 (Turin: Einaudi). Sereni, E. (1947) Il capitalismo nelle campagne (1860–1900) (Turin: Einaudi). Spriano, P. (1958) Socialismo e classe operaia a Torino dal 1892 al 1913 (Turin: Einaudi). Spriano, P. (1979) Intervista sulla storia del Pci (Bari: Laterza). Togliatti, P. (2004) Sul fascismo (Rome and Bari: Laterza). Turi, G. (1995) Giovanni Gentile. Una biografia (Florence: Giunti). Vaccarino, G. (1950) ‘Le mouvement de Libération national en Italie (1943– 1945)’, Cahiers d’Histoire de la guerre, 3, 77–112. van der Horst, A. and Koen, E. (eds.) (1989) Guide to the International Archives and Collections at the IISH (Amsterdam: International Institute of Social History). Vecchio, G. (2011) ‘Emilio Sereni, comunista. Note per una biografia’ in E. Bernardi (ed.) Emilio Sereni. Lettere (1945–1956) (Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino), pp. 335–444. Vittoria, A. (1992) Togliatti e gli intellettuali. Storia dell’Istituto Gramsci negli anni Cinquanta e Sessanta (Rome: Editori Riuniti). Vittoria, A. (2006) Storia del PCI 1921–1991 (Rome: Carocci). Volpe, G. (1991) L’Italia in cammino. L’ultimo cinquantennio, in G. Belardelli (ed.) (Rome and Bari: Laterza). Woolf, S. (1981) ‘La Storia d’Italia’, Italia Contemporanea, 142, 125–34. Zazzara, G. (2011) La storia a sinistra. Ricerca e impegno politico dopo il fascismo (Rome and Bari: Laterza). Zazzara, G. (2017) ‘Quazza, Guido’ in Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 85, http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/guido-quazza_%28Dizionario-Biografico%29/, date accessed 20 August 2017. Zazzara, G. (2016, Forthcoming) ‘La Bibliografia della stampa periodica operaia e socialista italiana’, Annali della Fondazione Feltrinelli.

CHAPTER 5

Remembering the Revolution: Neo-Marxist Interpretations of the German Revolution 1918/1919—A Challenge for Cold War Historiography Ralf Hoffrogge

What is the best way to remember a revolution? This chapter deals with the difficult memory of the German Revolution of 1918/1919, which ended World War I and the German Empire. Its memory polarized during the Weimar Republic and the years of the Cold War, and the interpretation of events was crucial for the identity of a New Marxist Left that reappeared in West Germany during the student movement of the 1960s. Among the members of this New Left it was seen as a failed revolution or a “revolution betrayed.”1 This leitmotif of an unfulfilled promise 1 A term taken from Sebastian Haffner (1968) Die verratene Revolution—Deutschland 1918/19 (Hamburg: Stern).

R. Hoffrogge (*)  Institut Für Soziale Bewegungen, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2019 S. Berger and C. Cornelissen (eds.), Marxist Historical Cultures and Social Movements during the Cold War, Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03804-5_5

115

116  R. HOFFROGGE

was set against a dominating narrative shaped by liberal and social democratic authors. They would frame the 1918 Revolution as a success story: it established the first German democracy. The Weimar Constitution of 1919 was seen as a compromise between the working and middle classes preventing a “Soviet dictatorship.” This interpretation identified both the movement of Workers’ Councils and the Rosa Luxemburg’s Spartacus League with post-1949 State Socialism. Ironically, this identification was paralleled in East German historiography: the GDR’s ruling Socialist Unity Party (SED) claimed to have fulfilled the rightful demands of 1918, especially those of the Spartacus League and the Workers’ Councils. Therefore, despite bitter wars of interpretation both East and West German narratives tended to identify movements with political parties and tended to present a teleology, a history ending with their respective states’ political system. Therefore, both tended to neglect the historical protagonists of the 1918 Revolution: soldiers in mutiny, striking workers, rebelling women engaged in strikes, and food riots. When a new left emerged from the West German student movement in the 1960s, the rebelling masses, and their organizational expression the council movement became a central point of reference. However, forty years after the events a new generation had great difficulty reinterpreting the events. Contemporaries from 1918 tended to side with one of the official narratives, if they had survived at all. Many radical socialists and communists had been killed or exiled during the reign of Nazism, while others had relocated to East Germany in the 1950s. Without organizational or personal continuities the new generation had to reconstruct its image of the Revolution from written sources. This chapter argues that pirate copies of historical publications on the Revolution therefore became especially important. Unlike France and Italy or even Great Britain, where the interpretation of historical or theoretical concepts of Marxism was undertaken within or linked to the organizational framework of a Communist Party, German young radicals were “left alone” with the texts—even as early as 1968 Günter Grass criticized the West German student movement as angelesene Revolution (“a revolution obtained by reading only”).2 Since most of the materials to read were out of print and difficult to obtain pirate copies became an important 2 G. Grass (1987) ‘Die angelesene Revolution. Rede auf einer Veranstaltung des demokratischen Hochschulbundes in Bochum [1968]’ in Essays, Reden, Briefe, Kommentare (Darmstadt: Luchterhand), pp. 297–311.

5  REMEMBERING THE REVOLUTION … 

117

part of appropriating the past, a core medium of a Marxist culture of history that was reinvented from scratch. When dealing with the German Revolution the writings of Richard Müller, trade unionist and protagonist of the council movement, were highly influential texts for the New Left.3 Müller’s three-volume history Vom Kaiserreich zur Republik (“From Reich to Republic”) was reprinted and has been read widely since at least 1969 because of the challenges it posed for Cold War historiography.4 In this chapter I want to portray the rediscovery of Müller as an example to illustrate the thesis that the reestablishment of a Marxist culture of history faced many difficulties in West Germany not only because of its location at the frontier of the Cold War, but also due to the fact that generational ruptures were deepened by both the total defeat of the German labor movement in 1933 and the erosion of working class milieus in the 1950s.

The German Revolution and the Birth of Communism The foundation of a German Communist Party allied with the Russian Revolution on New Year’s Eve of 1918 was the first step toward institutionalizing communism outside Russia, and it was the subsequent joining of the German communists to the Third International in 1919 that set the scene for a global communist movement. At that time the young KPD (German Communist Party) was still an independent force; it enjoyed full autonomy. Despite providing financial assistance the Moscow-based Third International lacked the logistics to control its German ally.

3 The reception given to Müller’s writings has been outlined in detail elsewhere, only a summary is presented here. For more information, see R. Hoffrogge (2014) WorkingClass Politics in the German Revolution: Richard Müller, the Revolutionary Shop Stewards and the Origins of the Council Movement (Leiden: Brill), pp. 197–211. For an in-depth reconstruction of German historiography on the 1918 Revolution, see W. Niess (2013) Die Revolution von 1918/19 in der deutschen Geschichtsschreibung. Deutungen von der Weimarer Republik bis ins 21. Jahrhundert (Berlin: De Gruyter). 4 R. Müller (1924a) Vom Kaiserreich zur Republik (Vienna: Malik), (1924b) Die Novemberrevolution (Vienna: Malik), and (1925) Der Bürgerkrieg in Deutschland Geburtswehen der Republik (Berlin: Phöbus-Verlag).

118  R. HOFFROGGE

Nevertheless, in German historiography after 1949 the young KPD and its forerunner, the Spartacus League, were identified with Soviet communism. For West German historians it was not Nazism but communism that had caused the partition of Germany. The experience of a nation torn apart by political conflict evoked pictures from the past: the struggles between social democrats and communists that had escalated into armed confrontations in 1919 and reemerged in the Great Depression after 1929 seemed to foreshadow the partition of Germany. The focus on parties as agents of state formation in 1919 and 1949 obscured a view of the German Revolution as a social movement with deeper roots that transcended partisan politics. However, this focus on political parties had a forerunner in Weimar historiography.

Memoirs of the Revolution During the 1920s memoirs were the main medium by which public memory concerning the events of 1918 could be shaped. But neither memoirs nor other means of commemoration ever established a united national memory. Unlike in France and Britain there was no German “Armistice Day” bringing together different milieus and political opinions in a common interpretation of the past. There were attempts to establish a republican Verfassungstag in Germany, a festive day celebrating the constitution.5 But political parties could not even agree to make this a national holiday: right-wing and conservative parties might accept the parliamentary system, but in cultural representations their Germanness was connected to monarchy and empire. The conservative parties even successfully blocked the German State being denominated as a republic—it stayed Deutsches Reich, a German Empire. Eventually, German social democrats were left alone with their Verfassungstag. While the political right preferred to mourn a lost empire the Communist Party would refuse to celebrate a constitution that it regarded as a bourgeois document and an obstacle to world revolution. Memorial literature dealing with the Revolution reflected this political fragmentation. Social democratic authors highlighted the moderating role of their party, and attempts from the political right or left to change the course of events were equated as putsch, as coup d’états of extremists.6 5 R.

Poscher (1999) Der Verfassungstag (Baden Baden: Nomos). Scheidemann (1921) Der Zusammenbruch (Berlin: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaft), pp. 230, 235. 6 P.

5  REMEMBERING THE REVOLUTION … 

119

The political right, on the other hand, not only glorified the war as a male and heroic enterprise, but also the counterrevolutionary violence of the years 1919–1921. This violence, taken up by paramilitary Freikorps, was often directed against civilians—for example, in the general strike of March 1919 when 1200 civilians were killed in the city of Berlin alone.7 Choosing not to mention that the Freikorps in most cases served a social democratic government the common right-wing narrative was that violence was needed to fight off a “bolshevik” or “spartacist” threat to the integrity of the German nation. Spartacists were identified with the former enemy Russia, with propaganda from the war years depicting Russians as uncivilized barbarians transformed into anti-communists. Identifying the German Revolution with Soviet Communism therefore started very early, and there was an overlap of anti-Russian sentiments between social democratic and right-wing literature. The left, on the other hand, praised the Russian Revolution, emphasizing the legitimacy of armed rebellion and the setting up of workers’ and soldiers’ councils as an authentic representation of the majority of the population. They stressed the brutality of the right-wing Freikorps and their escalation of events into civil war. In summary, the Weimar Republic, burdened with the memory of a world war and a subsequent civil war that wavered between revolution and counterrevolution, was unable to establish a republican memory— instead historiography itself resembled a war, each faction well embedded in its trenches. When it comes to Marxist cultures of history we have to add one observation: a change in historiography that was closely linked to the “bolshevization” of the German Communist Party in 1924/1925. At that point the KPD had finally realized that the Revolution was over and had stopped attempts to organize armed uprising. Bolshevization meant that the Party moved away from the ideas of Rosa Luxemburg, abandoning the notion of “spontaneity of the masses” and embracing the vanguard party theory of Leninism that soon became canonized by Stalin himself as “Marxism–Leninism.” Although the party enjoyed freedom of discussion until 1926 and “bolshevization” cannot be equated with “Stalinization,” the loss of intra-party democracy became manifest in historical memory. The official communist history of the German Revolution was published as Illustrierte Geschichte der Deutschen Revolution, edited by a collective of

7 D. Lange (2012) Massenstreik und Schießbefehl. Generalstreik und Märzkämpfe in Berlin 1919 (Münster: Edition Assemblage).

120  R. HOFFROGGE

unnamed authors in 1929.8 The book highlighted mass strikes and revolution as justified measures against the dread of the Great War, but eventually presented the founding of a German Communist Party as the most important outcome of the Revolution. It therefore ended up downplaying not only spontaneous mass movements such as the council movement, but also organized resistance groups such as the Revolutionary Shop Stewards, a group of trade unionists that had organized the mass strikes of 1916–1918 and was led by Richard Müller, author of Vom Kaiserreich zur Republik. The “Illustrated History” established a narrative of revolution in which the party was the sole articulation of working class politics. And, since the SPD (Social Democratic Party) had “betrayed” the masses the KPD and its forerunner, the Spartacus League, were the only authentic representatives of the working class. It is remarkable that only a few recollections dealing with the perspective of council movements or soldier mutinies were published. Two authors, Emil Barth and Richard Müller, were members of the Revolutionary Shop Stewards.9 While Barth tended to style himself as the sole organizer of the events, Müller tried to portray the Revolutionary Shop Stewards as an organizational expression of a widespread working class dissent that was represented neither by the social democrats nor the Spartacus League. While Barth’s personalized account could be abused as evidence for the right’s stab-in-the-back myth,10 Müller’s three-volume account featured a narrative of workers’ self-organization. In this process unions were the starting point for autonomously organized mass strikes and political parties were used only as a “platform.” This remained a singularity in Weimar historiography. Although the author introduced himself with a tribute to Lenin,11 the account questioned any later “Leninist”

8 Anonymous (1929) Illustrierte Geschichte der Deutschen Revolution (Berlin: Internationaler Arbeiter-Verlag). 9 E. Barth (1919) Aus der Werkstatt der deutschen Revolution (Berlin: A. Hoffmann’s Verlag). 10 Richard Müller criticized Barth’s personalized account as contributing to a “falsification of history” by “those who have reasons to hide their historical guilt from the people and from history” (Müller 1924a, p. 8). Indeed its concept of the stewards as a close-knit group of revolutionaries directed by Barth as a leader was complementary to the conspiracy theories of the extreme right. 11 Müller (1924a, p. 9).

5  REMEMBERING THE REVOLUTION … 

121

framing of the Revolution. The KPD, in which Müller had served as a coordinator of trade union affairs until 1921, therefore rejected his historical work as a “private enterprise” even before it was published.12 Barth was a plumber and Müller a lathe operator. Neither had ever published a book before—although Müller had authored some brochures as a trade unionist. The lack of memoirs or histories from activists of the council movement must be attributed to the fact that its members were workers without formal education—or soldiers with a working class background. Although there are memoirs of soldiers they were mostly written by educated officers who overwhelmingly supported the right. Eventually, this extreme right succeeded in imposing its narrative as the dominant interpretation well before 1933. The Nazis only had to canonize it: a glorious German army stabbed in the back by the Novemberverbrecher (“the November criminals”), characterized as a group of socialists, in most versions with emphasis on their Jewish origin.13 This sort of revanchism provided legitimacy for the next war—a war that would end in the unconditional surrender of Germany in 1945 and its subsequent division among the victorious powers.

The German Revolution in West Germany With the formation of two German states in 1949 the division of the labor movement became institutionalized not only as rival parties, but took on the form of rival states too. Both faced the task of writing their own history, breaking with the militarist and anti-Semitic narratives of Nazism. Although it was not until the Fischer controversy in 1961 that West German historians could accept responsibility for the outbreak of World War I,14 the “Great War” would not be glorified anymore. In East and West it was eventually recognized as a catastrophe, lending a belated historical legitimacy to the 1918 Revolution. West German conservatives gave up their openly anti-republican positions, endorsed the democratic narrative, and when the discipline of modern history became an established field of research and was labeled Zeitgeschichte the year 1918 marked the watershed where the new field of contemporary history began.

12 Hoffrogge

(2014, p. 186). (2013, pp. 125–50). 14 F. Fischer (1968) Germany’s Aims in the First World War (New York: W. W. Norton). 13 Niess

122  R. HOFFROGGE

This new history of the “Federal Republic of Germany” was inspired by social democratic and in a more limited sense liberal memoirs written in the 1920s. The tale of a Revolution as establishment of democracy now took the center stage of historical memory, which it had failed to conquer during the Weimar years. The 1918 Revolution was described as a necessary event, ending the German Sonderweg and bringing the nation home to Western-style democracy.15 The framing of the Weimar Republic as “Western” and modern allowed the council movement, the Spartacus League, and any political current left from social democracy as part of an “Eastern” and authoritarian tradition to be identified. This framing enabled historians to write their nation’s history as part of the “enlightened” West despite the recent atrocities of Nazism that would fit any definition of “barbarism.” It also allowed denying any legitimacy to the competing East German state and matched the Alleinvertretungsanspruch, a juridical fiction that declared West Germany as sole representative of the German people. The East German state was pictured as a totalitarian dictatorship, controlled by Soviet military power—it was not accepted as a sovereign state and newspapers preferred the term “Soviet zone.” The concept of totalitarianism equated Nazism with communism, both enemies of liberal democracy. This added weight to the claim that the workers’ councils and the young Communist Party that had boycotted the election of a national assembly in 1919 could only have resulted in a “Soviet dictatorship.” Until the mid-1950s the councils were therefore described as Rätediktatur.16 Framing the councils as authoritarian or in a variation of the theme as a chaotic force threatening democracy gave legitimacy to the councils’ military suppression in 1919 and 1920 with its many civilian casualties. The coalition of order between the social democratic government 15 This version became popular again in a reunited Germany, see H.A. Winkler (2006) Germany: The Long Road West, vol. 1: 1789–1933 (Oxford: Oxford University Press); Winkler (2007) Germany: The Long Road West, vol. 2: 1933–1990 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). See also S. Berger (2010) ‘Rising Like a Phoenix … The Renaissance of National History Writing in Germany and Britain Since the 1980s’ in S. Berger and C. Lorenz (eds.) Nationalizing the Past: Historians as Nation Builders in Modern Europe (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 426–451. 16 K.D. Erdmann (1955) ‘Die Geschichte der Weimarer Republik als Problem der Wissenschaft’ in Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 3, 1–19. See also W. Tormin (1955), who presented some differentiations on the councils but still spoke of their “dictatorship”: Zwischen Rätediktatur und sozialer Demokratie, Die Geschichte der Rätebewegung in der Deutschen Revolution (Düsseldorf: Droste).

5  REMEMBERING THE REVOLUTION … 

123

and the right-wing Freikorps was seen as a necessity to save democracy. Violent confrontations were solely blamed on the Communist Party and its rhetoric of armed revolution. Authors like Ossip K. Flechtheim who in his 1948 volume on the Weimar KPD had insisted on the democratic nature of an early Luxemburgian communism inspired by workers’ councils remained marginal in this polarized discourse.17

The 1918 Revolution in East Germany In the German Democratic Republic, or East Germany, we would expect the German Revolution to be portrayed as a socialist Revolution, albeit a failed one. But that was not the case—East German historians agreed that the 1918 Revolution was a Bürgerliche Revolution, that it established a bourgeois state. This interpretation became a canonical following to a section of Stalin’s “Short Course” on the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Stalin stated that unlike in Russia the German workers’ councils were “obedient tools,” dominated by “Mensheviks” instead of communists.18 Subsequently, the formation of a Communist Party was seen as the main achievement of the Revolution in East German historiography. This version further narrowed the framing of the Illustrierte Geschichte of 1929, a narrative that also overstated the influence of the Spartacus League and ignored the spontaneous nature of councils and mass strikes. In 1956 one of the authors of Illustrierte Geschichte, Albert Schreiner, became director at the Museum für Deutsche Geschichte, the GDR’s central museum of national history. He was responsible for the exhibition on the years 1917–1945 and therefore became a leading figure establishing contemporary history in East Germany. Note that in East Germany Zeitgeschichte started in 1917—the year of the Russian Revolution, not the German Revolution. Schreiner’s biography nevertheless perfectly fit a popular West German definition of Zeitgeschichte as “historical research on a time that contemporaries could still remember.”19 Back in 1918

17 O.K.

Flechtheim (1948) Die KPD in der Weimarer Republik (Frankfurt: Bollwerk-Verlag). Stalin (1939) The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House). 19 H. Rothfels (1953) ‘Zeitgeschichte als Aufgabe’ in Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 1, 1–8, here p. 2, see also online: http://www.ifz-muenchen.de/heftarchiv/1953_1.pdf. Translation R. H. 18 J.V.

124  R. HOFFROGGE

Schreiner had been a member of the Spartacus League.20 He was willing to accept the partisan task assigned to historical writing, but at the same time was one of the few who did not accept its further narrowing by Stalinist dogma, as later debates would show.

A Divided Memory In the 1950s looking back at 1918 seemed to be as divisive as it had been in the 1920s. But there were differences: the extreme right’s interpretation had been marginalized, and the different narratives had grown from partisan issues into state affairs. A “historical compromise” of conservative and social democratic historians established Zeitgeschichte in the West, despite the fact that many controversies remained. But since conservative intellectuals had mostly abandoned monarchy and empire as their unifying cultural symbols the Weimar Constitution was seen as an achievement of and prototype for West Germany. In the East members of the ruling Socialist Unity Party (SED), into which the KPD had merged, controlled the field. Control in this case included a censorship system disguised as a formal peer review process: every publication had to be approved by two reliable historians and publishers as well were heavily influenced by the state.21 Despite this difference in the degree of academic freedom and the fact that both narratives were bitterly opposed they had some traits in common. Both were partisan histories—not always in the literal sense of openly orienting toward a political party, but in the sense of assigning parties the decisive role in the German Revolution. Both narratives were bound in a process of state formation and had a strong legitimizing function. Both tended to present their respective state as the fulfillment of the ideas of 1918: democratic institutions and a

20 M.

Keßler (2014) Albert Schreiner: Kommunist mit Lebensbrüchen (Berlin: Trafo). information provided by Professor Ingo Materna, former vice-director of the Museum für Deutsche Geschichte in East Berlin. 21 Personal

5  REMEMBERING THE REVOLUTION … 

125

“social state” in the West, a “socialist state” and “people’s democracy” led by the party born out of the Revolution in the East. The structural similarities of both narratives led to shared blind spots. The council movement was played down and misrepresented as “Menshevism” in the East or “Soviet dictatorship” in the West.

Richard Müller and His Challenge to Cold War Historiography Downplaying the councils and other forms of popular protest meant that Cold War narratives on the German Revolution would edit out the working class—despite the fact that both the SED, which advocated social democracy, and to a certain degree the Christian democrats claimed to represent workers. Therefore it seems consistent that in both German states Richard Müller’s three-volume Vom Kaiserreich zur Republik was sidelined. It was used for its density of source material absent in other memoirs, but Müller’s leitmotif was not discussed. He had written the Revolution’s history from the viewpoint of the rank and file of the German Metalworkers’ Union (DMV). Müller outlined how the union’s members and its middle-ranked organizers had rebelled against the pro-war leadership, formed a coordinating network that later took on the name Revolutionary Shop Stewards, and organized mass strikes. Out of these strikes the council movement evolved—parallel, but independent of the Russian Soviets. In Müller’s narrative workers themselves took action and political parties were sidelined: the SPD had lost credibility because of its pro-war standing, the Spartacus League and the young KPD had no base in the factories, and the anti-war party of the Independent Social Democrats (USPD) shaped public opinion but was used as a mere “platform” by rebelling trade unionists. Müller’s narrative was ignored for two reasons. His political current had no institutional successor interested in tradition building, and his party (the USPD) had split up in 1922 when its left wing joined the communists and its moderate wing rejoined the SPD. On the other hand, the existence of workers’ councils that were neither led by political parties nor comparable with “soviets” as in “Soviet Union” was unthinkable within the Cold War setting of the 1950s.

126  R. HOFFROGGE

Khrushchev’s Secret Speech and the First Breakup of Divided Memory Khrushchev’s secret speech denouncing Stalin’s crimes in 1956 has been marked as the starting point for a “New Left” not only in Britain, but also for other parts of Western Europe. But de-Stalinization in the Soviet Union also was a major impulse to rewrite the history of the German Revolution. In East Germany de-Stalinization started with a note in the party newspaper Neues Deutschland declaring that the writings of comrade Stalin could no longer be considered worthy of inclusion in the “classics of Marxism–Leninism.”22 This was used by historians, like Albert Schreiner who had so far stuck to the official version, to get rid of Stalin’s “Short Course” and its limiting assumptions. Schreiner started a debate to rehabilitate the council movement and presented this form of working class action as evidence that the Revolution of 1918 was not a bourgeois revolution.23 Note that this debate was stopped from above: Walter Ulbricht, head of the SED’s Central Committee, personally intervened with “Theses on the November Revolution” declaring that it was not a socialist revolution.24 This version was adopted by the SED in 1958 and stayed canonical right up to 1989.25 Some publications tried to circumvent the dogma, referring to Ulbricht’s insight that despite its bourgeois nature “proletarian means” were used in the November Revolution. In fact, this came close to Richard Müller’s dictum that

22 W.

Ulbricht (1956) ‘Über den XX. Parteitag der Kommunistischen Partei der Sowjetunion’, Neues Deutschland, 4, 4 March 1956. 23 See M. Keßler (2008) Die Novemberrevolution und ihre Räte—Die DDR-Debatten des Jahres 1958 und die internationale Forschung (Berlin: HellePanke), and Niess (2012, pp. 338–52). 24 W. Ulbricht (1958) ‘Über den Charakter der Novemberrevolution. Rede in der Kommission zur Vorbereitung der Thesen über die Novemberrevolution’, Neues Deutschland, June 18, 1958. 25 The canonic version of party history was summarized in 1966 by an eight-volume history authored by an editorial collective officially led by W. Ulbricht (1966) Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung (Dietz: Berlin). For a GDR retrospective on the Weimar Republic’s Marxist historiography, see K. Kinner (1982) Marxistische deutsche Geschichtswissenschaft 1917 bis 1933. Geschichte und Politik im Kampf der KPD (Berlin [GDR]: Akademie Verlag).

5  REMEMBERING THE REVOLUTION … 

127

the Revolution was neither bourgeois nor proletarian, but “a mixture of both.”26 But of course Müller could not be credited for this qualification, and research in this tradition would never openly oppose the canonical version.27 Paradoxically, the decanonification of Stalin’s historical writings proved to be much more fruitful in West Germany. It made room for socialist historians grouped around the left wing of social democracy to question the validity of identifying the 1918 council movement with the later Soviet Union. One of those historians was Fritz Opel who worked closely with the Metalworkers’ Union IG Metall, a direct successor of Müller’s DMV. Opel published a small study on “Metalworkers in War and Revolution” in 1957 and reintroduced the Revolutionary Shop Stewards as historical protagonists, using Richard Müller’s writings as a source. Other studies by Peter von Oertzen and Eberhard Kolb followed,28 resulting in the rehabilitation of the council movement in West Germany in about 1963. Its relevance within the historical process had been widely accepted, the council’s democratic character had been outlined, and a connection was made linking the workers’ councils of 1918/1919 with the “works councils” (Betriebsräte) in the Federal Republic’s labor law.29 The latter were not without a political agenda: left social democrats and the Metalworkers’ Union were interested in a reform that would upgrade the competences of works councils and implement measures aimed at industrial democracy. A new history of workers’ councils seemed helpful here, so the revolutionary councils

26 Müller

(1924a, p. 7). official publication that explored the councils further was I. Materna (1978) Der Vollzugsrat der Berliner Arbeiter-und Soldatenräte 1918/19 (Dietz: Berlin). The book did not challenge the official version directly, but an in-length discussion of the role of workers’ councils implicitly questioned the official history. It could only be published because Materna used a recommendation of Soviet historian Jakow Drabkin to circumvent the standard reviewing process (information provided by Ingo Materna). 28 E. Kolb (1962) Die Arbeiterräte in der deutschen Innenpolitik, 1918–1919 (Düsseldorf: Droste); P. von Oertzen (1963) Betriebsräte in der Novemberrevolution (Düsseldorf: Droste). 29 D. Schneider and R. Kuda (1968), Arbeiterräte in der Novemberrevolution. Ideen, Wirkungen, Dokumente (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp), pp. 50–62; Von Oertzen included a report on this issue in the 2nd edition of Betriebsräte in der Novemberrevolution (Bonn, 1976). 27 An

128  R. HOFFROGGE

were rediscovered following the framework of reform. But those reforms never materialized: neither the coalition governments of the SPD and Christian Democrats in 1966 nor Chancellor Willy Brandt substantially changed the powers of works councils. Nevertheless, the ossification of historical memory was overcome to a certain degree in the years 1957–1963. Note that this achievement was not connected with the West German New Left that gained momentum only four years later, but came from the “Old Left” of the SPD and the trade unions.

A New Left and the German Revolution Although there were social and intellectual movements in West Germany associated with the Left as early as the 1950s, especially the protest movements against rearmament and nuclear weapons since 1955,30 the renaissance of the left is mostly associated with the years 1967 and 1968, when a new generation multiplied the activity level of social movements. Although young workers participated the student movement was at the core of this generation’s attempt to reestablish contact with socialism. The Sozialistische Deutsche Studentenbund (SDS, Socialist Students League) became the main protagonist here. Its history is a good example of the fractures that cropped up between the old and New Left in Germany.31 The SDS had started as a student organization affiliated to the SPD, but was expelled in 1961 when its members refused to go along with the Godesberger Programm of 1959, which had edited Marxism out of the SPD’s manifesto. Three years earlier the Communist Party (KPD) had been banned in West Germany. Some cadres of the KPD continued low-level underground activities after 1956 and later found their way into the SDS. But this was a secret affair and the SDS never became affiliated with the underground KPD. This was not just for legal reasons, but mostly because its members wanted to keep a distance from orthodox

30 On the West German New Left before 1967, see G. Kritidis (2008) Linkssozialistische Opposition in der Ära Adenauer. Ein Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte der Bundesrepublik (Hannover: Offizin). 31 T. Fichter and S. Lönnendonker (2007) Kleine Geschichte des SDS. Der Sozialistische Deutsche Studentenbund von Helmut Schmidt bis Rudi Dutschke, 4th ed. (Essen: Klartext-Verlag).

5  REMEMBERING THE REVOLUTION … 

129

Marxism–Leninism. Disconnected from both traditional parties on the left the SDS had no established Marxist culture of history that could be inherited from an older generation—it had to find its own stand against the traditions and theories of Marxism. The severed ties between old and young socialists were not a problem particular to the SDS, but characteristic of the emerging New Left in West Germany. The Old Left of trade unions and social democracy had settled into the Wirtschaftswunder economy; proletarian milieus eroded when consumerism became available to workers. The weakness of the KPD at the time of its ban in 1956 is often attributed to its ideological inflexibility and dependence on East Germany. But it might as well be interpreted as an inability to deal with this working class consumerism and subsequently eroding collectivism in the 1950s.32 The New Leftism at the end of the 1960s questioned this social compromise and grubbed out a second compromise on national memory: the members of the defeated old labor movement had not put up any active resistance against the fact that many former members of the Nazi Party and other Nazi institutions had resumed their old positions after 1949. The young generation persisted in questioning this and therefore became a nuisance to the Federal Republic’s political truce based on this collective amnesia. The angry young men and women asked about the Fascist Party of their parents and grandparents, teachers and pastors, and questioned the anti-communism that held together West German society. They lacked role models within the older generation, which meant that as newcomers they had to rely on written texts: a giant wave of Raubdrucke “pirate copies” accompanied the process of radicalization.33 When publishers refused to reprint Marxist texts and when such authors as Max Horkheimer and the Frankfurt School did their utmost to suppress access to their writings from the 1920s the pirate copy became the mainstay of an emerging neo-Marxist culture of history. Its aim during the first stage was to resume debates that had been suppressed in 1933. Theory was in demand, especially any form of Marxism that did not fit

32 R. Hoffrogge (2012) ‘Fordismus, Eurokommunismus und Neue Linke. Thesen zu Kontinuitäten und Diskontinuitäten zwischen Arbeiterbewegung und Linker Szene in der BRD’ in Jahrbuch für Historische Kommunismusforschung, pp. 249–64. 33 U. Sonnenberg (2016) Von Marx zum Maulwurf. Linker Buchhandel in Westdeutschland in den 1970er Jahren (Göttingen: Wallstein), pp. 49–66.

130  R. HOFFROGGE

into the pigeonholes of the SPD’s “democratic socialism” and the SED’s “Marxism–Leninism.” Not only were Karl Korsch, Georg Lukacs, and Wilhelm Reich prominent with pirate printers, but also Richard Müller got his first reprints between 1967 and 1969.34 The first generation of reprints was done using photomechanical techniques, neither layout nor pagination were changed, there were no historical introductions or prefaces to bridge the gap of time. In the case of Richard Müller it took ten years before a third edition by the West Berlin publisher Olle and Wolter included a historical preface by Frank Dingel.35 At that time it had become evident that Marxist debates aborted in 1933 could not be restarted without reflecting on historical changes during the lost decades. When looking at the use of text by the West German New Left it is important to note that 50 years after the German Revolution in both German states there were contemporaries of the events still alive, men and women in their seventies. But only in rare cases would they speak up and take on the function of a public intellectual guiding the younger generation. One such case is Karl Retzlaw, born in 1896, member of the Spartacus League, and author of a memoir bearing the same title. It is symptomatic that an English version had already been published by 1944, but a German edition only by 1971.36 Retzlaw had become a member of the SPD in 1946, but would not subscribe to mainstream social democratic historiography—unlike many of his comrades in both East and West who took sides in the Cold War

34 A 1969 reprint of Vom Kaiserreich zur Republik can be confirmed, others were mentioned by contemporaries. 35 R. Müller, Geschichte der deutschen Revolution, vol. I, introduced by Frank Dingel, Olle und Wollter, Berlin (West) 1979. A first “official” reprint outside the realm of pirate copies was issued by Olle and Wolter in 1974. The latest edition dates from 2011 and includes all three volumes: R. Müller (2011) Eine Geschichte der Novemberrevolution (Buchmacherei: Berlin). Olle and Wolter, the publisher of the first reprints, was a Trotskyist publisher, see Sonnenberg 2016, pp. 182, 296f. Compared with Maoism, Trotskyism was a rather small current in postwar West Germany. 36 K. Retzlaw (1944) Spartakus: German Communists (London, New York and Melbourne: Hutchinson & Co.); Retzlaw (1971) Spartakus—Aufstieg und Niedergang. Erinnerungen eines Parteiarbeiters (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Neue Kritik).

5  REMEMBERING THE REVOLUTION … 

131

even when telling their own life stories. Good examples are the oral history reports from surviving former Revolutionary Shop Stewards, collected by the East German Institute of Marxism–Leninism in the 1950s. These reports show just how strongly the interviewed “working class veterans” identified with the SED’s politics.37 Most of the interviewees tended to accept the SED as a contemporary incarnation of the ideals of 1918 and, when talking about the past, downplayed or denied differences between the Spartacus League and their former organization. At the same time in West Germany the Vereinigung der Verfolgten des Naziregimes (Union of Victims of Nazi Persecution) was the only legal organization dominated by communists from the Weimar years. Due to its nature it concentrated memorial activities on the history of Nazism and its crimes. In this as in other areas of historical memory it heavily depended on East German interpretations. Several attempts were made to illegalize the VVN in cases presided over by judges who had been members of the Nazi Party before 1933. These events hardened the worldview of the VVN’s members that East Germany was the only successful anti-fascist state, while in the West a combination of capitalist interests and fascist functionaries was still in power—this worldview would later be passed on to younger sympathizers. Therefore, the heritage of Nazism and the controversies in its roots and continuities hardened the dichotomy of Marxist memorial culture. Equating capitalism with fascism and identifying anti-fascism with orthodox communism as practiced in the GDR not only ignored the historical failure of the Weimar KPD, it also stood in the way of any reinterpretation of Marxism.38 Memory and history became a battlefield where everyone had to take sides. The pressure was so immense that even the socialist students of the SDS, untouched by personal memories from 1918 or 1933, would feel its aftershocks.

37 Erinnerungen,

Bundesarchiv Berlin, SAPMO SgY 30. early challenge to this interpretation of fascism that at the same time questioned canonic views on the German Revolution was K. Theweleit (1973) Männerphantasien (Marburg: Roter Stern), English ed. (1987) Male Fantasies (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press). Theweleit analyzed memoirs of Freikorps soldiers and identified a pathological pattern of male violence at the root of fascist movements. 38 An

132  R. HOFFROGGE

K for Communism? In 1970 the SDS split. Due to the rapid expansion of the student movement it could not maintain the function of an umbrella organization. While one faction continued an “anti-authoritarian” style of politics that gave birth to a counterculture of communes and alternative lifestyles, other factions became the founding cells of several Marxist–Leninist and Maoist groupings, the so-called K-Gruppen, named for their acronyms such as KB, KBW, or KPD/AO—in all cases the letter K stood for Kommunismus “Communism.”39 All these groups claimed to be the successors of Liebknecht, Luxemburg, and the Weimar KPD, although they followed a narrow Stalinist interpretation of its tradition. In the aftermath of the SinoSoviet split Maoist groups all over the globe used the image of Stalin as an icon of protest against “Revisionism,” which was defined by young Maoists as a watered-down version of communism. This was a reaction to the reform-oriented course of traditional communist parties that were not interested in radical social movements beyond their control. It also reflected the Soviet Union’s policy of “peaceful cooperation,” perceived by young radicals as a counterrevolution that had Khrushchev’s reforms at the forefront. Therefore, to rediscover true communism a German edition of Stalin’s collected works that had been abandoned in East Germany two decades before was resumed in West Germany in the 1970s.40 Maoist instructions on party history were based on the “Short Course,” including its judgments on the 1918 Revolution. This led to the paradox that during the 1970s a remarkable faction of West German leftists became further socialized following a narrative of 1918 that resembled the East German narrative of events in its utmost orthodoxy: the councils advocating Menshevism, the German Revolution as a failed version of the glorious Red October Revolution, lacking the guidance of a vanguard party. This trend was reinforced by another big player that had inherited some potential from the student movement. The DKP, Deutsche Kommunistische Partei, was reestablished from the underground KPD

39 M. Steffen and M. Flörsheimer (2008) “K-Gruppen” in Historisch-Kritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus, vol. 7/1 (Hamburg: Argument). 40 J.W. Stalin (1976–1979) Werke, 15 vols. (Dortmund: Roter Morgen).

5  REMEMBERING THE REVOLUTION … 

133

when the political climate liberalized in 1968. Despite the fact that many new leftists saw it as counterrevolutionary and opted for Maoism the DKP managed to attract a number of younger cadres and won over up to 40,000 followers. Its instructions on party history and the German Revolution closely followed GDR historiography. Eventually, neither the DKP nor Maoism were interested in a de-Stalinized narrative on the German Revolution. However, despite the fact that a great many attempts to appropriate Marxist traditions during the 1970s fell back into orthodoxy, the West German New Left never came close to their proclaimed ideal of orthodox Leninism: a strong vanguard party of the working class. On the contrary, the second stage of the student movement was characterized by a total absence of organizational unity. The constitution of the West German left as a scene or milieu of countless rival small parties fell far from the 1920s’ collectivism that its followers wanted to emulate.41 In fact, the new Left’s structure of small groups seemed to fulfill its members’ desire for personal distinction and individual expression instead. Political identities formed at schools or universities had been built in theoretical debates where individual arguments made a point—not by the experience of collective action at the workplace where unity was the first principle. Despite its appropriations from the past the West German left of the 1970s resembled Hardt and Negri’s later vision of a postmodernist “multitude” much more than Weimar Communism.

Labor’s Other Whereas the orthodox groups that had emerged from the student movement were unable to develop a creative reading of the history of the German Revolution the anti-authoritarian wing was successful. In 1974 Karl Heinz-Roth published his book Die andere Arbeiterbewegung (“The other Labor Movement”) and gave an interpretation of German labor history inspired by Italian operaismo (“workerism”).42 This current of Marxism stressed the autonomy of working class activism and

41 See

Hoffrogge (2012). Roth and Elisabeth Behrens (1974) Die “andere” Arbeiterbewegung und die Entwicklung der kapitalistischen Repression von 1880 bis zur Gegenwart (München: Trikont). 42 K.-H.

134  R. HOFFROGGE

especially its independence from political parties, which it considered dominated by artisans and skilled workers as the upper echelons of the working class, always moving toward integration, not rebellion. Roth saw the wildcat strikes that had preceded the German Revolution and the uprisings in its aftermath as spontaneous and therefore an undiluted expression of the majority of the working class, the non-educated, unskilled masses. Roth therefore shared Richard Müller’s suggestion that the council movement was an autonomous force and that the German Revolution was not brought about by political parties—but Roth rejected the Revolutionary Shop Stewards as the inspiration for contemporary politics. To him Müller’s schemes of council communism were technocratic “utopias of self-administration.”43 Nevertheless, Roth’s interpretation of the German Revolution broke the dichotomy of Cold War narratives. Roth’s reassessment of historical events was inspired by a wave of wildcat strikes in 1973. He hoped that these events would shake the orthodox ossification of the left and direct attention toward ongoing class struggles that had erupted spontaneously, were not formally organized, and did not follow the image of “class” that the New Left had inherited from its distorted reading of Weimar literature. The idea behind Roth’s analysis was intervention instead of reenactment—he was a member of a group called the “Proletarian Front” that had abandoned the tactics of dropping leaflets at factory gates in favor of long-term strategies that included employment as factory workers and engagement.44 While these interventions failed to bring about social revolution in Germany, they left a marked impression on local labor struggles and the trade union scene, since many of its participants eventually became full-time trade unionists.45 As far as historiography is concerned Roth and others, centered around the radical left journal Autonomie, opened up a debate on the

43 Roth here echoed contemporary critics of Müller who judged his conception of a council-based economy as “schematic” and obsessed with details, while at the same time Müller seemed to neglect the struggle for political power, see Hoffrogge (2014, pp. 63, 110). 44 D. Lange (2016) ‘Interview with Karl-Heinz Roth’ in Arbeit—Bewegung—Geschichte. Zeitschrift für historische Studien, I. 45 J.O. Arps (2011) Frühschicht. Linke Fabrikintervention in den 70er Jahren (Hamburg: Assoziation A).

5  REMEMBERING THE REVOLUTION … 

135

historically changing composition of “class.”46 Like Richard Müller fifty years before West German operaismo refused to equate the ­working class with parties and their leaders, instead asking for a specific mode of class formations and class politics. This debate left its marks not just within the radical left, it also confronted the emerging German Sozialgeschichte, a social history emancipated from political history some years before and dominated by social democratic historians such as Hans-Ulrich Wehler.47 Inspired by both Italian sources and the British New Left historian E. P. Thompson, phenomena such as refusal of work, machine braking, and other practices so far overlooked by social history were introduced into the debate, widening the concepts of labor history. In addition to these innovations in the field of social history debates on the political history of the German Revolution, which had been started by Eberhard Kolb und Peter von Oertzen, were continued in the 1980s by Reinhard Rürup, Hans Mommsen, and others. They discussed the German Revolution as a “third way” between capitalism and communism, continuing earlier debates on the council movement as an inspiration for social reform.48 Both Mommsen and Rürup were members of the SPD, the latter a member of its Historical Commission, which had been established in 1982. While the social democratic left was able to integrate its narratives on the German Revolution into successive debates on political reform in the 1960s and 1980s, the radical left was unable to do so. On the one hand, it lacked the resources of academic institutionalization: while some Marxists such as Wolfgang Fritz Haug, Elmar Altvater, Georg Fülberth, and Frank Deppe advanced to full professorship, this was possible only in the social sciences and

46 It was published from 1975 to 1985: Autonomie—Materialien gegen die Fabrikgesellschaft (München: Trikont). 47 H.-U. Wehler (1966) Moderne deutsche Sozialgeschichte (Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch). 48 See R. Rürup (1983) ‘Demokratische Revolution und “dritter Weg”: Die deutsche Revolution von 1918/19 in der neueren wissenschaftlichen Diskussion’ in Geschichte u. Gesellschaft, vol. 9, 2, 278–301.

136  R. HOFFROGGE

philosophy departments—not in the field of history.49 But the main obstacles to a Marxist culture of history were not the closed gates of academia, but the lack of a common narrative on the German Revolution—a result of the New Left’s factionalism.

Summary Although the idea that every interpretation of history is guided by the interests and perspectives of the historians’ present is commonly accepted today, it is important to note the enormous dominance of political factionalism in the historiography on the 1918 Revolution in postwar Germany. The proximity of the Cold War setting did not allow for the emergence of an authentic and self-reflecting Marxist culture of history in the 1950s and mid-1960s. Therefore, the image of the German Revolution remained rather static during the 1950s, with the remarkable exemption of leftist social democrats’ rehabilitation of the council movement from 1957 to 1963, made possible by de-Stalinization. The influence of the Cold War on the historiography and culture of history was aggravated by the burden of historical defeat that a New Left had to overcome when emancipating itself from the older generation. The total destruction of the labor movement in 1933 and its inability to prevent fascism had converted the pride of German socialism as the heartland of Marxism into a feeling of guilt. Unlike Italy and France, where the reality and myth of the communist resistance and the anti-fascist partisans had restored the dignity of communism for a new generation, the heritage of German communism lacked this heroic ending. When the tradition of German Marxism ended in defeat, Red

49 To obtain a full professorship in the public university system of West Germany a candidate needed to be elected from the university and approved by the state government of the respective Bundesland. A Marxist academic network with close ties to the German Communist Party (DKP) was the “Marburg School.” Some of its members also published on labor history, in which the history of the German trade unions was both influential and controversial, see F. Deppe, G. Fülberth, and J. Harrer (1977) Geschichte der deutschen Gewerkschaftsbewegung (Köln: Pahl-Rugenstein). On the Marburg School, see L. Peter (2014) Marx an die Uni. Die “Marburger Schule”. Geschichte, Probleme, Akteure (Köln: PapyRossa).

5  REMEMBERING THE REVOLUTION … 

137

October and Chairman Mao were tempting ersatz traditions for a new generation to appropriate. The fact that there was only a very limited oral history of the 1918 Revolution added to this fracture of tradition. Many of the protagonists of 1918 had not survived fascism and war, while survivors felt the burden of defeat even more than the younger generation. They tended to side with either West German social democracy or Marxism–Leninism, often blaming the respective other for the defeat in 1933. In addition, the social transformation of West Germany and to a lesser degree East Germany into societies guided by the promise of welfarist consumerism weakened the very roots of the labor movement: collective deprivation as the common ground for collective politics. This process had already started in the 1950s and reinforced tendencies toward retreat into private life that had been formed during Nazism, when public politics were state controlled. The fact that 20 years later despite the first signs of crisis within the postwar economic upturn the term “class” was not an obvious reality of life for an average 20-year-old getting in touch with Marxism, but must be seen as another decisive factor for the ideological inflexibilities and borrowed identities of the K-Gruppen and other formations of the new West German left in those years. The reemergence of a Marxist culture of history in West Germany therefore was a fragmented process, characterized by ruptures and broken links. It was based on the exegesis of texts rather than the oral history traditions or organizational memory of working class organizations.50

References Arps, J. O. (2011) Frühschicht. Linke Fabrikintervention in den 70er Jahren (Hamburg: Assoziation A). Berger, S. (2010) ‘Rising Like a Phoenix … The Renaissance of National History Writing in Germany and Britain Since the 1980s’ in S. Berger and C. Lorenz (eds.) Nationalizing the Past: Historians as Nation Builders in Modern Europe (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 426–51. Deppe, F., Fülberth, G. and Harrer, J. (1977) Geschichte der deutschen Gewerkschaftsbewegung (Köln: Pahl-Rugenstein). Erdmann, K. D. (1955) ‘Die Geschichte der Weimarer Republik als Problem der Wissenschaft’, Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 3, 1–19.

50 See

Hoffrogge (2015).

138  R. HOFFROGGE Fichter, T. and Lönnendonker, S. (2007) Kleine Geschichte des SDS. Der Sozialistische Deutsche Studentenbund von Helmut Schmidt bis Rudi Dutschke, 4th ed. (Essen: Klartext-Verlag). Fischer, F. (1968) Germany’s Aims in the First World War (New York: W. W. Norton). Flechtheim, O. K. (1948) Die KPD in der Weimarer Republik (Frankfurt: Bollwerk-Verlag). Grass, G. (1987) ‘Die angelesene Revolution. Rede auf einer Veranstaltung des demokratischen Hochschulbundes in Bochum [1968]’ in Essays, Reden, Briefe, Kommentare (Darmstadt: Luchterhand), pp. 297–311. Hoffrogge, R. (2012) ‘Fordismus, Eurokommunismus und Neue Linke. Thesen zu Kontinuitäten und Diskontinuitäten zwischen Arbeiterbewegung und Linker Szene in der BRD’ in Jahrbuch für Historische Kommunismusforschung, pp. 249–64. Hoffrogge, R. (2014) Working- Class Politics in the German Revolution. Richard Müller, the Revolutionary Shop Stewards and the Origins of the Council Movement (Leiden: Brill), pp. 197–211. Keßler, M. (2008) Die Novemberrevolution und ihre Räte. Die DDR-Debatten des Jahres 1958 und die internationale Forschung (Berlin: HellePanke). Keßler, M. (2014) Albert Schreiner. Kommunist mit Lebensbrüchen (Berlin: Trafo). Kinner, K. (1982) Marxistische deutsche Geschichtswissenschaft 1917 bis 1933. Geschichte und Politik im Kampf der KPD (Berlin [GDR]: Akademie Verlag). Kolb, E. (1962) Die Arbeiterräte in der deutschen Innenpolitik, 1918–1919 (Düsseldorf: Droste). Kritidis, G. (2008) Linkssozialistische Opposition in der Ära Adenauer. Ein Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte der Bundesrepublik (Hannover: Offizin). Lange, D. (2012) Massenstreik und Schießbefehl. Generalstreik und Märzkämpfe in Berlin 1919 (Münster: Edition Assemblage). Lange, D. (2016) ‘Interview with Karl-Heinz Roth’ in Arbeit—Bewegung— Geschichte. Zeitschrift für historische Studien, I. Materna, I. (1978) Der Vollzugsrat der Berliner Arbeiter-und Soldatenräte 1918/19 (Dietz: Berlin). Müller, R. (2011) Eine Geschichte der Novemberrevolution (Buchmacherei: Berlin). Niess, W. (2013) Die Revolution von 1918/19 in der deutschen Geschichtsschreibung. Deutungen von der Weimarer Republik bis ins 21. Jahrhundert (Berlin: De Gruyter). Peter, L. (2014) Marx an die Uni. Die “Marburger Schule”. Geschichte, Probleme, Akteure (Köln: PapyRossa). Poscher, R. (1999) Der Verfassungstag (Baden Baden: Nomos). Retzlaw, K. (1944) Spartakus: German Communists (London, New York and Melbourne: Hutchinson & Co.). Retzlaw, K. (1971) Spartakus—Aufstieg und Niedergang. Erinnerungen eines Parteiarbeiters (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Neue Kritik).

5  REMEMBERING THE REVOLUTION … 

139

Roth, K.-H. and Behrens, E. (1974) Die “andere” Arbeiterbewegung und die Entwicklung der kapitalistischen Repression von 1880 bis zur Gegenwart (München: Trikont). Rothfels, H. (1953) ‘Zeitgeschichte als Aufgabe’, Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 1, 1–8. Rürup, R. (1983) ‘Demokratische Revolution und “dritter Weg”: Die deutsche Revolution von 1918/19 in der neueren wissenschaftlichen Diskussion’, Geschichte u. Gesellschaft, 9, 2, 278–301. Schneider, D. and Kuda, R. (1968), Arbeiterräte in der Novemberrevolution. Ideen, Wirkungen, Dokumente (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp), pp. 50–62. Sonnenberg, U. (2016) Von Marx zum Maulwurf. Linker Buchhandel in Westdeutschland in den 1970er Jahren (Göttingen: Wallstein), pp. 49–66. Steffen, M. and Flörsheimer, M. (2008) “K-Gruppen” in Historisch-Kritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus, vol. 7/1 (Hamburg: Argument). Theweleit, K. (1973) Männerphantasien (Marburg: Roter Stern), English ed. (1987) Male Fantasies (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press). Tormin, W. (1955) Zwischen Rätediktatur und sozialer Demokratie. Die Geschichte der Rätebewegung in der Deutschen Revolution (Düsseldorf: Droste). von Oertzen, P. (1963) Betriebsräte in der Novemberrevolution (Düsseldorf: Droste). Wehler, H.-U. (1966) Moderne deutsche Sozialgeschichte (Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch). Winkler, H. A. (2006) Germany. The Long Road West, vol. 1: 1789–1933 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Winkler, H. A. (2007) Germany. The Long Road West, vol. 2: 1933–1990 (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

CHAPTER 6

Politically Engaged Scholarship in Social Movement Studies Dieter Rucht

Introduction Can and should we strictly exclude personal values and political stances from scholarly work? This question has been extensively debated at least since the famous value judgment controversy (Werturteilsstreit) in the early 20th century.1 While Max Weber and Werner Sombart opted for strict neutrality, others—mainly the so-called socialists of the chair— argued that values necessarily are or should be present in scholarly writings. The debate was taken up again in German sociology in the so-called positivism dispute (Positivismusstreit) in the 1960s2 and continued until 1 O. Rammstedt (1991) ‘Die Frage der Wertfreiheit und die Gründung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie’ in L. Claußen and C. Schlüter-Knauer (eds.) Hundert Jahre “Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft” (Opladen: Leske + Budrich), pp. 549–60. 2 T. Adorno et al. (1969) Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie (Darmstadt and Neuwied: Luchterhand); H. Keuth (1989) Wissenschaft und Werturteil: zu Welturteilsdiskussionen und Positivismusstreit (Tübingen: Mohr Siebek).

D. Rucht (*)  Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, Berlin, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2019 S. Berger and C. Cornelissen (eds.), Marxist Historical Cultures and Social Movements during the Cold War, Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03804-5_6

141

142  D. RUCHT

the present. It also takes place in social movement studies, especially because most social movements explicitly take value-loaded positions that make it difficult for observers to remain indifferent. No wonder that many past and contemporary students of social movements, including those who made a career in the academic world, have been or still are sympathizers or even active participants in social movements. Such a background could be considered as an asset because it helps to better understand the logics, functions, and structures of social movements. Going even farther, some scholars argue that siding with the “right” kinds of movements and opposing their “wrong’ counterparts” is a kind of moral obligation not only as a citizen but also as a scientist. Others take the opposite position, arguing that any kind of partisanship tends to create blind spots and is incompatible with “scientific standards.” This chapter is inspired by this controversy and motivated by my ongoing personal struggle of coming to terms with what might be termed “politically engaged scholarship.” Because this is by no means a problem specific to social movement studies and has been discussed on the principle grounds as a matter of the philosophy, logics, and methodology of human and social sciences, I will refer, first but very briefly, to this fundamental debate that lays the ground for similar debates in special fields such as social movement studies. Second, I aim at providing a descriptive and analytical overview on engaged scholarship in social movement studies. Here the focus is not specifically on Marxist, neo-Marxist, or post-Marxist approaches, but on the broader spectrum of politically engaged scholarship. Moreover, I will not restrict myself to the most recent period but will delve further back. Third, I will reflect on the advantages and problems of engaged scholarship. Here I promote an approach that includes both closeness and distance vis-à-vis social movements as an object of study before offering, fourth, a brief summary.

Positivist vs. Engaged Scholarship: Basic Viewpoints In social sciences and arguably the historical sciences as well we encounter a “great divide” between those who believe that science is or should be a neutral and objective way to analyze social phenomena (usually called positivists) and those who think that scientists—willingly or unwillingly, consciously or unconsciously—do have normative viewpoints that undergird and influence their scientific endeavors, findings, and interpretations (among them Marxists, critical theorists,

6  POLITICALLY ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP IN SOCIAL MOVEMENT STUDIES 

143

phenomenologists, and poststructuralists). In the absence of better terms I call these positions positivism, on the one hand, and morally or politically engaged scholarship, on the other hand. A closer look reveals that each of these two basic lines of thinking includes a spectrum of more specific positions. As for positivist approaches I distinguish between two broad subcategories: scientism and critical rationalism. As for politically engaged scholarship I propose to differentiate between identitary partisanship and reflective sympathy. These are analytical distinctions. In reality, there exist intermediary zones between these categories and subcategories. As this chapter focuses on politically engaged scholarship with regard to social movements only brief reference will be made to the positivist approach. Its radical version, hereafter called scientism, prescribes science as grounded on a completely neutral position of the researcher whose personal beliefs, preferences, and tastes do not or should not influence his or her scientific work.3 From this perspective science is fact oriented and based on neutral, intersubjectively controllable methods according to the model of the natural sciences as, for example, the chemist Peter Atkins argues.4 Interestingly, however, there are also natural scientists who strongly criticize scientism on principle grounds.5 Critical rationalism acknowledges that within very limited boundaries values come into play when doing science. For example, Karl Popper admits that the researcher’s interest in a particular scientific question cannot be justified by scientific means.6 Moreover, science is a normative enterprise insofar as it requires recognition of the value of the search for truth.7 As for the rest, however, critical rationalism rests on the 3 T. Sorell (1991) Scientism: Philosophy and the Infatuation with Science (New York: Routledge). 4 P. Atkins (1995) ‘Science as “Truth”’, History of the Human Sciences, 8, 97–102. 5 For example, A. L. Hughes (2012) ‘The Folly of Scientism’, The New Atlantis, 37, 32–50. 6 K. Popper (1959) [first published in 1935] The Logic of Scientific Discovery (London: Hutchinson & Co.). 7 ‘The objective and value-free scientist is not the ideal scientist. It is not possible without passion, and all the more so in pure science. The term ‘love for truth’ is not a mere metaphor’ (K. Popper (1969) ‘The Logic of Social Sciences’ in T. Adorno et al. (1969) Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie (Darmstadt and Neuwied: Luchterhand), pp. 103–23, here p. 114; my translation). Robert Merton (1942) made similar claims by characterizing the ‘mores of science’ as both moral and technical prescriptions.

144  D. RUCHT

assumption that values including political positions have to be banned from the sphere of science. If not, we are operating in the realms of metaphysics, religion, or politics.8 A number of scholars working in the areas of recognition theory (Erkenntnistheorie), theory of science, and scientific methodology question the core ideas of positivism on principle grounds.9 And so do many scholars in the human and social sciences when it comes to their own disciplines.10 For example, Jürgen Habermas11 argues that a strictly neutral position is impossible in practicing science and that positivism is itself an “ideology.” Jörg Rüsen too accepts partisanship as long as it is made

8 H. Albert (1964) ‘Social Science and Moral Philosophy. A Critical Approach to the Value Problem in the Social Sciences’ in M. Bunge (ed.) The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy. Essays in Honor of Karl Popper (Glencoe, IL: Free Press); H. Albert (1999) Between Social Science, Religion and Politics: Essays on Critical Rationalism (Amsterdam and Atlanta, GI: Ropodi). 9 For example, A. Schütz (1962) ‘Common-Sense and Scientific Interpretation of Human Action’ in M. Natanson (ed.) Alfred Schütz. Collected Papers, Volume I (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff), pp. 3–47; P. Feyerabend (1975) Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge (London: NLB); and K.O. Apel (1973) Transformation der Philosophie, Volume I: Sprachanalytik, Semiotik, Hermeneutik and Volume II: das Apriori der Kommunikationsgesellschaft (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp). 10 See P. L. Berger and T. Luckmann (1966) The Social Construction of Reality (Garden City, NY: Doubleday); Taylor, C. (1967) ‘Neutrality in Political Science’ in P. Laslett and W. Garrison Runciman (eds.) Philosophy, Politics and Society (Oxford: Blackwell); J. Rüsen (1983) Historische Vernunft Grundzüge einer Historik: Die Grundlagen der Geschichtswissenschaft (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck); W. J. Mommsen (1977) ‘Der perspektivische Charakter historischer Aussagen und das Problem der Parteilichkeit und Objektivität historischer Erkenntnis’ in R. Koselleck, W. J. Mommsen and J. Rüsen (eds.) Objektivität und Parteilichkeit. Theorie der Geschichte, 1 (München: dtv), pp. 441–68; H. E. Longino (1990) Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press); P. Scott, P. E. Richard and B. Martin (1990) ‘Captives of Controversy: The Myth of the Neutral Social Researcher’ in Contemporary Scientific Controversies, Science, Technology & Human Values, 15, 474–94; and C. Ratner (2002) ‘Subjectivity and Objectivity in Qualitative Methodology’, Forum Qualitative Social Research, III, 3. 11 ‘Technology and science themselves in the form of a common positivistic way of thinking, articulated as technological consciousness, began to take the role of a substitute ideology for the demolished bourgeois ideologies’: J. Habermas (1974) Theory and Practice (London: Heinemann), p. 253ff.

6  POLITICALLY ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP IN SOCIAL MOVEMENT STUDIES 

145

explicit, can be traced in an intersubjective manner, and the three criteria of objectivity are respected.12 Within this broader framework of a critique of positivism there is a subcategory I label identitary partisanship that takes a radical stance. It requires partisanship of the scholar who, ideally, fully identifies with the object under study. Accordingly, the lines between the activist and the scholar become blurred, although the latter may have more theoretical and analytical capacities than the activist.13 At any rate both should work together to put forward a political cause in an implicit or explicit division of labor. An example of such a partisanship is the “organic intellectual” who in a “social function”14 serves the emancipatory aims of the socialist/communist labor movement.15 Scholars such as Edward P. Thompson16 (1978) in a well-grounded and well-reflected way have played the role of an organic intellectual without necessarily reclaiming that title. But there are also Marxist scholars who, without having closely studied progressive movements, took a romantic perspective on these according to Lenin’s dictum: “We should dream!”17 As a rule such

12 Rüsen, first, calls for Begründungsobjektivität (objectivity of foundation). This means that historical facts should be acknowledged regardless of the meaning attached to these. Second, Konstruktionsobjektivität (objectivity of the construction) requires to embed histories into the medium of argumentative communication. Third, Konsensusobjektivität (objectivity of consensus) implies the capacity of histories to serve people with diverging positions to communicate on the basis of shared meanings. Rüsen, Historische Vernunft, pp. 128–32. 13 L. Cox and A. G. Nilsen (2005) ‘Why Do Activists Need Theory?’, Euromovements Newsletter, http://eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/445/, date accessed 10 May 2016. 14 ‘All men are intellectuals…but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals’: A. Gramsci (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks (New York: International Publishers), p. 9. 15 The organic intellectual gives to a social group or class ‘homogeneity and an awareness of its own function not only in the economic but also in the social and political fields’: Gramsci, Notebooks, p. 5. He participates ‘in practical life, as constructor and organiser, “permanent persuader” and not just a simple orator (…) from technique-as-work one proceeds to technique-as-science and to the humanistic conception of history, without which one remain “specialised” and does not become “directive” (specialised and political)’: Gramsci, Notebooks, p. 10. 16 E. P. Thompson (1978) The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays (London: Merlin Press). 17 V. I. Lenin (1902) What Is to Be Done?, p. 110, https://www.marxists.org/archive/ lenin/works/download/what-itd.pdf, date accessed 12 May 2016.

146  D. RUCHT Table 6.1  Typology of basic approaches in doing science Attitude toward the object of science Intensity of position Radical

Neutral Scientism Rational choice Behaviorism

Moderate

Critical rationalism Functionalism

Engaged Identitary partisanship (Neo-)Marxism Anarchism Radical feminism Reflective sympathy Critical theory Poststructuralism

crude forms of identitary partisanship imply remaining silent on or even denying facts that would shed a negative light on the promoted political actor. Reflective sympathy, the second subcategory of engaged scholarship, implies a positive attitude to a value-loaded goal—for example, gender equality, disarmament, abolition of torture—to which a scholar may contribute by providing data and analyses. However, this position neither means giving unconditional support for groups engaged in such goals, especially with regard to their specific personnel, strategy, and tactics, nor does it mean refraining from expressing doubts, ambivalences, and critiques. Reflective sympathy is open to arguments, counterevidence, and self-correction and thus is incompatible with blind faith. Such a position seems close to C. Wright Mills’ model of the “independent intellectual.”18 These different positions and some of their more specific approaches are presented in a schematic way in Table 6.1. The various positions indicated in Table 6.1 were formed decades ago. They continue to be promoted in present times, although the heat in this debate has been lowered probably as a result of few new arguments having been added to it in more recent times.

18 C. Wright Mills (1959) The Sociological Imagination (New York: Oxford University Press).

6  POLITICALLY ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP IN SOCIAL MOVEMENT STUDIES 

147

Positivist and Engaged Scholarship in Social Movement Studies: An Overview The more general approaches sketched above are also reflected in social movement studies. Analysts and writers, such as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, were quite frank about their status as engaged scholars, while at the same time criticizing other writers—even within their own leftist camp (e.g., utopian socialists)—as being oblivious of facts and “objective” tendencies. Analysts of social movements as diverse as Lorenz von Stein (liberal–conservative), Robert Michels (leftist, later rightist), and Rudolf Heberle (reformist left) clearly had political preferences that influenced their findings and interpretations. Still, they tried to keep some distance from their object under study and remain fact oriented. To my knowledge, however, from the lifetime of von Stein to Heberle there was no elaborated discussion about the pros and cons of engaged scholarship in social movement studies. Only later did the duality between “objective” and “engaged” research become visible as exemplified in the organization of social movement scholars within the framework of the International Sociological Association. The Research Committee 47 on Social Classes and Social Movements (established 1993) with its leftist political leaning was later complemented by the more “neutral” Research Committee 48 on Social Movements, Collective Action and Social Change (established 1994). More recently, however, the differences between these two committees have become blurred. Apparently, a significant proportion of social movement scholars had in the past or have a background as sympathizers or activists, especially when it comes to studying various kinds of “progressive” movements. This is clearly true for most writings on the historical labor, women’s, and peace movements. To some extent these writings are also financially backed by institutions close to or even part of social movements. When working on the concluding chapter of an edited volume on the state of the art of social movement studies in Europe I made a modest attempt at gathering data on engaged scholarship by distributing a small questionnaire to the authors of country reports.19 Among other things 19 D. Rucht (2016) ‘Conclusions. Social Movement Studies in Europe: Achievements, Gaps, Challenges’ in O. Fillieule and G. Accornero (eds.) Social Movement Studies in Europe: The State of the Art (New York and Oxford: Berghahn), pp. 456–87.

148  D. RUCHT

I asked these authors about their political activism. Of the 29 European authors who completed my questionnaire 12 had been political activists in the past and 8 had been and still are activists. Only 9 were not now nor had been activists. When asked whether most of their colleagues in their home country had a background as a movement activist 14 respondents answered yes, 7 said no, and 8 did not know. Similar observations could be made for the United States when thinking about wellknown authors such as William A. Gamson, Aldon Morris, Frances Fox Piven, Myra Marx Ferree, and Jo Freeman. It is very likely that the majority of contemporary social movement scholars including myself had or still have a political background. Since leftist movements have been prevalent in Western social movement sectors since the 1950s it is no wonder that in many cases descriptive and theoretical accounts in social movement studies have a leftist slant. Coming back to the categorization presented in section “Introduction” the question arises where to locate distinct approaches and their major representatives. Apparently, the category of scientism is scantly populated. Very few students of social movements propose a radical positivist approach. One who does is the German sociologist KarlDieter Opp and another is his US colleague Edward Muller. Based on the paradigm of methodological individualism they studied social movements from a rational choice perspective in which more recently Opp tried to integrate chapter by chapter other key approaches: resource mobilization, political opportunity structures, collective identity, and framing.20 Examples of a moderate version of a positivist approach, though probably not embracing this categorization and not referring explicitly to critical rationalism, are scholars such as the Dutch social psychologist Bert Klandermans, the Swiss sociologist Hanspeter Kriesi, and the US sociologist John D. McCarthy. The latter is a major proponent of the resource mobilization approach that was originally inspired by economic theories. In the works of this fairly large group of social movement scholars who might be considered the mainstream we hardly find explicit normative– evaluative statements about the social movements they study and the norms that guide their theoretical and methodological preferences. But in private conversations these scholars deliberately take political stances. 20 K.-D. Opp (2009) Theories of Political Protest and Social Movements. A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Critique and Synthesis (London: Routledge).

6  POLITICALLY ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP IN SOCIAL MOVEMENT STUDIES 

149

As political beings they usually place themselves toward the left or liberal left of the political spectrum. Social movement scholars who can be attributed to the category of identitary partisanship are far from being rare. Most comment on social movements as intellectuals, fully committed activists, or “activistacademics.”21 Relatively few are deeply involved in scholarly debates. Among those who do take part in these debates there are authors writing on social movements in a more general way and often with an overriding interest in strategic questions on how to implement profound societal changes. A prototypical figure of this kind is the “organic intellectual” who is supportive of progressive movements in general, such as Noam Chomsky, Giovanni Arrighi, and John Holloway. These authors are often and positively cited by movement activists. Another group of engaged commentators is closely affiliated with and/or supportive of a specific movement or movement organization such as Marxist–Leninist, socialist, anarchist, feminist, or radical environmentalist (e.g., Walden Bello, Michael Burawoy, Susan George, David Graeber, Naomi Klein, Ernesto Laclau, Arundhati Roy, Vandana Shiva). These people have a deeper knowledge of the groups or movements with which they are engaged and therefore tend to comment on specific developments, strategic choices, etc. The extent to which they can be considered movement scholars varies considerably, with some fully embedded in the academic world (e.g., David Graeber) and others primarily being political activists (e.g., Vandana Shiva). Identitary partisanship among social movement scholars is mainly practiced by those who have been markedly socialized in specific movement groups (or movement parties) and continue to be active and highly committed members. These scholars not only side with activists for ideological reasons, but also criticize devaluation of actors’ knowledge within academic discourse.22 It seems that identitary partisanship is concentrated in more radical groups, often embracing tactics of direct 21 C. Barker and L. Cox (2002) ‘“What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?” Academic and Activist Forms of Movement Theorizing’ in C. Barker and M. Tyldesley (eds.) Eighth International Conference on Alternative Features and Popular Protest Volume I (Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University), pp. 1–27. 22 A. Starodub (2015) ‘Post-Representational Epistemology in Practice: Processes of Relational Knowledge Creation in Autonomous Social Movements’, Interface: A Journal for and About Social Movements, VII, 2, 161–91, here p. 161.

150  D. RUCHT

action and, as scholars, practicing various forms of participatory action research.23 Mostly, identitary partisanship is a transitory phenomenon of young researchers who are still at an early stage of their academic career. But there are exceptions. For instance, experienced and scientifically trained activist-scholars are to be found in some more formal movement organizations such as trade unions or leftist political parties. Also, we may encounter gray-haired communists, radical feminists, or environmentalists who identify with a particular movement group, while at the same time engaging in academic and scholarly debates. Moreover, there is a relatively small group of scholars who promote specific methodologies (especially action research), sometimes claiming that serious and solid knowledge cannot be acquired without being part and parcel of the group or movement under study.24 More recently a discussion about the status and role of the “social movement academic”25 was initiated in the journal Social Movement Studies,26 preceded by a special issue of the same journal on “The Ethics of Research on Activism.”27 Moreover, online journals focusing on protest and social movements, such as Interface: A Journal for and About Social Movements28 and the Journal of Resistance Studies (http://resistance-journal.org), offer a platform for “social movement academics” or “activist-researchers.” Finally, a large group of trained and professional movement scholars can be attributed to the category of reflective sympathy. Proxies used to 23 J. M. Chevalier and D. J. Buckles (2013) Participation Action Research: Theory and Methods for Engaged Inquiry (London: Routledge). 24 For example, M. Mies (1978) ‘Methodische Postulate zur Frauenforschung—dargestellt am Beispiel der Gewalt gegen Frauen’, Beiträge zur feministischen Theorie und Praxis, I, 1, 47–52. 25 T. Brock (2014) What Is the Function of the Social Movement Academic?, The Sociological Imagination, http://sociologicalimagination.org/archives/15545/comment-page-1, date accessed 12 May 2016. 26 See M. Cresswell and H. Spandler (2013) ‘The Engaged Academic: Academic Intellectuals and Psychiatric Survivor Movement’, Social Movement Studies, XII, 2, 128– 54, for reactions to it see, for example, N. Crossley (2013) ‘Response to Cresswell and Spandler’, Social Movement Studies, XII, 2, 155–57; Brock, Function. 27 Social Movement Studies (2012), 11, 2. 28 It was established in 2009 and appears biannually (www.interfacejournal.net). See also C. Flesher Fominaya, The Global Interface Project: Linking Sociology and Movement Activists,  http://isa-global-dialogue.net/the-global-interface-project-linking-sociologyand-movement-activists/, date accessed 9 May 2016.

6  POLITICALLY ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP IN SOCIAL MOVEMENT STUDIES 

151

identify the political sympathies of these scholars are the value-loaded statements to be found in the forewords29 and conclusions of their writings as well as their commentaries as opinionated “experts” in mass media. A number of scholars in this category are internationally famous, engage in theoretical debates, use sophisticated methods (including quantitative methods), and consistently publish in refereed journals. At the same time these scholars in one way or another are recognizable as politically engaged scholars, somehow trying to reconcile their political stances with scientific standards such as validity, reliability, and/or representativeness. Some of these scholars are keen to keep a low political profile. From the perspective of an outsider they are hardly recognizable as politically engaged scholars (e.g., Doug McAdam, Donatella della Porta, Olivier Fillieule, Eric Neveu, Abby Peterson, Sidney Tarrow). Another group is quite explicit in their political stances as indicated by their preferred approaches (e.g., historical materialism, Neomarxism, Fordism, and so on) and the specific concepts and terms they use (e.g., capitalism, class struggle, emancipation, postdemocracy, patriarchy, exploitation, empowerment, and so on). In Ireland it is Laurence Cox, in Britain it is Colin Barker, in Germany it is scholars like Roland Roth, Margit Mayer, and Sebastian Haunss who exemplify this strand. An indicative case is the US-based scholar James Jasper who, in the final part of his book The Art of Moral Protest, spells out “A Normative View”: Because the protestor is a modern character type, and protest is a practice, there are attendant virtues that can help us to judge good and bad performances. These virtues include honesty, justice, courage, moral articulateness, and the description of alternative possible moral universes. Good protestors encourage moral self-understanding in others.30 Indeed my own moral position, articulated in these last three chapters, is inspired by recent post-industrial movements.31 29 See Barrington Moore’s introductory statement: ‘Without denying my own moral preferences and the latter’s causes, I tried to continuously formulate arguments that can be refuted by appealing to evidence and logics’ in B. Moore (1982) Ungerechtigkeit—Die sozialen Ursachen von Unterordnung und Widerstand (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp), p. 14 (my translation from the German edition). 30 J. Jasper (1998) The Art of Moral Protest. Culture, Biography, and Creativity in Social Movements (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), p. 343. 31 J. Jasper, Art, p. 377.

152  D. RUCHT Table 6.2 Typology of basic approaches in social movement studies and exemplary proponents

Neutral

Engaged

Scientism Karl-Dieter Opp Edward Muller

Identitary partisanship David Graeber John Holloway

Critical rationalism Bert Klandermans John McCarthy Hanspeter Kriesi

Reflective sympathy Barrington Moore William A. Gamson James Jasper

The subgroup of engaged scholars mentioned above are characterized by the term reflective sympathy because unlike identitary partisans they keep some distance from their objects of research in terms of (a) exposing weaknesses and failures of the movements under study, (b) distinguishing between the self-description of movements and their actual situation and function, (c) using categories and concepts that are not necessarily those of the actors, and (d) applying in addition methods that are fact oriented and can be controlled by outsiders. In other words, although these scholars may feel close and actually may come close to movements, especially when doing field research, they keep some sort of reflective distance that reflects their own political position and the extent and way it influences the process and results of their research (Table 6.2). Establishing a single category for this group of engaged but reflective scholars does them no justice. Actually, within the broadly defined limits this is a highly diversified field including liberals, left-liberals, leftists, and radical leftists, but to my knowledge very few scholars from the right of the political spectrum. This broad group is also variegated in terms of their preferred approaches, concepts, and methods. Accordingly, it would make sense to mark out the different positions in an ample twoor three-dimensional space, probably based on the left–right axis, the preferred paradigm, and preferred methods. It seems to me that relatively few Marxist social movement scholars are present in this broad category of reflective sympathy, especially if Marxist means a full embracement of Marx’s categories and analyses including the classical approach of historical materialism. There are, however, numerous scholars with a more selective adoption of Marxist categories or a Neomarxist or New Left orientation such as Giovanni Arrighi, Immanuel Wallerstein, Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, Jeffrey Page, Manuel Castells, Rick Fantasia, Joachim Hirsch, and Oskar Negt.

6  POLITICALLY ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP IN SOCIAL MOVEMENT STUDIES 

153

Again, Neomarxism is a fuzzy label and it is not always clear whether my attributions would converge with the self-definition of those I named. There is definitely a host of leftist scholars, such as Charles Tilly, Frances Fox Piven, Richard Cloward, Alain Touraine, Myra Marx Ferree, Olivier Fillieule, Donatella della Porta, Ron Eyerman, and Abby Peterson, who I guess cannot be labeled Neomarxists. Moreover, there exists a cohort of younger researchers who are difficult to place using established categories, partly because they feel uneasy being categorized on the traditional left–right scale, partly because they sympathize with autonomous movements and/or the concept of an activist-researcher.32 The prevailing answers to the question of taking a neutral or an engaged position in social movement studies varied at different periods of time. Only Marxist and Neomarxist scholars consistently opted for a position of political engagement, though with different degrees of rigorousness. Some held an orthodox line of unconditional partisanship with the “oppressed class,” while others were more careful about siding with individuals on the left, especially when it came to the reasons and ways they took the stance. Non-Marxist scholars came from different ideological strands and had in part diverging paradigmatic preferences. Distinct trends become visible when considering a long time span. For example, mass psychologists who were popular around the turn of the 20th century clearly disliked their object of study (“crowd behavior”) and were strongly prejudiced, although pretending to be engaged in a purely scientific and therefore “objective” enterprise. An important background factor for their concern about the masses was the fear of a socialist revolution. In the first half of the 20th century, with the unfolding of 32 This element is expressed in the self-description of a new journal: ‘Interface: A Journal for and About Social Movements is a forum bringing together activists from different movements and different countries, researchers working with movements, and engaged academics from different disciplines to contribute to the production of knowledge that can help us gain insights across movements and issues, across continents and cultures, and across political and disciplinary traditions: learning from each other’s struggles. Interface is open-access (free), globally organized in different regional collectives and multilingual. We aim to develop analysis and knowledge that allow lessons to be learned from specific movement processes and experiences and translated into a form useful for other movements—hence our name. In doing so, our goal is to include material that can be used in a range of ways by movements—in terms of its content, its language, its purpose, and its form. As a “practitioner journal” the peer-reviewed elements of the journal are reviewed by one activist and one academic reviewer prior to publication.’

154  D. RUCHT

a variety of approaches such as pragmatism, phenomenology, symbolic interactionism, and rational choice, it appears that moderate versions of engaged scholarship prevailed in non-Marxist social movement studies. The same could be said for the second half of the 20th century. During the course of these decades, however, engaged scholarship lost some ground. At the same time, and connected to this development, the field of social movement studies was shaped by a remarkable professionalization and specialization, along with a diversification and sophistication of methodologies. The cultural turn in social movement studies that began in the 1990s was by no means a withdrawal from the professionalization trend. But it marked a shift toward “soft” aspects, such as identity, emotions, storytelling, and meaning, accompanied by a preference for hermeneutics, phenomenology, theories of social construction, and qualitative methods that often lend themselves toward some identification with the object of research and, accordingly, engaged scholarship. More recently this trend even intensified with a considerable number of younger scholars who had been socialized in radical social movements (e.g., ecology, global justice, Occupy, anti-austerity) promoting roles as activist-researchers, movement intellectuals, and so on. To be sure, this is a minor tendency that at present has hardly gained a foothold in academia where moderate versions of engaged scholarship and positions close to critical rationalism continue to be mainstream. However, it is this recent challenge coming from radical scholarship that brings me to a more principled discussion about closeness and/or distance in social movement studies.

The Problem of Closeness and Distance In an unpublished paper I discussed the advantages and disadvantages of closeness to the object under study.33 Closeness has considerable advantages: it facilitates access to the research field; it implies an intimate and authentic knowledge of the object under study; and it can contribute to a more general understanding of the functioning and problems of social movements. But closeness may also be accompanied by a number of 33 D. Rucht (2010) Involvement and Detachment as Postulates and Problems of Social Movement Research. Paper presented at the workshop Protest bewegt! held at the Social Research Center, Berlin, March 26 and 27, 2010; N. Elias (1956) ‘Problems of Involvement and Detachment’, The British Journal of Sociology, 7, 3, 226–52.

6  POLITICALLY ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP IN SOCIAL MOVEMENT STUDIES 

155

problems resulting from strong identification with a movement, such as high expectations of movement activists to ally with the movement, if not unconditionally to provide support for its cause as a “true believer”34 or an “organic intellectual,” a self-imposed reluctance to expose weaknesses and failures of the movement, and/or the neglect or flat violation of certain scientific standards. Michael M. Greven expressed such a concern in a critical essay on the increasing numbers of studies of the new social movements in Germany. He warned that these studies “risk to become an affirmative research of accompany and acceptance of its own sector—a research that nobody takes really seriously, last not least the activists themselves.”35 What is actually needed is a precarious combination of both closeness and distance, each principled and well defined. Closeness implies moving beyond armchair reflection, beyond written material from and about movements (at least in the case of contemporary movements). Instead it means talking to activists, attending their internal meetings and public appearances, and engaging in field research and (participatory) observation. This closeness brings valuable insights on aspects and processes that otherwise would be overlooked or misinterpreted. At the same time I argue that distance is necessary. Distance in this regard includes a number of dimensions. In some instances it is physical distance that allows a larger event to be overviewed. For example, if an activist-researcher joins his/her comrades in a sit-down demonstration in which hundreds or thousands of protesters take part, while sitting on the ground and probably surrounded by police the researcher cannot see the overall constellation of interactions that are taking place in the larger setting. In a more fundamental sense distance also means widening the lens and taking into account such aspects as historical forerunners, comparisons across cultures, and less obtrusive structural relations, which are mostly outside the immediate focus of activists taking part in the demonstration. A second meaning of distance is not fully identifying with one particular group or strand within a movement. Thereby, we remain sensitive to groups and opinions that are not in line with the group under 34 E. Hoffer (1951) The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (New York: The American Library). 35 M. Greven (1988) ‘Zur Kritik der Bewegungswissenschaft’, Forschungsjournal Neue Soziale Bewegungen, I, 4, 51–60, here p. 58.

156  D. RUCHT

investigation. Moreover, imagine that such a group engages in bitter internal struggles and eventually splits apart. In such a situation what does identifying with the group mean? A third meaning of distance should not be misunderstood as “ignorance” in the way Barker and Cox, in a reformulation of Gramsci’s “traditional intellectuals,” attribute the term to “academic intellectuals.” In their theoretical work such intellectuals are described as formulating abstract generic propositions that marginalize the social movement actors. As academic intellectuals they are “disengaged in such a way that the ‘active processes that people […] experience’ are either ignored or side-lined.”36 Echoing this critique Cresswell and Spandler juxtapose “the academic intellectual of social movements” and the “organic intellectual,” who then “becomes the activist located within social movements—the social movement intellectual.”37 In their appraisal of the latter intellectual, even when conceived as an ideal type, the authors ignore the genuine task of “organized scepticism,” to draw on Merton’s formula. As researchers, theorists, and analysts we cannot restrict ourselves to unearthing and duplicating the activists’ perceptions and knowledge as if we would be mirrors. Even for a “movement intellectual” located within the movement there would be a specific role when compared with the non-intellectual movement activist, the “ordinary participants” Gramsci was referring to. This difference, however, is not really spelled out by Barker and Cox, let alone the difference between a movement intellectual and a scientist-researcher who can be more or less close to a specific movement. While the intellectual may be informed, imaginative, critical, brilliant, and so on, he or she is not bound to the organized skepticism of the scientist who has to expose his/her sources, data, and methods, and make transparent why and how he or she reaches his/her interpretations and conclusions. It is this organized, empirically and logically grounded, transparent and systematic approach that potentially creates the kind of “scientific surplus” we can as a rule expect neither from the activist nor the intellectual, notwithstanding the (rare!) possibility all three might have similar views and might arrive at similar conclusions.

36 C. 37 M.

Barker and L. Cox, Romans, p. 4. Cresswell and H. Spandler, Engaged Academic, p. 141.

6  POLITICALLY ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP IN SOCIAL MOVEMENT STUDIES 

157

Admittedly, some social movement scholars tend to underestimate the knowledge and theories of the actors while overestimating their own role. For example, Alain Touraine, promoting his method of “sociological intervention,” attributes the task of enlightening social movement actors about the historicity (e.g., the “highest possible meaning”) of their practice to the sociologist.38 More recently Barker and Cox criticized the “parasitic role,” “theoretical imperialism,” and “historical amnesia” of the “academic intellectual.”39 For them, as well as for Cresswell and Spandler, there is no space between the poles of an academic intellectual and a movement intellectual.40 This juxtaposition—which sometimes boiled down to the question “Which side are you on?”—is accompanied by the tendency to idealize the social movement actors the activist-researcher ought to side with. But, as Crossley rightly remarks in his rejoinder to Cresswell and Spandler: The activist, like anybody else, observes events from a particular vantage point which, like any other vantage point, has blind spots as well as advantages. And the very different views and experiences of activists in even the same movement suggest that there is, in any case, no single activist vantage point. For the purpose of some projects, it follows, it may be important to engage with activists because of their specific vantage points, but for other projects this will not be so.41

Instead of taking the actors’ knowledge at face value or fully identifying with the actor some degree of distance is a necessary and healthy filter. If one accepts Merton’s partial definition of social science as “organized scepticism,”42 then the collection of empirical information cannot be 38 A.

Touraine (1981) The Voice and the Eye [orig. in French 1978] (New York: Cambridge University Press); Critically: A. Melucci (1989) Nomads of the Present (Philadelpia: Temple University Press), p. 200ff.; and D. Rucht (1991) ‘Sociological Theory as Theory of Social Movements? A Critique of Alain Touraine’ in D. Rucht (ed.) Research on Social Movements. The State of the Art in Western Europe and the USA (Frankfurt: Campus; Boulder: Westview Press), pp. 355–84. 39 C.

Barker and L. Cox, Romans. Cresswell and H. Spandler, Engaged Academic. 41 N. Crossley, Response, p. 156. 42 Robert Merton established this as one of four principles, circumscribing it as “detached scrutiny of beliefs in terms of empirical and logical criteria” in R. K. Merton (1942) ‘Science and Technology in a Democratic Order’, Journal of Legal and Political 40 M.

158  D. RUCHT

a priori restricted to one kind of source. For good reasons this is also a basic rule for investigative journalism. Moreover, research cannot be merely casual and arbitrary but follow certain standards that are not identical with the needs and criteria of what activists perceive as useful and indispensible for their activism. Skepticism implies critically examining the perceptions and assertions of the activists: to probe the extent to which these are founded on reality instead of hopes and fears. Of course, hopes and fears by themselves constitute a piece of reality that has to be acknowledged and taken into account. But hopes and fears, especially in dramatic situations of “moments of madness,”43 also tend to imply blind spots that can only be identified when holding the position of an observer. I am deeply convinced that this ambivalent position of closeness and distance is possible and fruitful. But I am also convinced that it is a precarious position that constantly needs to be reflected and readjusted. Luckily, there are examples of such precarious positioning that are relatively successful in practicing a version of engaged scholarship between the illusions of radical positivism and the pitfalls of political overidentification. If I had to name just one, William Gamson comes to mind.

Summary Both in the past and the present few students of social movements have adhered to a rigid positivist position that views natural science as a model for social inquiries. Relatively close to such a position are those who promote a narrowly defined rational choice theory. A greater proportion of social movement scholars can be attributed to the strand of critical rationalism, although few of them would use this term as a marker for themselves. And probably still more fall into the category of “politically engaged scholarship” that can be subdivided into a strong version called “identitary partisanship” and a weak version called “reflective sympathy.” While the former in principle implies unconditional support for the movement under study and tends to be based on a rigid ideological

Sociology 1, 115–26, here 126, reprinted as ‘The Normative Structure of Science’ in R. K. Merton (ed.) (1979) The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 267–78. 43 A. R. Zolberg (1972) ‘Moments of Madness’, Politics and Society, II, 183–204.

6  POLITICALLY ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP IN SOCIAL MOVEMENT STUDIES 

159

position, reflective sympathy is more open and variable. While upholding general values and sticking to scientific standards, it rejects blind partisanship in support of specific movement actors in the process of research. Therefore, it also allows unearthing and presenting facts that may shed a critical or negative light on the movement. Probably the most adequate and fruitful position from which to study social movements is the seemingly paradoxical one of closeness and distance. Closeness provides invaluable insights. Among other things it allows the meaning of action to be better understood. Distance helps to avoid the pitfalls of overidentifying with the object of study and to uphold scientific standards such as validity, reliability, and if possible representativeness. In many cases this position is compatible with reflective sympathy. However, sympathy with certain values and probably certain actors cannot be the ultimate criterion for doing “good” research in the field of social movements. Otherwise the study of “distasteful” movements44 would be a privilege of researchers sharing the beliefs of these movements.

References Adorno, T. et al. (1969) Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie (Darmstadt and Neuwied: Luchterhand). Albert, H. (1964) ‘Social Science and Moral Philosophy. A Critical Approach to the Value Problem in the Social Sciences’ in M. Bunge (ed.) The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy. Essays in Honor of Karl Popper (Glencoe, IL: Free Press), pp. 385–409. Albert, H. (1999) Between Social Science, Religion and Politics: Essays on Critical Rationalism (Amsterdam and Atlanta, GI: Ropodi). Apel, K. O. (1973) Transformation der Philosophie, Volume I: Sprachanalytik, Semiotik, Hermeneutik and Volume II: das A priori der Kommunikationsgesellschaft (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp). Atkins, P. (1995) ‘Science as “Truth”’, History of the Human Sciences, 8, 97–102. Barker, C. and Cox, L. (2002) ‘“What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?” Academic and Activist Forms of Movement Theorizing’ in C. Barker and M. Tyldesley (eds.) Eighth International Conference on Alternative Features and

44 J. Esseveld and R. Eyerman (1992) ‘Which Side Are You On? Reflections on Methodological Issues in the Study of “Distasteful” Social Movements’ in M. Diani and R. Eyerman (eds.) Studying Collective Action (London: Sage), pp. 217–37.

160  D. RUCHT Popular Protest Volume I (Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University), 1–27. Berger, P. L. and Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality (Garden City, NY: Doubleday). Brock, T. (2014) What Is the Function of the Social Movement Academic? The Sociological Imagination, http://sociologicalimagination.org/archives/ 15545/comment-page-1, date accessed 12 May 2016. Chevalier, J. M. and Buckles, D. J. (2013) Participation Action Research: Theory and Methods for Engaged Inquiry (London: Routledge). Cox, L. and Nilsen, A. G. (2005) ‘Why Do Activists Need Theory?’ Euromovements Newsletter, http://eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/445/, date accessed 10 May 2016. Cresswell, M. and Spandler, H. (2013) ‘The Engaged Academic: Academic Intellectuals and Psychiatric Survivor Movement’, Social Movement Studies, XII, 2, 128–54. Crossley, N. (2013) ‘Response to Cresswell and Spandler’, Social Movement Studies, XII, 2, 155–57. Elias, N. (1956) ‘Problems of Involvement and Detachment’, The British Journal of Sociology, 7, 3, 226–52. Esseveld, J. and Eyerman, R. (1992) ‘Which Side Are You On? Reflections on Methodological Issues in the Study of “Distasteful” Social Movements’ in M. Diani and R. Eyerman (eds.) Studying Collective Action (London: Sage), pp. 217–37. Feyerabend, P. (1975) Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge (London: NLB). Flesher, Fominaya C. (2009) The Global Interface Project: Linking Sociology and Movement Activists, http://isa-global-dialogue.net/the-global-interface-project-linking-sociology-and-movement-activists, date accessed 9 May 2016. Fuster, R., Mommsen, W. J. and Rüsen, J. (eds.) Objektivität und Parteilichkeit. Theorie der Geschichte, Volume I (München: dtv). Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks (New York: International Publishers). Greven, M. Greven (1988) ‘Zur Kritik der Bewegungswissenschaft’, Forschungsjournal Neue Soziale Bewegungen, I, 4, 51–60. Habermas, J. (1974) Theory and Practice (London: Heinemann). Hoffer, E. (1951) The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (New York: The American Library). Hughes, A. L. (2012) ‘The Folly of Scientism’, The New Atlantis, 37, 32–50, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism, date accessed 11 May 2016. Keuth, H. (1989) Wissenschaft und Werturteil: zu Welturteilsdiskussionen und Positivismusstreit (Tübingen: Mohr Siebek).

6  POLITICALLY ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP IN SOCIAL MOVEMENT STUDIES 

161

Lenin, V. I. (1902) What Is to Be Done? https://www.marxists.org/archive/ lenin/works/download/what-itd.pdf, date accessed 12 May 2016. Longino, H. E. (1990) Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press). Melucci, A. (1989) Nomads of the Present (Philadelpia: Temple University Press). Merton, R. K. (1942) ‘Science and Technology in a Democratic Order’, Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1, 115–26 (reprinted as ‘The Normative Structure of Science’ in R. K. Merton (ed.) (1979) The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), pp. 267–78, http://www.panarchy.org/merton/science.html. Mies, M. (1978) ‘Methodische Postulate zur Frauenforschung—dargestellt am Beispiel der Gewalt gegen Frauen’, Beiträge zur feministischen Theorie und Praxis, I, 1, 47–52. Mills, C. (1959) The Sociological Imagination (New York: Oxford University Press). Mommsen, W. J. (1977) ‘Der perspektivische Charakter historischer Aussagen und das Problem der Parteilichkeit und Objektivität historischer Erkenntnis’ in R. Koselleck, W. J. Mommsen, and J. Rüsen (eds.) Objektivität und Parteilichkeit. Theorie der Geschichte, 1 (München: dtv), pp. 441–68. Moore, B. (1982) Ungerechtigkeit—Die sozialen Ursachen von Unterordnung und Widerstand (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp) [First published 1966] Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World (with a new foreword by Edward Friedman and James C. Scott, eds.) (Boston: Beacon Press). Opp, K.-D. (2009) Theories of Political Protest and Social Movements. A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Critique and Synthesis (London: Routledge). Popper, K. (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery [first published in 1935] (London: Hutchinson & Co.). Popper, K. (1969) ‘The Logic of Social Sciences’ in Adorno, T. et al. (1969) Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie (Darmstadt and Neuwied: Luchterhand), pp. 103–23. Rammstedt, O. (1991) ‘Die Frage der Wertfreiheit und die Gründung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie’ in L. Claußen and C. SchlüterKnauer (eds.) Hundert Jahre “Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft” (Opladen: Leske + Budrich), pp. 549–60. Ratner, Carl (2002) ‘Subjectivity and Objectivity in Qualitative Methodology’, Forum Qualitative Social Research, 3, 3, http://www.qualitative-research. net/index.php/fqs/article/view/829/1800. Rucht, D. (1991) ‘Sociological Theory as Theory of Social Movements? A Critique of Alain Touraine’ in D. Rucht (ed.) Research on Social Movements. The State of the Art in Western Europe and the USA (Frankfurt: Campus; Boulder: Westview Press), pp. 355–84.

162  D. RUCHT Rucht, D. (2010) Involvement and Detachment as Postulates and Problems of Social Movement Research. Paper presented at the workshop Protest bewegt! held at the Social Research Center, Berlin, March 26 and 27. Rucht, D. (2016) ‘Conclusions. Social Movement Studies in Europe: Achievements, Gaps, Challenges’ in O. Fillieule and G. Accornero (eds.) Social Movement Studies in Europe: The State of the Art (New York and Oxford: Berghahn), pp. 456–87. Rüsen, J. (1983) Historische Vernunft Grundzüge einer Historik: Die Grundlagen der Geschichtswissenschaft (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck). Schütz, A. (1962) ‘Common-Sense and Scientific Interpretation of Human Action’ in M. Natanson (ed.) Alfred Schütz. Collected Papers, Volume I (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff), pp. 3–47. Scott, P., Richard, E. and Martin, B. (1990) ‘Captives of Controversy: The Myth of the Neutral Social Researcher’, Contemporary Scientific Controversies, Science, Technology & Human Values, 15, 474–94. Sorell, T. (1991) Scientism: Philosophy and the Infatuation with Science (New York: Routledge). Starodub, A. (2015) ‘Post-Representational Epistemology in Practice: Processes of Relational Knowledge Creation in Autonomous Social Movements’, Interface: A Journal for and About Social Movements, VII, 2, 161–91, http:// interfacejournal.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Issue-7-2Starodub.pdf, date accessed 9 May 2016. Taylor, C. (1967) ‘Neutrality in Political Science’ in P. Laslett and W. Garrison Runciman (eds.) Philosophy, Politics and Society (Oxford: Blackwell), pp. 25–57. Thompson, E. P. (1978) The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays (London: Merlin Press). Touraine, A. (1981) The Voice and the Eye [orig. in French 1978] (New York: Cambridge University Press). Zolberg, A. R. (1972) ‘Moments of Madness’, Politics and Society, II, 183–204.

CHAPTER 7

‘…Two Monstrous Antagonistic Structures’: E. P. Thompson’s Marxist Historical Philosophy and Peace Activism During the Cold War Stefan Berger and Christian Wicke

Introduction E. P. Thompson was a Marxist, a radical as well as a pacifist, who had been very active, first in the Communist Party of Great Britain, and subsequently in the New Left and in the peace movement.1 He was one of 1 B. D. Palmer (1994) E.P. Thompson. Objections and Oppositions (London: Verso); H. J. Kaye and K. McClelland (eds.) (1990) E. P. Thompson. Critical Perspectives (Oxford: Temple University Press); and S. Hamilton (2011) The Crisis of Theory. E. P. Thompson, the New Left and Post-war British Politics (Manchester: Manchester University Press).

S. Berger (*)  Institute for Social Movements, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany e-mail: [email protected] C. Wicke  Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2019 S. Berger and C. Cornelissen (eds.), Marxist Historical Cultures and Social Movements during the Cold War, Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03804-5_7

163

164  S. BERGER AND C. WICKE

the founding fathers of European Nuclear Disarmament (END) and widely acknowledged as intellectual leader of the British peace movement, both at home and abroad. In this article, we focus primarily on how his Marxism influenced his commitment to peace. Many of his historical and political writings, including his novels, were extremely popular among peace activists so that one can assume a wide readership and hence considerable influence of Thompson in the peace movement. We shall ask how his Marxism informed his peace activism and what connections he drew between a Marxist social analysis and the demands to overcome the bipolar world order of the Cold War that, in his eyes, prevented progressive political developments and threatened humanity with extinction. Thompson was present at the very birth of the British peace movement. As founding editor of the New Reasoner (together with his wife Dorothy and John Saville)—in 1956—Thompson was soon an iconic figure among the British New Left.2 The New Left grew in support in the aftermath of de-Stalinization in the Soviet Union, the clampdown on Hungarian reform in 1956 and the Suez crisis of the same year.3 The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) developed only one year later, in 1957, in response to the plans of the British government to test a hydrogen bomb, and the New Left was vociferous in its support for CND.4 When, more than two decades later, NATO’s ‘twin-track strategy’ led to the re-emergence of a mass peace movement in the West, Thompson was again one of its major figureheads, championing what he called ‘détente from below’ against what he perceived as irresponsible sabre-rattling of the political leaders on both sides of the Iron Curtain.5 Thompson perceived the two blocs during the Cold War as ‘two monstrous antagonistic structures’,6 which were mutually constitutive, impeded the realization of his ideal concept of a Marxist world 2 W. Matthews (2013) The New Left, National Identity, and the Break-Up of Britain (Leiden: Brill), p. 2. 3 G. Eley (2002) Forging Democracy: The History of the Left in Modern Europe, 1850–2000 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). 4 P. Byrne (1988) The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (London: Croom Helm Ltd.); L. S. Wittner (2009) Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement (Stanford: Stanford University Press). 5 S. Berger and N. LaPorte (2010) Friendly Enemies: Britian and the GDR, 1949–1990 (Oxford: Berghahn Books), pp. 265–66. 6 E. P. Thompson (1978) The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays (London: Monthly Review Press), p. 265.

7  ‘…TWO MONSTROUS ANTAGONISTIC STRUCTURES’ … 

165

and would ultimately threaten to destroy civilization. Along with large sections of the New Left Thompson looked for ‘third ways’ between Western capitalism and Soviet Communism.7 The Cold War framework, within which nuclear deterrence worked, was for Thompson a major break on the development of such a ‘third way’, often referred to by Thompson as ‘socialist humanism’. Hence, his peace activism was never just a cause in itself, but always a necessary tool for realizing the socialist humanist society of the future. Thompson’s peace activism has been explored by a number of authors, particularly by the American historians Michael Bess,8 and Bryan Palmer,9 but to some extent also by people from other disciplines, such as the sociologist Martin Shaw10 and the educational scientist Dick Taylor,11 and others.12 On the basis of these works and Thompson’s own writings, we shall, first of all, outline the political and intellectual biography of our subject between the poles of political activism, scholarship and peace activism, before we will discuss the Marxist understanding of history in Thompson’s writings. On this basis, we shall, finally, analyse Thompson’s position between the two blocs and his role in the peace movement.

Biographical Notes on Marxism, Historical Scholarship and Peace Activism Edward Palmer Thompson was born in Oxford in 1924. His parents were liberal intellectuals and Methodist missionaries. His father, the writer Edward John Thompson, spent several years in India where he 7 On the development of third way conceptions in Britain, see J. Schneer (1988) Labour’s Conscience. The Labour Left 1945–1950 (Boston: Unwin Hyman). 8 M. Bess (1993) Realism, Utopia, and the Mushroom Cloud. Four Activist Intellectuals and Their Strategies for Peace, 1945–1989, Louise Weiss (France), Leo Szilard (United States), E. P. Thompson (England), Danilo Dolci (Italy) (Chicago: Phoenix Fiction). 9 B. D. Palmer (1994) E.P. Thompson, chapter 5. 10 M. Shaw (1990) ‘From Total War to Democratic Peace: Exterminism and Historical Pacifism’ in K. McClelland (eds.) E. P. Thompson. Critical Perspectives (Oxford: Temple University Press), pp. 233–51. 11 R. Taylor (2013) ‘Thompson and the Peace Movement: From CND in the 1950s and 1960s to END in the 1980s’ in R. Fieldhouse and R. Taylor (eds.) E. P. Thompson and English Radicalism (Manchester: Manchester University Press), pp. 181–201. 12 E.g. G. McCann (1997) Theory and History. The Political Thought of E.P. Thompson (Aldershot: Ashgate), chapter 5.

166  S. BERGER AND C. WICKE

sympathized with the nationalist cause. He described himself as a ‘liberal conservative with a touch of socialism’.13 The Thompson household often had interesting visitors, including Gandhi and Nehru. It is thus not surprising that E. P. Thompson followed an anti-imperialist conviction from an early age. Edward’s brother Frank had already been a communist party member for some time before E. P. Thompson joined the Communist Party of Great Britain in late 1941 at Cambridge. Mary Kaldor wrote that E. P. Thompson ‘was strongly influenced by his brother Frank Thompson, who envisaged a united democratic socialist Europe’.14 Edward Thompson trained in history at university, where communism was relatively popular among the undergraduate students.15 He was aware of the Stalinist atrocities, yet he also saw communist internationalism as an anti-fascist force, a conviction that was fostered during his time as a soldier in North Africa and Italy.16 In the army, Thompson encountered many left-wing views and army experience confirmed the ideological choice he had made in Cambridge. Frank was executed by the Bulgarian Gendarmerie in 1944 during a mission in Bulgaria.17 E. P. Thompson was strongly affected by this tragic loss of a deeply admired older brother. After the war, he finished his undergraduate degree and co-founded the Communist Party Historians Group, together with Christopher Hill, Eric Hobsbawm, Raphael Samuel and others. He married Dorothy Towers, a fellow communist and fellow historian.18 In 1948, he and 13 H. Ansari (2010) ‘Musings of Sir Mohammad Iqbal on the Place of Muslims in Late Colonial India: Letters to Edward John Thompson, 1933–1934’, Transcript of a podcast: http://media.podcasts.ox.ac.uk/engfac/indian_traces/ansari.pdf?CAMEFROM=podcastsGET, date accessed 17 January 2018, p. 1. 14 M. Kaldor (1993) ‘Obituary: E. P. Thompson’, The Independent, 30 August 1993, see online: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-e-p-thompson-1464255. html, date accessed 17 January 2018. 15 W. Matthews (2013) The New Left, p. 62. 16 C. Winslow (2014) ‘Introduction. Edward Thompson and the Making of the New Left’ in: idem (ed.) E.P. Thompson and the Making of the New Left: Essays and Polemics (New York: Monthly Review), p. 16. 17 M. D. Bess (1993) ‘The Historian as an Activist’, American Historical Review, 98, 1, 19–38, at p. 20. 18 S. Rowbothman (2011) ‘Sheila Thompson Obituary’, The Guardian, 6 February 2011, see online: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/feb/06/dorothy-thompson-obituary, date accessed 18 January 2018.

7  ‘…TWO MONSTROUS ANTAGONISTIC STRUCTURES’ … 

167

Dorothy Towers joined the international volunteers of the Yugoslav Youth Railway to help build a rail track. On their return, they decided to move to Yorkshire. He began teaching for the Leeds Extra-Mural Department. According to Thompson, he ‘went into adult education because it seemed to me to be an area where I would learn something about industrial England, and teach people who would teach me’.19 Cal Winslow argued that ‘Thompson was one in a generation of socialist educators - young people, nearly all veterans - who chose workers’ education as an active alternative to elite education, just as the Thompsons chose to live in the provincial and proletarian West Riding, purposively far from the Metropolis’.20 Thompson was thus not only a man of ideas, but also a man of actions; someone who lived his everyday life according to his political ideology. On the one hand, he saw himself as a political missionary who wished to educate the working class. On the other hand, he was keen to learn from his working-class students.21 Thompson and his wife began to organize political discussions in their house in Siddal, a working-class district in Halifax. They both moved there as members of the Communist Party. E. P. Thompson was elected to the District Party Committee. Next to his work in adult education, he ‘would also chair the Halifax Peace Committee; he was secretary of the Yorkshire Federation of Peace Organizations; and he was editor of the West Riding Peace Journal’.22 Thompson had become a peace activist for the first time during the Korean War in the early 1950s. Subsequently, he was instrumental in developing the peace movement in Yorkshire, often involving a wide range of left-wing activists. Thompson founded a journal, the Yorkshire Voice of Peace, and engaged in local peace campaigns throughout the 1950s.23 1956 marked an important break in Thompson’s life. In response to de-Stalinization in the Soviet Union, Thompson contrasted the English liberal tradition with the authoritarian tradition of the Communist Party

19 H. Abelove (1983) ‘E. P. Thompson’ in idem. (ed.) Visions of History Interview (London: MARHO), p. 13. 20 C. Winslow (2014) ‘Introduction’, p. 16. 21 Ibid, pp. 18–19. 22 Ibid., p. 15. 23 R. Taylor (2013) ‘Thompson’, pp. 182–83.

168  S. BERGER AND C. WICKE

of Great Britain.24 Abhorred by the Soviet invasion of Hungary, he, along with 7000 other party members, gave up all hope of reforming the CPGB from within and left the party. He had become politically homeless at precisely the same moment as the Suez crisis confirmed to him his anti-imperialist convictions. As editors of The Reasoner, Thompson and John Saville issued their dissent with the CPGB on Hungary and accused the British Communist Party of failing to demonstrate its international solidarity with the revolutionaries. The party responded by suspending both as editors, which triggered the decisions to leave the party.25 Thompson, Saville and others then began publishing the dissident journal The New Reasoner, which would merge into The New Left Review, the intellectual flagship of the New Left.26 Many among the early New Left in Great Britain were associated with the Labour Party, but Thompson remained extremely critical of this traditional political force which he regarded as one that had actually never pursued any real socialism.27 In spring 1957, Thompson explained: ‘although I have resigned from the Communist Party I remain a Communist’.28 When, in the same year, Eden’s successor, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan announced the strategy of developing thermonuclear weapons and admitted the British government had already tested these bombs in the Pacific, the politically now homeless Thompson immediately joined the new-found CND.29 Peter Worsley, Dorothy Thompson and Stuart Hall remember that ‘[w]ithin the new and rapidly-growing CND, what was now becoming known as the “New Left” played a major part. John Rex’s pamphlet “NATO or Neutralism” linked the neutralism which had emerged in Europe as a response to the Cold War to the

24 W.

Matthews (2013) The New Left, p. 66. P. Thompson (2008) ‘Foreword’ in The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays (New York: Monthly Review Press). 26 M. D. Bess (1993) ‘The Historian’, p. 22. 27 See M. Newman (2013) ‘Thompson and the Early New Left’ in R. Fieldhouse and R. Taylor (eds.) E. P. Thompson and English Radicalism (Manchester: Manchester University Press), pp. 162–63. 28 E. P. Thompson (1957a) ‘Socialism and the Intellectuals’, Universities & Left Review, 1, 1, 31–36, see online: http://banmarchive.org.uk/collections/ulr/index_frame.htm, date accessed 18 January 2018. 29 M. Kaldor (1993) ‘Obituary’. 25 E.

7  ‘…TWO MONSTROUS ANTAGONISTIC STRUCTURES’ … 

169

new mass movement’.30 CND was not a communist organization, but its loose structure welcomed dissident communists who were critical of the Soviet Union.31 A strong affinity between the New Left and the CND developed at that time. Thompson’s historical research in the 1950s seems like a running commentary on his political development. As he was growing increasingly critical of Soviet Communism, he explored home-grown, English radicalism as an alternative political inspiration. In 1959, Thompson would publish his biography on the nineteenth-century writer William Morris (1959), who he saw as a ‘Romantic in revolt, [who] became a realist and a revolutionary’.32 Thompson felt inspired by Morris, and Morris pointed him in the direction of exploring English radicalism further, even if Michael Bess was right in pointing out that his interpretation of Morris is still very much in line with orthodox Marxist–Leninist interpretative frameworks.33 The same cannot be said for his magnum opus that he was to publish four years later, while still living in Siddal. The Making of the English Working Class which was published in 1963 demonstrated his growing belief in the historical agency of workers and the historical relevance of their experiences. Thompson’s book has often been described as a foundational stone of the ‘history from below’ tradition in historical writing. Thompson turned the traditional Marxist ‘basis-superstructure’ model upside down in emphasizing the agency of ordinary people and their culture. The book was in many ways a further exploration of the English radical tradition. And it drew heavily on the information Thompson had gathered ‘during [his] previous ten years as a tutor in extramural classes in the West Riding’.34 His contemporary class experiences, his political development and his historical research seemed to forge a productive

30 P. Worsley, assisted by D. Thompson and S.Hall (2006) The New Reasoner, see online: http://www.amielandmelburn.org.uk/collections/nr/index_frame.htm, date accessed 18 January 2018. 31 R. Taylor (2013) ‘Thompson’, p. 184. 32 E. P. Thompson Morris (1955) William Morris. Romantic to Revolutionary (London: Lawrence & Wishart), p. 16. 33 M. D. Bess (1993) ‘The Historian’, p. 21. 34 C. Winslow (2014) ‘Introduction’, p. 20.

170  S. BERGER AND C. WICKE

symbiosis in what was to become his most celebrated and certainly most famous historical work.35 From the mid-1960s, Thompson spent more time on his profession than on activism. Instead of accepting an offer from the University of Leeds, Thompson chooses a job as a Reader in Social History and Director of the Centre for the Study of Social History at the University of Warwick, which was founded in 1965. In 1967, he published his influential article on the commodification of time and the industrialization of social life in Past & Present, entitled Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism.36 In 1971, he published a similarly extensive article in the same journal on The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century, which was based on a paper he had given at Buffalo in the USA in 1966, where he visited his friend, the labour historian Herbert Gutman. Both became landmark publications in labour history, influencing generations of labour historians. Already in 1952 Thompson had co-founded Past & Present, which was to become one of the internationally most prestigious social history journals in decades to come.37 Even though he worked primarily as an academic during this period, his political activism still surfaced from time to time. He was one of the editors of the prominent May Day Manifesto in 1967, with which spokespersons of the British New Left sought to challenge the Labour government of Harold Wilson.38 Wilson served as Prime Minister from 1964 to 1970 and again from 1974 to 1976. Thompson was a strong critic of Wilson whom he accused of authoritarian tendencies and the oppression of civil liberties. He saw the need to uphold the rule of law and a distinctly English liberal tradition. Again his historical work paralleled his political concerns. In 1975, Thompson published Whigs and Hunters criticizing the strengthening of property laws of the ruling class in eighteenth-century England. The late eighteenth century, just like the 1970s, witnessed a challenge to cherished legal traditions. Daniel Cole has argued that Thompson’s belief in the rule of law was similar to Marx’s 35 Ibid. 36 E. P. Thompson (1967) ‘Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism’, Past & Present, 38, 1, 56–97. 37 C. Hill, R. Hilton, and E. Hobsbawm (1983) ‘Past and Present. Origins and Early Years’, Past & Present, 100, 1, 3–14. 38 K. Laybourn (2006) Marxism in Britain: Dissent, Decline and Re-emergence, 1945– c.2000 (Oxon: Routledge), pp. 76–77.

7  ‘…TWO MONSTROUS ANTAGONISTIC STRUCTURES’ … 

171

early writings, in which law was seen potentially as a liberal-democratic force. Thompson sought to revive a particular radical liberal or libertarian tradition and infuse it with unorthodox Marxist meaning.39 His concerns grew exponentially, when Margaret Thatcher came to rule the country in May 1979. Thompson expressed his views on the threat she posed to liberty in 1980 in his book Writing by Candlelight. His concern with domestic politics in Britain did not snuff out his peace activism. Already in the mid-1970s, Thompson was discussing with Ken Coates, from the Nottingham-based Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation, a new initiative to counter what both perceived as dangerous escalation of the arms race in the Cold War, in the context of increased tensions between both superpowers.40 When the twin-track strategy was implemented by NATO in December 1979, their worst fears seemed to be confirmed, and Thompson returned to peace activism with a vengeance. ‘The upsurge of a West European peace movement in 1980 was his moment’, Mary Kaldor recalled in her obituary on Thompson. Dorothy and Edward Thompson now focused almost entirely on their political activism in END. He engaged with debates on TV, wrote in major British newspapers, like the Guardian and a number of more left-wing papers, and spoke at mass festivals like Glastonbury. Together with Ken Coates, he had developed the idea for END and the END Appeal, entitled A Nuclear Free Europe was based on their discussions from the mid-1970s, even if Thompson was the lead author of this appeal.41 With END Thompson returned to a form of European internationalism. His campaign was genuinely pan-European, in the sense that it reached from Poland to Portugal, and conventions were held at many places in Europe. As we described above, Thompson had moved from Soviet communist internationalism to English radicalism only to return to a form of European internationalism in the search for peace in a Europe that would leave the bipolar world order behind. The agency of English radicals, thus Thompson’s hope, was to inspire European peace activists to build a bloc-free neutral Europe which would also be an

39 D. H. Cole (2001) ‘An Unqualified Human Good: E.P. Thompson and the Rule of Law’, Journal of Law and Society, 28, 2, 177–203, at pp. 201–2. 40 R. Taylor (2013) ‘Thompson’, p. 188. 41 The text of the END Appeal is included in E. P. Thompson and D. Smith (eds.) (1980) Protest and Survive (London: Penguin), pp. 223–26.

172  S. BERGER AND C. WICKE

opportunity for building the kind of socialist humanism that was still the political ideal of Thompson. His famous article Protest and Survive from 1980 sold 50,000 copies in less than a year and subsequently another 36,000 in the form of a Penguin special.42 It was translated into many European languages. Similarly, his Notes on Exterminism and the Last Stage of Civilization would have a huge influence not just in Britain but in peace movements across Europe and North America.43

Thompson’s Marxist Understanding of History Thompson’s Marxist understanding of history emphasized both agency and consciousness. He firmly believed in and sought to trace in history the agency of ordinary working people who acted out of a sense of moral righteousness. Their social and political consciousness had less to do with abstract ideology and more with notions of justice that had their roots in history and memory. States and rulers had in the past ignored such consciousness and such agency at their peril, and, in Thompson’s view, they were still doing so in the present. In the West, Labourism and later neoliberal Conservatism were out of touch or forthrightly hostile to the interests, desires and values of working people, and in the Communist East, the class of Communist officials had betrayed the revolution. In the editorial of the first issue of The New Reasoner, in which also Socialist Humanism was published, John Saville and Thompson wrote that [i]n the political field, we take our stand with those workers and intellectuals in the Soviet Union and E[astern] Europe for that return to Communist principle and that extension of liberties which has been dubbed ‘de-Stalinisation’; in Britain with those socialists on the left wing of the Labour Party, or unattached to any party, who are fighting under very different conditions, for a similar re-birth of principle within the movement.44

Mary Kaldor remembered that ‘[a]s biographer of William Morris and chronicler of the English working classes, [Thompson] was part of the

42 R.

Taylor (2013) ‘Thompson’, p. 189. P. Thompson (1980) ‘Notes on Exterminism, the Last Stage of Civilization’, New Left Review, 182, 1, Exterminism and Cold War, London 1982, pp. 3–31. 44 J. Saville and E. P. Thompson (1957) ‘Editorial’, The New Reasoner, 1. 43 E.

7  ‘…TWO MONSTROUS ANTAGONISTIC STRUCTURES’ … 

173

English radical tradition. He became a consistent and trenchant critic of Stalinism after leaving the Communist Party in 1956 and espoused the idea of positive neutrality’.45 His article Socialist Humanism published in the same first issue of The New Reasoner from 1957, attacked not only Soviet authoritarianism but was also critical Marx’s and Engels’ insufficient recognition of individual ideas and actions, and their false belief in a determining economic base that relegated culture to the sphere of superstructure. The humanism of the early Marx and Engels had to be saved against the dead weight of structuralist determinism in their later works.46 Critical of any economic determinism in history, Thompson explained the success of Stalinism in the Soviet Union in terms of a justified fear of American superiority in the arms race: The Hydrogen Bomb, the soundly-based fear of aggression from American imperialism (which every day announces new advanced bases for atomic missiles) strengthens the bureaucratic and military caste, gives them their raison d’etre, gives colour to Stalinist ideology, and at the same time weakens and confuses the fight against Stalinist ideology both in the Soviet Union and outside. The dismantling of Stalinism will not be assisted simply by swelling the chorus of anti-Stalinist abuse. We must understand – and explain – the true character of Stalinism, the new face of Soviet Society immanent within it. We must do what we can to dismantle the Hydrogen Bomb.47

Peace activism in other words was working towards the realization of socialist humanism, both in the Communist and in the capitalist parts of the globe. Through his historical work and his political activism, Thompson affirmed his belief that history was driven from below. His eclectic mixture of Marxist materialism, Morris’ utopianism and a strong English libertarian strand48 united to forge a democratic and libertarian communism49 that saw in peace activism the best means of realizing 45 M.

Kaldor (1993) ‘Obituary’. P. Thompson (1957c) ‘Socialist Humanism: An Epistle to the Philistines’, The New Reasoner, 1, 105–43. 47 E. P. Thompson (1957) ‘Socialist Humanism’, p. 138. 48 G. McCann (1997) Theory and History, p. 1. 49 H. J. Kaye (1994) The British Marxist Historians (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). 46 E.

174  S. BERGER AND C. WICKE

socialist humanism. In order for this to work, ordinary people had to become conscious of their agency. As Thomson argued: ‘Historical consciousness ought to assist one to understand the possibilities of transformation and the possibility within people’.50 The world revolution was still possible, if only communism were to return to its humanist origins.51 Intellectuals like himself and workers had to unite behind the common cause, socialism. The economic conditions were secondary to the will to change: ‘man is capable not only of changing his conditions, but also of transforming himself; that there is a real sense in which it is true that men can master their own history’.52 Thompson undoubtedly considered the role of intellectuals important in the socialist movement. In 1959, he warned of anti-intellectualism: ‘to romanticise the working class and its organisations is not only futile, it is also a flat betrayal of socialist responsibility’.53 However, he attached greater agency to the working class and its conscious struggles in British history, and he called for ‘a sense of history’ that would acknowledge this fact.54 Intellectuals, like himself, were in the position to provide for this sense of history, and arguably his magnum opus, The Making of the English Working Class meant to do precisely this. Winslow interprets this work as seminal for the New Left: [It] was more than a history. It was, [Thompson] insisted, a political work as well, ‘a polemic’ and a call to arms. It was the result, in part, of a decade of work in the peace movement, then nearly another decade in the New Left. The Making was aimed not at the academy but principally at ‘his students, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), the Left Clubs,’ and those young workers, indifferent to the trade unions of the Labour Party, radicalized yet watching from the fringes of these movements.55

50 H.

Abelove (1983) ‘E. P. Thompson’, p. 16. E. P. Thompson (1957b) ‘Socialist Humanism. An Epistle to the Philistines’, The New Reasoner, 1, 105–7. 52 E. P. Thompson (1957a) ‘Socialism and the Intellectuals’, Universities & Left Review, 1, 1, 31–36, at p. 36. 53 E. P. Thompson (1959) ‘Commitment in Politics’, Universities & Left Review, 6, 50–55. 54 Ibid. 55 C. Winslow (2014) ‘Introduction’, p. 11. 51 See

7  ‘…TWO MONSTROUS ANTAGONISTIC STRUCTURES’ … 

175

As a historian, Thompson advocated a new kind of social history.56 After discovering unseen records in the archives he sought to illuminate forgotten histories of the disadvantaged, as Cal Winslow describes it, and thus to ‘challenge the official records’ and provide ‘new ways of understanding the actualities of eighteenth and nineteenth century life’.57 Thompson offered a counter-narrative on British history, and he sought to bring out the revolutionary agency of the working class.58 At the same time, he aimed to highlight class identities in the past with a view to providing historical depth to contemporary class struggles.59 Thompson’s Marxism became less ideological and more open-minded and flexible. By the end of the 1950s, he argued that Marxism was ‘less … a self-sufficient system, [and] more … a major creative influence within a wider socialist tradition’.60 He was hostile to Marxist structuralism represented by the French philosopher Louis Althusser, as most strongly expressed in his Poverty of Theory, that was also an attack on Althusser’s British disciples, notably Perry Anderson.61 Instead of a structuralist concern with power and structures, Thompson preferred the study of ‘culture and the inwardness of experience’.62 He did admit that ‘No Marxist cannot be a structuralist, in a certain sense’.63 But his whole understanding of history was premised on his belief in experience as basis for human agency. Such experience was rooted in culture. Agency, for Thompson, was not necessarily intentional. As he argued in December 1981: ‘History never happens as the actors plan or expect. It is the record of unintended consequences. Revolutions are made, manifestos

56 For an explicit commitment to the history from below approach see E. P. Thompson (1960) ‘Homage to Tom Maguire’ in A. Briggs and J. Saville (eds.) Essays in Labour History. In Memory of G. D. H. Cole 25 September 1889–14 January 1959 (London: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 276–316. 57 C. Winslow (2014) ‘Introduction’, p. 17. 58 G. McCann (1997) Theory and History, p. 2. 59 Matthews, New Left, p. 64; R. Fieldhouse, T. Koditschek, and R. Taylor (2013) ‘E. P. Thompson: A Short Introduction’ in R. Fieldhouse and R. Taylor (eds.) E. P. Thompson and English Radicalism (Manchester: Manchester University Press), pp. 1–24, here p. 2. 60 Cited in M. Newman (2013) ‘Thompson’, p. 162. 61 Perry Anderson responded to Thompson defending Marxist structuralism from a cosmopolitan point of view. See, in particular his Arguments within English Nationalism. 62 H. Abelove (1983) ‘E. P. Thompson’, pp. 16–17. 63 Ibid.

176  S. BERGER AND C. WICKE

are issued, battles are won: but the outcome, twenty or thirty years on, is always something that no-one willed and no-one expected’.64 Thompson transferred such views on history to his own contemporary Cold War world. According to him, the Cold War represented an ‘abnormal political condition’ that nobody had wished for. They were the unintended outcomes of intended actions. And they produced an ‘odd and dangerous condition’ that seemed frozen in time, precisely because of the existence of mutual deterrence by means of weaponry that, by coincidence, was invented at this historical moment.65 What followed from such views on historical contingency, agency and culture in the historical process?

Thompson’s Role in the Anti-Nuclear Movement and His Position Between the Two Blocs As we have argued above, the CND turned into a mass movement in Britain between 1956 and 1963. It was intertwined with an undogmatic Marxist New Left milieu that was dispersed across a number of social movements.66 Thompson believed that the peace movement would become an important part of a New Left Marxist movement, offering critical Marxists a new home. Both the New Left and the peace movement were opposed to nuclear weapons and to British membership in NATO.67 Both believed in direct action to achieve their political goals.68 The revolutionary zeitgeist of undogmatic Marxists, fed up with orthodox party communism, could now be channelled into peace activism. It gave them something concrete to do and a new institutional home. Thompson, like many others, cherished the opportunity of ‘sharing in the daily practice of fund-raising and organizing marches, as well as in the writing of articles to help define the campaign’s wider goals and strategy’.69

64 E.

P. Thompson (1982b) Beyond the Cold War (London: Pantheon), p. 10. p. 10. 66 P. Byrne (1997) Social Movements in Britain (Theory and Practice in British Politics) (London: Routledge). 67 W. Matthews (2013) The New Left, p. 7. 68 Ibid, p. 10. 69 M. Bess (1993) Realism, p. 107. 65 Ibid,

7  ‘…TWO MONSTROUS ANTAGONISTIC STRUCTURES’ … 

177

Thompson was convinced that the CND was the right instrument to overcome the polarized Cold War culture. In his view, the orthodoxies of capitalism and communism had been constructed in mutual antagonism leaving no space for the agency of ordinary people who neither wanted that antagonism nor the reigning orthodoxies. But the ideological enmity between ‘the pure Stalinist’ and ‘the pure Natopolitan’ had been responsible for the dominant ‘ideology of apathy’, characterizing the culture of the cold war, that held sway over the globe70 and impeded any advances in the socialist humanism he espoused. For Thompson, CND was about showing the masses a way out of apathy and an alternative to the dominant Cold War culture. When CND ‘riven by internal dissension over the tactics of protest gradually began to lose its élan’ in the early sixties, it was another major political disappointment for Thompson.71 Yet his hopes were revived two decades later, when Thompson again recognized the ‘success of the European peace movement’ in overcoming the dominant Cold War culture.72 In the early 1980s, millions were protesting in Western Europe, and Thompson saw new opportunities for politicizing the people not only for a struggle against the deployment of missiles but also for a new post-Cold War culture that was to provide a more fertile ground on which his variant of socialist humanism could be built. He took up his campaigning days again with renewed vigour: He wrote dozens of articles for European and American newspapers, continually mailed off letters to the editor, and appeared often on British television, either in interviews or in news reports. He travelled to the major British cities, giving speeches and holding meetings (an average of ten public appearances per month between 1980 and 1982), and he went abroad on speaking tours from California to Hungary, Iceland to Greece, visiting some fourteen counties in all.73

70 E. P. Thompson (1960) ‘Outside the Whale’ in idem. (ed.) Out of Apathy (London: Stevens and Sons), p. 145. 71 M. Bess (1993) Realism, p. 114. 72 E. P. Thompson (1982b) ‘Introduction: The Wet Gate’ in O. Grimmson and A. McCormack (eds.) END Special Report: The Nuclear North Atlantic (Glasgow: Heatherbank Press), pp. 6–10, here p. 8. 73 M. D. Bess (1993) ‘The Historian’.

178  S. BERGER AND C. WICKE

Similarly, Thompson’s comrade, Mary Kaldor, who had also been very influential in this movement, remembered his activism on behalf of END that he had helped to bring about: Thompson stomped the country, making speeches to packed halls and giving interviews to radio and television. He wrote articles and pamphlets and endless letters. He organized END’s specialist working groups on Eastern Europe which became the source of information about the new peace and human-rights groups in the East and West. In short, he engaged himself in everything from the administrative minutiae of choosing the design for badges, or the structures of particular committees, to the high politics of the ideological struggle not only with the political leaders and military planners of the West but also with the peace committees and ‘disarmament’ specialists of the Warsaw Pact…74

The first major END document, which was strongly influenced by Thompson, was the so-called END Appeal in April 1980. It began with the following words: ‘We are entering the most dangerous decade in human history. A third world war is not merely possible, but increasingly likely’.75 Further below, it went on: An increasing proportion of the world resources is expended on weapons, even though mutual extermination is already amply guaranteed. This economic burden, in both East and West, contributes to a growing social and political strain, setting in motion a vicious circle in which the arms race feeds upon the instability of the world economy and vice versa: a deathly dialectic.76

In Thompson’s view, and according to the Appeal: generations ‘have become habituated to the threat. Concern has given way to apathy’. Thompson’s voice was recognizably present in this piece, which was calling for international cooperation from below, for nuclear disarmament in Europe and for overcoming the division of the world into two hostile blocks, neither of which promised to move towards socialist humanism. 74 M.

Kaldor (1993) ‘Obituary’. P. Thompson et al. (2011) ‘Appeal for European Nuclear Disarmament’ in F. Holroyd (ed.) Thinking About Nuclear Weapons. Analyses and Prescriptions (London: Routledge), p. 368 [Reprinted version]. 76 Ibid. 75 E.

7  ‘…TWO MONSTROUS ANTAGONISTIC STRUCTURES’ … 

179

Nuclear disarmament, however, did not only promise a better world; it also was an absolute necessity for survival. Thompson disagreed vehemently with those, like the military historian Michael Howard, who argued that another round in the nuclear armaments race was necessary to keep the credibility of the deterrence strategy of the West. In response to Howard’s letter to The Times of 30 January 1980, Thompson fired off his pamphlet, Protest and Survive.77 Here, Thompson argued that a nuclear war was likely to happen: ‘I argue from a general and sustained historical process, an accumulative logic, a kind made familiar to me in the study of history. The episodes lead in this direction or that, but the general logic of process is always towards nuclear war’. The only way out he could see was: ‘We must protest if we are to survive. … We must generate an alternative logic, an opposition at every level of society’. Subsequently, Thompson outlined the movement representing an alternative logic across Western Europe and called for direct action: ‘We must close down those airfields and bases which already serve aircraft submarine on nuclear missions. And we must contest every stage of the attempt to import United States cruise missiles onto our soil. …there must be great public manifestations and direct contestations – peacefully and responsibly conducted – of several kinds’. Thompson envisioned a European movement that was opposed to both ‘the imperialist West’ as well as ‘the old stoney Stalinist reflexes of the East’. A third landmark publication, also published in 1980, was Thompson’s article in the New Left Review entitled Notes on Exterminism, the Last Stage of Civilization. Here, he again combined his unorthodox Marxism with his peace campaigning: ‘Comrades, we need a cogent theoretical class analysis of the present war crisis’. Criticizing the ‘the immobilism of the Marxist Left’ with regard to the persisting Cold War, he presented his own reading of the Cold War as leading to lethargy and preventing a breakthrough to the building of socialist humanism from below. A swift caricature of whatever theory underlies this immobilism would run like this. It is in stance a priori: the increasingly-expert literature on weaponry, militarism, and in peace research remains unread. It is informed by a subliminal teleology: history must move through its pre-programmed 77 M. Howard (1980) ‘Reviving Civil Defence’, Letter to The Times (30 January 1980), printed in E. P. Thompson and D. Smith (eds.) (1980) Protest and Survive.

180  S. BERGER AND C. WICKE stages, do what men will, and we may refuse, with religiose [sic] optimism, Marx’s grimmer option: ‘the mutual ruin of the contending classes.78

Thompson argued that his comrades should overcome the assumption that there was a rational logic behind the emergence of the Cold War, which is imperialism. And that the socialist states had only joined the arms race for defensive purposes. He attacked a widespread assumption on the left that the international class struggle and declining capitalist economies would solve the problem of the Cold War stand-off automatically. Instead, he suggested to ‘read the immediate past as the irrational outcome of a collision of wills, and we would expect the immediate future to enlarge that irrationality’. As in Protest and Survive, he saw the catastrophe located in the power struggle within the ‘USSR-China-US’ triangle. The struggle of the peace movement, he contended, was not just about weapons: The Bomb is, after all, something more than an inert Thing. First, it is, in its destructive yield and programmed trajectory, a thing of menace. Second, it is a component in a weapons-system: and producing, manning and supporting that system is a correspondent social system-a distinct organization of labour, research and operation, with distinctive hierarchies of command, riles of secrecy, prior access to resources and skills and high levels of policing and discipline: a distinctive organization of production, which, while militarist in character, employs and is supported by great numbers of civilians (civil servants, scientists, academics) who are subordinated to its discipline and rules.79

Like in Protest and Survive, Thomson thus claimed that the nuclear system had its own logic and should be analysed as such. A Marxist critique of imperialism or capitalism would not be sufficient to understand ‘The Logic of Nuclear Weapons Systems’.80 Referring to Emma Rothschild, he accepted the argument that the military industries in the USA after the Second World War were just as important as the textile industries during the industrial revolution in 78 E.

P. Thompson (1980) ‘Notes’, p. 5.

79 Ibid., 80 Ibid.,

pp. 5–6. p. 7.

7  ‘…TWO MONSTROUS ANTAGONISTIC STRUCTURES’ … 

181

Britain. But instead of a decline of this industry, he saw a revival. He saw the arms sector as dominating the economy not only in the USA, but also in the Soviet Union.81 This economic structure, combined with a political culture of fear and irrationality, would be the foundation for ‘exterminism’ and ‘Cold War-ism’ which might well become humanity’s destiny, if the people did not mobilize against it.82 Thompson took much encouragement from the developments in Poland. He interpreted the success of the Solidarność movement as further evidence that ordinary people were willing and able to resist the logic of those in power on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Consequently, he demanded: ‘We must strive to loosen Europe from the military hegemony of both superpowers, and to press forward measures of demilitarization in every part of our continent. Peace and freedom must now, more than ever, be seen as one cause. There is no other way’.83 Thompson continued to argue against ‘the over surplus’ of nuclear weaponry and any balance-of-power arguments as well as combatting the lethargy-producing ‘anxiety’ that held sway over Europe and would soon destroy the ‘civilised conditions for life’.84 The new resistance against this Cold War logic could take heart from the historic example of antifascism, which had given Europe a common identity before, just like peace activism could provide the basis for a common European identity in the contemporary world.85 This would challenge the Europe ‘of two hostile Europes’ that were led by corrupt power elites in both the USA and the Soviet Union.86 Not all members of END shared Thompson’s vision of socialist humanism or a third way between the Soviet communist and the American capitalist visions of world order, and there were many internal debates in END about all of these issues, which we cannot go into in a short article.87

81 Ibid.,

pp. 17–21. pp. 29–31. 83 E. P. Thompson (1982a) ‘Author’s Note’ in idem (ed.) Beyond the Cold War (London: Pantheon). 84 Ibid, p. 1. 85 Ibid, p. 4. 86 Ibid, p. 6. 87 For more on these intellectual squabbles, see R. Taylor (2013) ‘Thompson’, pp. 194–95. 82 Ibid.,

182  S. BERGER AND C. WICKE

Conclusion Thompson was not an optimist, as he told the Caribbean writer and activist C. L. R. James in 1982. While movements like Solidarność were raising hopes for a change in the geopolitical structure, Thompson still believed it was not unlikely that the world will end in Armageddon.88 Yet he always was enough of a Marxist to retain the belief in a future that would be better than the present and that it was worth fighting for. We have concentrated on Thompson in this article to show that through individual key activists, like him, Marxism played an influential role in the peace movement. In line with many ‘academic’ Marxists of his generation in Britain, his political beliefs first led him into the Communist Party. His wartime experiences only cemented his commitment to Marxism and Communism. Yet the CPGB and really existing socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were a huge disappointment to him, and hence, it was only logical that Thompson, like thousands of other British Communists, left the party over the clampdown in Hungary in 1956. Afterwards he was politically homeless, as he continued to reject the reformism of the Labour Party and confirmed his commitment to a form of Marxism that was increasingly unorthodox. As we have argued above, his turn to the peace movement and to peace activism can be seen as an attempt to build an alternative political home for himself. For Thompson, the peace movement represented a mass movement from below that had the potential of saving the world from nuclear destruction and of overcoming the Cold War binaries in East and West. If Europe could be united against the powerful interests of those who were in government in the Communist East and the capitalist West, then, this might also be an opportunity to realise the socialist humanist project to which Thompson remained committed from the 1940s to his death in 1993. As we have also argued above, his historical writings and his political writings were closely interrelated. The past often served as guidance for the present in view of an imagined future that arose out of his Marxist world view. Thompson’s preference for English radicalism, be it William Morris or the members of the London Corresponding Society, 88 Territorial Masquerade (2012) ‘In Conversation: E. P. Thompson and C. L. R. James’, http://territorialmasquerades.net/in-conversation-e-p-thompson-and-c-l-r-james/, date accessed 14 September 2014.

7  ‘…TWO MONSTROUS ANTAGONISTIC STRUCTURES’ … 

183

can be seen as a conscious move away from Soviet internationalism. It also was a step into the everyday world of ordinary workers, their consciousness and their experiences, which, Thompson argued, formed the basis of their struggles for a better future. This struggle was an ongoing one in history, and the peace movement was the social movement in his own present that promised to carry on the fight in the most meaningful way. The moral economy, underpinning Thompson’s project of socialist humanism was best represented by a movement from below that challenged the corrupted elites in power in both West and East. Appalled by the global inequalities and exploitative structures produced by the capitalist West, he upheld a belief in the rule of law and in liberty that he found in English history, but not in Communist Eastern Europe, and that he felt increasingly under threat in his native Britain. Thompson was a champion of the agency of ordinary people, both in the past and in the present. Such agency, he argued, stood above any economic determinism that he did not tire to criticize in orthodox Marxism. It was the basis on which the lethargy vis-à-vis an allegedly unchanging and unchangeable Cold War world could be overcome. Thompson’s charismatic personality and his powerful historical and political writings reached a very wide audience, in the peace movement and beyond. Through Thompson, many peace activists encountered a form of unorthodox Marxism that was intellectually convincing, morally appealing and helpful in contemporary political struggles.

References Abelove, H. (1983) ‘E. P. Thompson’ in idem. (ed.) Visions of History Interview (London: MARHO), p. 13. Berger, S. and LaPorte, N. (2010) Friendly Enemies. Britian and the GDR, 1949–1990 (Oxford: Berghahn Books). Bess, M. (1993) Realism, Utopia, and the Mushroom Cloud. Four Activist Intellectuals and Their Strategies for Peace, 1945–1989, Louise Weiss (France), Leo Szilard (United States), E. P. Thompson (England), Danilo Dolci (Italy) (Chicago: Phoenix Fiction). Bess, M. D. (1993) ‘The Historian as an Activist’, American Historical Review, 98, 1, 19–38. Byrne, P. (1988) The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (London: Croom Helm Ltd.). Byrne, P. (1997) Social Movements in Britain (Theory and Practice in British Politics) (London: Routledge).

184  S. BERGER AND C. WICKE Cole, D. H. (2001) ‘An Unqualified Human Good. E.P. Thompson and the Rule of Law’, Journal of Law and Society, 28, 2, 177–203. Eley, G. (2002) Forging Democracy. The History of the Left in Modern Europe, 1850–2000 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Fieldhouse, R., Koditschek, T. and Taylor, R. (2013) ‘E. P. Thompson: A Short Introduction’ in R. Fieldhouse and R. Taylor (eds.) E. P. Thompson and English Radicalism (Manchester: Manchester University Press), pp. 1–24. Hill, C., Hilton, R. and Hobsbawm, E. (1983) ‘Past and Present. Origins and Early Years’, Past & Present, 100, 1, 3–14. Howard, M. (1980) ‘Reviving Civil Defence’, Letter to The Times (30 January 1980), printed in E. P. Thompson and D. Smith (eds.) (1980) Protest and Survive (Harmondsworth, Mx: Penguin Books). Kaldor, M. (1993) ‘Obituary. E. P. Thompson’, The Independent, 30 August 1993. online: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-e-p-thompson-1464255.html, date accessed 17 January 2018. Kaye, H. J. (1994) The British Marxist Historians (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Laybourn, K. (2006) Marxism in Britain. Dissent, Decline and Re-emergence, 1945–c.2000 (Oxon: Routledge). Matthews, W. (2013) The New Left, National Identity, and the Break-Up of Britain (Leiden: Brill). McCann, G. (1997) Theory and History. The Political Thought of E.P. Thompson (Aldershot: Ashgate). Newman, M. (2013) ‘Thompson and the Early New Left’ in R. Fieldhouse and R. Taylor (eds.) E. P. Thompson and English Radicalism (Manchester: Manchester University Press), pp. 162–63. Rowbothman, S. (2011) ‘Sheila Thompson Obituary’, The Guardian, 6 February 2011, see online: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/ feb/06/dorothy-thompson-obituary, date accessed 18 January 2018. Saville, J. and Thompson, E. P. (1957) ‘Editorial’, The New Reasoner, 1. Schneer, J. (1988) Labour’s Conscience. The Labour Left 1945–1950 (Boston: Unwin Hyman). Shaw, M. (1990) ‘From Total War to Democratic Peace. Exterminism and Historical Pacifism’ in K. McClelland (ed.) E. P. Thompson. Critical Perspectives (Oxford: Temple University Press), pp. 233–51. Taylor, R. (2013) ‘Thompson and the Peace Movement. From CND in the 1950s and 1960s to END in the 1980s’ in R. Fieldhouse and R. Taylor (eds.) E. P. Thompson and English Radicalism (Manchester: Manchester University Press), pp. 181–201. Territorial Masquerade. (2012) ‘In Conversation: E. P. Thompson and C. L. R. James’, http://territorialmasquerades.net/in-conversation-e-p-thompsonand-c-l-r-james/, date accessed 14 September 2014.

7  ‘…TWO MONSTROUS ANTAGONISTIC STRUCTURES’ … 

185

Thompson, E. P. (1955) William Morris. Romantic to Revolutionary (London: Lawrence & Wishart). Thompson, E. P. (1957a) ‘Socialism and the Intellectuals’, Universities & Left Review, 1, 1, 31–36, see online: http://banmarchive.org.uk/collections/ulr/ index_frame.htm, date accessed 18 January 2018. Thompson, E. P. (1957b) ‘Socialist Humanism. An Epistle to the Philistines’, The New Reasoner, 1, 105–7. Thompson, E. P. (1957c) ‘Socialist Humanism: An Epistle to the Philistines’, The New Reasoner, 1, 105–43. Thompson, E. P. (1959) ‘Commitment in Politics’, Universities & Left Review, 6, 50–55. Thompson, E. P. (1960) ‘Homage to Tom Maguire’ in A. Briggs and J. Saville (eds.) Essays in Labour History. In Memory of G. D. H. Cole 25 September 1889–14 January 1959 (London: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 276–316. Thompson, E. P. (1960) ‘Outside the Whale’ in idem. (ed.) Out of Apathy (London: Stevens and Sons). Thompson, E. P. (1967) ‘Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism’, Past & Present, 38, 1, 56–97. Thompson, E. P. (1978) The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays (London: Monthly Review Press). Thompson, E. P. (1980) ‘Notes on Exterminism, the Last Stage of Civilization’, New Left Review, 182, 1, 3–31. Thompson, E. P. (1982a) ‘Author’s Note’ in idem (ed.) Beyond the Cold War (London: Pantheon). Thompson, E. P. (1982b) Beyond the Cold War (London: Pantheon). Thompson, E. P. (1982c) ‘Introduction: The Wet Gate’ in O. Grimmson and A. McCormack (eds.) END Special Report: The Nuclear North Atlantic (Glasgow: Heatherbank Press), pp. 6–10. Thompson, E. P. (2008) ‘Foreword’ in The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays (New York: Monthly Review Press). Thompson, E. P. et al. (2011) ‘Appeal for European Nuclear Disarmament’ in F. Holroyd (ed.) Thinking About Nuclear Weapons. Analyses and Prescriptions (London: Routledge) [Reprinted version]. Winslow, C. (2014) ‘Introduction. Edward Thompson and the Making of the New Left’ in: idem (ed.) E.P. Thompson and the Making of the New Left. Essays and Polemics (New York: Monthly Review), p. 16. Wittner, L. S. (2009) Confronting the Bomb. A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement (Stanford: Stanford University Press).

CHAPTER 8

The Historical Cultures of the 1960s’ West German Peace Movement: A Learning Process? Alrun Berger

By the beginning of the 1960s a peace movement had been established in Western Germany that throughout the course of the decade would transform into a precondition for the Außerparlamentarische Opposition (APO, Extra-parliamentary Opposition).1 Starting as a Christian-pacifist movement against nuclear weapons this peace movement, in later research often referred to as the Easter March movement, turned into an increasingly critical coalition movement with mass character that eventually expanded its agenda with the upcoming issues of the Vietnam War and the emergency law within the bipolar world order of the Cold War. 1 For a more or less similar argumentation see K. A. Otto (1977) Vom Ostermarsch zur APO. Geschichte der ausserparlamentarischen Opposition in der Bundesrepublik 1960–70 (Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag); Bebnowski, D. (2014) ‘Die Kampagne vor dem Dogma. Die Ostermärsche und das Jahr 1964’ in R. Lorenz and F. Walter (eds.) 1964. Das Jahr, mit dem „68“ begann (Bielefeld: Transcript-Verlag), pp. 259–74.

A. Berger (*)  Institut für soziale Bewegungen, Clemensstraße 17-19, Bochum, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2019 S. Berger and C. Cornelissen (eds.), Marxist Historical Cultures and Social Movements during the Cold War, Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03804-5_8

187

188  A. BERGER

The triggers for these processes of change can be identified in the historical culture incorporated by various groups of people who over time joined the movement. These were increasingly interwoven with influences of Marxist modes of thinking. Following this assumption this chapter will show, first, which kind of historical cultures dominated in the West German Easter March movement throughout the course of its nearly decade-long existence, and how and in which way these changed. Second, the question will be asked how and to what extent these historical cultures—and in the process in particular a gradually infiltrating Marxist historical thinking—influenced the conception, legitimation, and conveyance of the movement’s campaign or in short its general peace activism. Based on this the chapter will of course also ask if such types of Marxist historical cultures may have formed a link toward Soviet communism. In this chapter the initial term of historical culture originating from German history didactics can be broadly defined as a concept to summarize any processes and products of different approaches to and dealings with history.2 Based on Jörn Rüsen, one of the most influential representatives of the conception of historical culture and someone who understands historical culture as the “practical effective articulation of historical consciousness in the life of a society,” the memory performance of historical consciousness can be understood simply as an achievement of meaning construction over time. By visualizing the experiences acquired in the past, present, and future perspectives for action are generated and thus it can be seen as an historical learning process.3 The history of the development of the West German Easter March movement in the 1960s has already been researched by several authors,4 2 See K. Tenfelde (1996) ‘Geschichtskultur im Ruhrgebiet’, Gewerkschaftliche Monatshefte, IV, 240–53, here p. 242. 3 J. Rüsen (1994) ‘Was ist Geschichtskultur?’ in K. Füßmann and H. T. Grütter et al. (eds.) Historische Faszination. Geschichtskultur heute (Köln: Böhlau), pp. 3–26, here pp. 5–10. See also B. Schönemann (2006) ‘Geschichtskultur als Wiederholungsstruktur’, Geschichte, Politik und ihre Didaktik, XXXIV, 182–91 as well as M. Demantowsky (2005) ‘Geschichtskultur und Erinnerungskultur—zwei Konzeptionen des einen Gegenstandes. Historischer Hintergrund und exemplarischer Vergleich’, Geschichte, Politik und ihre Didaktik, XXXIII, 11–20. 4 For example, K. A. Otto (1977) Ostermarsch; G. Grünewald (1982) ‘Zur Geschichte des Ostermarsches der Atomwaffengegner’, Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik, III, 303–22; L. Rolke (1987) Protestbewegungen in der Bundesrepublik. Eine analytische Sozialgeschichte des politischen Widerspruchs (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag); A. Cooper

8  THE HISTORICAL CULTURES OF THE 1960S’ WEST GERMAN PEACE … 

189

but the dimensions of historical culture, or rather memory performances within this movement, which is of interest here have not been explored, although this is an important research gap for the field of social movement history in general.5 Based on three journals from within the movement or which sponsored it (Informationen zur Abrüstung, Pläne, and Wir sind jung) along with further gray literature, a few personal chronicles of various movement intellectuals,6 as well as the range of works mentioned in Footnotes 2 to 6 on the history of the development of the Easter March movement, this chapter will examine the questions of interest, while keeping in mind three chronological phases. In so doing each of the three phases will be attributed a different state of development of the movement’s historical consciousness, or rather its utilization of history. However, first, a brief overview of some constitutive and political conditions must be mentioned to depict the contemporary motivation of the movement.

(1996) Paradoxes of Peace: German Peace Movements Since 1945 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press); N. Thomas (2003) Protest Movements in 1960 s West Germany. A Social History of Dissent and Democracy (New York: Berg); H. Nehring (2007) ‘Die eigensinnigen Bürger. Legitimationsstrategien im politischen Kampf gegen die militärische Nutzung der Atomkraft in der Bundesrepublik der frühen sechziger Jahre’ in H. Knoch (ed.) Bürgersinn mit Weltgefühl. Politische Moral und solidarischer Protest in den sechziger und siebziger Jahren (Göttingen: Wallstein-Verlag), pp. 117–37; and D. Bebnowski (2014) ‘Die Kampagne’. 5 See, as first approaches to bring these two fields together, K. Davison (2017a) Conference report ‘History, Memory and Social Movements’, H-Soz-Kult, http://www. hsozkult.de/conferencereport/id/tagungsberichte-7336, date accessed 1 December 2017; Eyerman, R. (2016) ‘Social Movements and Memory’ in A. L. Tota and T. Hagen (eds.) Routledge International Handbook of Memory Studies (Oxford: Routledge), pp. 206–26; and J. Wüstenberg (2017) Civil Society and Memory in Postwar Germany (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). 6 For example, A. Buro (1977) ‘Die Entstehung der Ostermarsch-Bewegung als Beispiel für die Entfaltung von Massenlernprozessen’ in Hessische Stiftung Friedensund Konfliktforschung (ed.) Friedensanalysen. Schwerpunkt: Friedensbewegung (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp), pp. 50–78; A. Buro (2011) Gewaltlos gegen den Krieg. Lebenserinnerungen eines streitbaren Pazifisten (Frankfurt am Main: Brandes & Apsel Verlag); O. Negt and K. Vack et al. (1993) Politische und soziale Lernprozesse. Möglichkeiten, Chancen, Probleme (Beerfelden: Komitee für Grundrechte der Demokratie); P. Hein and H. Reese (1996) Kultur und Gesellschaft der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Eine Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Arno Klönne (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften).

190  A. BERGER

Emergence of the 1960s’ West German Peace Movement: Some Constitutive and Political Conditions The West German Easter March movement, which began in 1960 at a missile training ground in Bergen-Hohne near Hamburg, can be attributed to diverse political conditions and constitutional factors, the most relevant of which in terms of the questions already raised will be mentioned below. At the beginning of the 1960s the Cold War was in its most critical phase. Mutual confrontation in the Soviet–American relationship reached its climax and turning point with the Cuban Missile Crisis. However, the fear of an atomic war to which the Cuban Missile Crisis could have led and the experience that had shown negotiations between the White House and the Kremlin were possible fortunately prevailed. The Cuban Missile Crisis immediately led to the establishment of a permanent communication link, the so-called “Moscow–Washington hotline,” as well as to a partial nuclear test ban treaty. The age of détente began. The strategic dominance of the United States had diminished and a sort of “stability” had developed based on the fact that neither side could destroy the other without essentially committing suicide (“mutual assured destruction”). However, since the willingness for mutual trust was based on credibility, the predictability of the other, and a sense of one’s own strength the arms race continued unabated.7 This global political thaw was essential for the Federal Republic as it was at the border between East and West right on the frontline of the Cold War. Had it come to a nuclear war between the superpowers the Federal Republic would have been the central battlefield. The question of German security and that of German unity went hand in hand with any political strategic steps of the two superpowers.8 However, the international tendency toward détente associated with the mutual recognition of the status quo initially required a fundamental rethinking of the Federal Republic. Yet, the government under Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and later also Ludwig Erhard followed a policy of strength. This expressed itself in the fact that they sought to attain the goal of 7 See W. Loth (2002) Overcoming the Cold War: A History of détente, 1950–1991 (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan). 8 See J. Angster (2012) Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1963–1982. Reform und Krise (Darmstadt: WBG), p. 9.

8  THE HISTORICAL CULTURES OF THE 1960S’ WEST GERMAN PEACE … 

191

reunification, which was firmly established in basic law, through military and economic pressure by the West on the Soviet Union. Progress toward reunification and issues of détente and disarmament were tightly linked to the government. Therefore, all forms of alleviation of tension that meant cementing the status quo were rejected outright. Although the Federal Government had already renounced the production of atomic weapons as a prerequisite for the signing of the Paris Treaty at the end of 1954, from 1957 on it regularly raised the demand for equivalency of equipping the Federal Republic with nuclear weapons. The Federal Armed Forces ended up being equipped with corresponding carrier and launching systems, but they did not receive the designated atomic warheads for the systems. This led to the Federal Republic becoming a country that had almost the largest armaments density in the world without owning its own rights of disposal. Thus, well into the 1960s the Federal Government supported various endeavors and concepts that would have earned at least co-ownership of nuclear weapons. This only came to an end in 1969 with the signing of the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty under the social–liberation coalition.9 German Federal Republic anti-communism from the 1950s and early 1960s can be seen as another important framework condition: the central model of legitimation for the political system of the Federal Republic at that time.10 In connection with a specific Vergangenheitspolitik (“politics of history”) under Adenauer,11 the effects of which were among others a broad amnesty and reintegration of the old elites (especially in the judiciary), anti-communism as an “argumentative all-purpose weapon” justified radical demarcation to the East, on the one hand, and a disciplined society within the country, on the other. In the fight against communist totalitarianism the totalitarian Nazi past was covered up so that even into the 1960s barely any critical debate about Nazi fascism could

9 See C. Kleßmann (1997) Zwei Staaten, eine Nation. Deutsche Geschichte 1955–1970 (Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung), pp. 72, 235. 10 See N. Frei (2017) Der Antikommunismus in seiner Epoche. Weltanschauung und Politik in Deutschland, Europa und den USA (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag); S. Creuzberger (2014) “Geistige Gefahr” und “Immunisierung der Gesellschaft”. Antikommunismus und politische Kultur in der politischen Kultur der frühen Bundesrepublik (München: Oldenbourg). 11 See N. Frei (1999) Vergangenheitspolitik. Die Anfänge der Bundesrepublik und die NSVergangenheit, 2nd ed. (München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag).

192  A. BERGER

take place.12 On the contrary, a general silence regarding the “Third Reich” prevailed, which initially largely precluded a coming to terms with the past in the sense of societal handling and reviewing of the dictatorial past. Active memory performances were mainly carried out from the perspective of the Germans being victims (e.g., the associations of expellees or in general commemoration of the dead of World War II).13 At the same time any social alternatives to capitalism were delegitimized. Political smear campaigns and organizational interference that had extra-parliamentary, pacifist aspirations were on the agenda of the day and were justified by political criminal law.14 Of course, another important factor felt by contemporaries at that time related to the “unbearable impertinence” to rearm “especially in Germany,” and by doing so even prepare for a potential Third World War in the form of a nuclear war.15 Such scenarios reactivated deeply rooted anxieties within postwar society.16 Finally, another factor that should not be underestimated came about as a result of disappointment felt toward the SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany), who abruptly ended in late 1959 their campaign

12 E. Wolfrum (2001) Geschichte als Waffe. Vom Kaiserreich zur Wiedervereinigung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht), p. 107ff. 13 See Brockhaus, G. (2012) ‘The Emotional Legacy of the National Socialist Past in Post-War Germany’ in A. Assmann and L. Scott (eds.) Memory and Political Change (New York: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 34–49; B. Giesen (2004) ‘The Trauma of Perpetrators: The Holocaust as the Traumatic Reference of German National Identity’ in J. Alexander and R. Eyerman et al. (eds.) Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press), pp. 112–154; and W. Kantsteiner (2006) ‘Losing the War, Winning the Memory Battle: The Legacy of Nazism, World War II, and the Holocaust in the Federal Republic of Germany’ in R. N. Lebow and W. Kantsteiner et al. (eds.) The Politics of Memory in Postwar Europe (Durham: Duke University Press), pp. 102–46. 14 See J. Korte (2008) ‘Bundesdeutsche Vergangenheitspolitik und Antikommunismus’, Forum Demokratischer Sozialismus in archive.today, http://archive.today/hqxse, date accessed 21 March 2018. 15 K.-H. Heinemann (1993) ‘Herbert Stubenrauch. Ich hab da meine kleine Schubkarre, und mit der fahr ich soviel weg, wie ich schaffen kann’ in K.-H. Heinemann and T. Jaitner (eds.) Ein langer Marsch. ’68 und die Folgen; Gespräche mit Lutz von Werder, Thomas Ziehe, Kurt Holl … (Köln: PapyRossa), pp. 63–70, here p. 64. 16 See M. Geyer (2001) ‘Der Kalte Krieg, die Deutschen und die Angst. Die westdeutsche Opposition gegen Wiederbewaffnung und Kernwaffen’ in K. Naumann (ed.) Nachkrieg in Deutschland (Hamburg: Hamburger Edition), pp. 267–318.

8  THE HISTORICAL CULTURES OF THE 1960S’ WEST GERMAN PEACE … 

193

Kampf dem Atomtod (KdA, “Campaign against Atomic Death”)17 financially and organizationally after just two short years. The campaign comprised not only top officials from its own ranks, but also from the German Federation of Trade Unions (DGB), the Evangelical Church, the Ecclesiastical Brotherhoods, representatives from the Free Democratic Party (FDP) and the university opposition, which made it not unlike the anti-rearmament movements of the 1950s that preceded it.18 However, its demise was directly related to the political-­ideological change of policy of the SPD that allowed it to become a major party in 1959.19 Similar developments could be seen in the Protestant and Catholic Church as well, where reformist Protestants and left-wing Catholics stood up for the church taking a clear stance against nuclear weapons, increasingly relocating their activities to outside the church.20 This illustrates that the motivation behind reestablishing a West German peace movement in the new form taken on by the Easter March movement at the beginning of the 1960s can only be fully understood against the backdrop of the Cold War and its immediate consequences within Germany, including its recent (and largely still suppressed) dictatorial past, and against the backdrop of those disappointed hopes toward the churches and the SPD.

17 See H. K. Rupp (1980) Außerparlamentarische Opposition in der Ära Adenauer. Der Kampf gegen die Atombewaffnung in den fünfziger Jahren, 2nd ed. (Köln: PahlRugenstein); A. Schildt (2009) ‘“Atomzeitalter”—Gründe und Hintergründe der Proteste gegen die atomare Bewaffnung der Bundeswehr Ende der fünfziger Jahre’ in Forschungsstelle für Zeitgeschichte Hamburg (ed.) „Kampf dem Atomtod“. Die Protestbewegung 1957/58 in zeithistorischer und gegenwärtiger Perspektive (München: Dölling und Galitz), pp. 39–56. 18 On this phase of the peace movement against rearmament of the German armed forces see M. Werner (2006) Die „Ohne mich“-Bewegung. Die bundesdeutsche Friedensbewegung im deutsch-deutschen Kalten Krieg (1949–1955) (Münster: Monsenstein und Vannerdat). In this context on the very first protest against atomic weapons in the FRG see also R. Lorenz (2011) Protest der Physiker. Die „Göttinger Erklärung“ von 1957 (Bielefeld: Transcript). 19 See L. Rolke (1987) Protestbewegungen, p. 191; K. Holl (1988) Pazifismus in Deutschland (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp), p. 227ff. 20 See B. Ziemann (2004) ‘Zwischen sozialer Bewegung und Dienstleistung am Individuum. Katholiken und katholische Kirche im therapeutischen Jahrzehnt’, Archiv für Sozialgeschichte, XLIV, 357–93; M. Greschat (2010) Protestantismus im Kalten Krieg. Kirche, Politik und Gesellschaft im geteilten Deutschland 1945–1963 (Paderborn: Schöningh).

194  A. BERGER

The First Phase (1960–1961/1962): Cautious Memory Work The transition to the first non-parliamentary and to some extent even non-institutional21 mass movement in the history of the German Federal Republic was initially set up by a small, religiously influenced pacifist group named Aktionskreis für Gewaltlosigkeit (“Group against Violence”), who adopted Easter Marches along similar lines to the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) model.22 This group originated from a Hamburg group of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) that associated itself with the Internationale der Kriegsdienstgegner (IdK, German section of “War Resisters International”) in 1958.23 The driving forces behind the group, the Hamburg teacher Hans-Konrad Tempel and his future wife Helga Stolle, had got to know British pacifists through their involvement with the Quakers and were thus inspired to organize an Easter March form of protest on Federal Republic soil. In addition to the Quaker-associated initiators there were—apart from pacifist representatives of the Deutsche Friedensgesellschaft (DFG, “German Peace Society”), the IdK, and the Verband der Kriegsdienstverweigerer (VK, “Association of Conscientious Objectors”)—many other supporters with deep roots in Christian traditions in this early phase of the Easter March movement. For example, Arno Klönne, socialized by the working class tradition of the Ruhr area and by the influence of the Bündische Jugend (“German Youth Movement”), considered himself to be a left-wing Catholic. Christel

21 Through the so-called ‘Prinzip des Einzelengagements’ (principle of individual involvement) the Easter March organizers tried to keep the impact of supportive organizations as small as possible. At the same time, this led to a relatively open discussion and decision-making atmosphere. Cf. G. Grünewald (1982) ‘Geschichte’, 308; K. A. Otto (1977) Ostermarsch, p. 72. 22 For a comprehensive comparison of both movements see H. Nehring (2013) Politics of Security. British and West German Protest Movements and the Early Cold War, 1945– 1970, 1st ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press); N. Nehring (2004) ‘Die Proteste gegen Atomwaffen in der Bundesrepublik und Großbritannien 1957–1964—ein Vergleich zweier sozialer Bewegungen’, Mitteilungsblatt des Instituts für soziale Bewegungen, XXXI, 81–108. For further reading on the CND in general see, for instance, R. Taylor and C. Pritchard (1988) The Protest Makers. The British Nuclear Disarmament Movement 1958–1965 Twenty Years On (Oxford and New York: Pergamon Press). 23 A. Buro (1977) ‘Ostermarsch-Bewegung’, p. 51.

8  THE HISTORICAL CULTURES OF THE 1960S’ WEST GERMAN PEACE … 

195

Beilmann, a member of the editorial staff of the left-wing Catholic Werkshefte, who became responsible for the Easter March movement in Ruhr only a short time later, also came from this environment.24 The Easter March movements’ protest during this initial phase was closely intertwined with intentional and continuous recall of the national socialist past, which can be identified as a form of cautious memory work. Moreover, the anti-nuclear protesters challenged the still continuing postwar political consensus (of silence) by advocating a moral historical culture25 that might have brought a contrasting remembrance or rather a kind of counter-memory into the early 1960s’ West German public sphere. The motivation for this seemed to arise from and be legitimized by the conscience of the activists.26 As stated in the Easter March Principles, defined in 1961, “We are obliged by our conscience to use all peaceful means at our disposal to combat any policy of violence (the outward sign of which is the atomic bomb).”27 Becoming “guilty the same way again” through silence and idleness was not compatible with conscience and was to be avoided at all costs. Only “courageous opposition,” not “stoic indifference,” could prevent “becoming the victim of the conscience-killing […] effect of the bomb.”28 This makes it clear that the conscience of the Easter March activists of this phase was directly linked to ideas about German guilt and responsibility,29 which built on debates taking place in West German Protestantism and left-wing Catholicism.30 The call for the first Easter March in Bergen-Hohne reinforces this assessment. It prominently addressed the question of guilt by directly connecting it with the

24 Cf. D. Bebnowski (2014) ‘Die Kampagne’, p. 264; K. A. Otto (1977) Ostermarsch, p. 213. 25 See also H. Nehring (2007) ‘Legitimationsstrategien’, p. 133, who characterizes this kind of memory work in a different approach as ‘Moralkommunikation’ (moral communication). 26 Ibid. 27 Ostermarsch der Atomwaffengegner, Zentraler Ausschuß (1961) ‘Grundsätze des Ostermarsches der Atomwaffengegner’, LAV NRW R, RW 115 no. 141, pp. 1–2, here p. 2. 28 Ostermarsch der Atomwaffengegner, Zentraler Ausschuß (1960/1961) ‘Kernsätze für die Redner des Ostermarsches der Atomwaffengegner’, LAV NRW R, RW 115 no. 141. 29 H. Nehring (2007) ‘Legitimationsstrategien’, p.134. 30 See A. Boyens (1971) ‘Das Stuttgarter Schuldbekenntnis vom 19. Oktober 1945— Entstehung und Bedeutung’, Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte, XIX, 374–97.

196  A. BERGER

Holocaust and indicating the possible consequences of efforts to arm the country with nuclear weapons. Along with the invitation to protest against nuclear armament efforts the call for the first Easter March stated that “the German people had already been accused once of having remained silent when courageous words and deeds would have actually been necessary” and that “millions of people had been killed in the concentration camps.” This was the basis for referring to possible outcomes of nuclear armament efforts that might cause the loss of even more lives and cause even more violence.31 Such constant admonitory appeals to the people’s conscience shows that the organizers used conscience as an instrument of political memory work to mobilize the protest against nuclear weapons, bringing images of the often blocked-out or hushed-up memories of this breach of civilization into the present and public of the early 1960s.32 This is very impressively demonstrated, for example, by the choice of routes the Easter March protesters followed—directing them close to concentration camps. The reason for selecting the missile base at Bergen-Hohne for the first Easter March was its immediate proximity to the former concentration camp at Bergen-Belsen. In fact, fellow protesters of Tempel and Stolle appeared to have the negative imagery of a continuation of the “death center in the Lüneburger Heide” in mind.33 This procedure continued with the Easter Marches of 1961, which either progressed radially from “a center of death to the neighboring big cities” or “went towards a center of death.”34 In addition to the “Northern March” which moved from Bergen-Hohne to various surrounding cities such as Hamburg, Bremen, and Hannover in 1961 the “Southern March” established its starting point in Ingolstadt at a former satellite camp of the Dachau concentration camp, and then moved to several surrounding cities such as Munich and Nuremberg. There was also the “Western March,” whose routes led from Dusseldorf

31 Ausschuß für den Ostermarsch zum Raketen-Übungsplatz Bergen-Hohne (1959/1960) ‘Aufruf zum Ostermarsch der Atomwaffengegner’, LAV NRW R, RW 115 no. 141. 32 See also H. Nehring (2007) ‘Legitimationsstrategien’, p. 134ff. 33 See M. Gunkel (1995) Unser Nein zur Bombe ist ein Ja zur Demokratie. Ostermarsch Nord 1960–1969 (Köln: GNN Verlag), p. 14. 34 ‘Routen der vier Märsche des Ostermarsches der Atomwaffengegner von 1961’, Pläne. Eine junge Zeitschrift für Politik und Kultur, IV/V (1961), 5.

8  THE HISTORICAL CULTURES OF THE 1960S’ WEST GERMAN PEACE … 

197

through Essen and Bochum to Dortmund,35 thus moving through cities in the Ruhr, which had along with former satellite camps of the Buchenwald concentration camp in Dortmund, Essen, and Bochum, or the Dortmund Steinwache a multitude of such former “places of horror of National Socialist tyranny.”36 Staging the Easter March routes in this way most likely aimed to break the still prevailing silence about the Nazi era, pointing out a direct continuation of the Holocaust’s track of violence through nuclear armament, thus preventing a continuing silence in a double sense. In fact, political repositioning of the crimes of World War II in West Germany only started (according to Edgar Wolfrum) in the mid-1960s when the staging of media-effective places of remembrance initiated a memorial policy, which aimed at correcting the failures of the immediate postwar era.37 Thus, at the beginning of the 1960s the Easter March organizers were the first to set a course toward learning from the recent German past, thus aiming for an effect that remains a central leverage point for memorial sites today.38 This targeted awareness of the Holocaust was directly linked with hints at the destructive effect of the atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For the Easter March organizers “Auschwitz and all other death camps as well as Hiroshima and Nagasaki” were directly related to one another as “an expression of the brutal insensibility towards the fate of others.” “Keeping this quiet” implied for them “not merely a suppression of these terrible events,” but rather a “tolerance of crime” and an “avoidance of responsibility.”39 Furthermore, it seemed that the Easter March organizers wanted to present themselves as possible future victims of a potential nuclear catastrophe by undertaking the energy-sapping (until 1962) four-day march.40

35 Ibid. 36 E.

Wolfrum (2001) Geschichte als Waffe, p. 111. Wolfrum (2006) Die geglückte Demokratie. Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland von ihren Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta), p. 173ff. 38 See W. Kaiser (2011) ‘Historisch-politische Bildung in Gedenkstätten’ in Gedenkstätten Forum, http://www.gedenkstaettenforum.de/nc/gedenkstaetten-rundbrief/rundbrief/news/historisch_politische_bildung_in_gedenkstaetten/, date accessed 7 December 2017. 39 See ‘Unser Gewissen am Kreuzweg’, Wir sind jung, III (1962), 5–7, here 5. 40 See also H. Nehring (2007) ‘Legitimationsstrategien’, p. 136. 37 E.

198  A. BERGER

By acknowledging such a moral historical culture, which deliberately but cautiously recalls memories of the Holocaust and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the population should, on the one hand, become aware of the guilt of having remained or rather still remaining silent and face their responsibilities. On the other hand, this trail of violence should be seen by the people as continuing as a result of imminent nuclear armament. These responsibilities entailed getting actively involved in peaceful protest to live in peace. However, this peace could only be attainable through the comprehensive solidarity of many individuals.41 And since the bomb threatened everyone this conception of solidarity, which derived from the idea of Christian charity and brotherhood,42 applied equally to people of other nations and different political and social attitudes.43

The Second Phase (1961/1962–1964): Transitions The notion of solidarity that derived from these responsibilities and that also opened up the marches to groups other than the already involved Christian pacifists was now the “order of the day.”44 In fact, the cautious memory work proved to be successful insofar as, starting with the Naturfreundejugend Deutschlands (NFJD, “German Young Naturefriends”), socialist youth organizations began to participate in the marches from 1961 on45 who, in the climate of the continued suppression of the national socialist past, could certainly identify easily with this highly political and moral historical culture. One prerequisite for this increased convergence of such groups as the German Young Naturefriends, parts of the trade union youth, the Sozialistischer Jugend Deutschlands—die Falken (“Socialist Youth of Germany—The Falcons”), some Jusos (“Young Socialists” in the SPD), 41 See the slogan of the first march to Bergen-Hohne ‘Haben Sie Vertrauen in die Macht des Einzelnen’ (Have faith in the power of the individual), ‘Aufruf’, LAV NRW R, RW 115 no. 141. 42 Cf. ‘Kernsätze’, LAV NRW R, RW 115 no. 141. 43 Cf. H. Nehring (2007) ‘Legitimationsstrategien’, p. 121; G. Grünewald (1982) ‘Geschichte’, p. 308. 44 H. Nehring (2007) ‘Legitimationsstrategien’, p. 128. 45 See ‘Unser Widerstand wächst’, Pläne. Eine junge Zeitschrift für Politik und Kultur, VI–VII (1961), 1.

8  THE HISTORICAL CULTURES OF THE 1960S’ WEST GERMAN PEACE … 

199

and soon also parts of the Sozialistischer Deutscher Studentenbund (SDS, “Socialist German Student League”) to joining the Easter March movement were of course critical withdrawal movements from the SPD in the wake of its previously mentioned change of course. Due to their tradition in the labor movement these groups also greatly identified with the notion of solidarity developed in the initial phase of the movement.46 Through this growth of socialist youth organizations the central commissions of the Easter March movement also experienced a considerable increase in personnel. Some such as Arno Klönne, who has already been mentioned in connection with his (leftist) Catholic past, Herbert Faller, and Klaus Vack had, due to their roles as co-editors of socialist periodicals (Pläne or Wir sind jung) and/or leading roles within the Young Naturefriends or the Falcons, virtually “the power of socialist youth associations”47 behind them, which soon brought success to the marches through constantly growing numbers. This rejuvenated the movement and allowed the marches to be more versatile and cultural than the strictly disciplined marches of the initial phase.48 Andreas Buro, a youth counsellor and active in the IdK, also got involved in the movement’s committee work during this phase.49 There were of course many other participants and established personalities such as Helmut Gollwitzer, Robert Jungk, and Martin Niemöller involved in the Easter March movement. But as the aforementioned group of people predetermined the movement’s policy (such as its slogans, statements, leaflets, periodicals, organizational strategy, administration, and finance) in the Zentralem Ausschuss (ZA, “Central Commission”),50 which was established early in 1961,51 they could, together with the initiators of the first phase, be interpreted as mainly responsible for pulling the strings of the movement during this time.

46 Cf.

K. A. Otto, Ostermarsch, pp. 66, 100. Bebnowski (2014) ‘Die Kampagne’, p. 270. 48 Cf. H. Nehring (2004) ‘Proteste’, pp. 98, 104. 49 Cf. H. Nehring (2004) ‘Proteste’, p. 97; G. Grünewald (1982) ‘Geschichte’, p. 308. 50 In addition to the ZA, there were also subordinate working, local, and regional committees as well as a board of trustees. K. A. Otto (1977) Ostermarsch, pp. 83–88. 51 See K. A. Otto (1977) Ostermarsch, p. 72, pp. 79–83; G. Grünewald (1982) ‘Geschichte’, p. 308f. 47 D.

200  A. BERGER

Due to the increased involvement of socialist youth group leaders and members in the central bodies and the entire movement it soon became clear that the rapidly growing movement could only develop further through willingness to compromise and an argumentative search for unity between opinions of a Christian-pacifist and socialist nature. Every attempt to clearly align the Easter March more in one direction or the other would inevitably endanger the notion of solidarity.52 In terms of historical culture these efforts became visible insofar as the cautious memory work of the initial phase was taken up. In the first half of 1961 people were called upon “to set up vigils in many cities in the Federal Republic” on August 6, the “anniversary” of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Also on Whitsunday and on September 1, the date of the outbreak of the World War II, anti-nuclear protesters were to gather at protest rallies.53 Based on official reports about such campaigns of the Easter March movement in Pläne and Wir sind jung, which were partially (co-)published by the new ZA members, it is clear that instructions for peaceful protest against nuclear armament, which had become visible through the cautious memory work, had already developed a little further. World War II, the Holocaust, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were—especially when supplemented with casualty figures—put on the same level as one another to remind everyone of this combined trail of violence. Moreover, the purpose of this approach was to emphasize the message that “advocacy for peace would be equivalent to the fight for the preservation of democracy” or put another way “our No to the bomb is a Yes to democracy.”54 Constantly referring to the continuity of Nazi personnel within public offices, against the background of the then emerging mass media dissemination of Nazi crimes, emphasized this knowledge even more. Due to “the Eichmänner and Globkes, who are still among and above us today,” democracy was still or rather additionally threatened so no real change could take place.55 Apart from this link to the historical culture of the initial phase, which admittedly already endeavored to have a more direct political character

52 Cf.

K. A. Otto (1977) Ostermarsch, p. 102ff. ‘Unser Widerstand wächst’, p. 1. 54 K. Vack (1962) ‘Betrachtungen zum Antikriegstag’, Wir sind jung, IV, 4–6. 55 F. Werkmeister (1961) ‘Eichmänner’, Pläne. Eine junge Zeitschrift für Politik und Kultur, VI/VII, 13. 53 See

8  THE HISTORICAL CULTURES OF THE 1960S’ WEST GERMAN PEACE … 

201

of protest, several articles emerged in the same journals arguing, on the other hand, increasingly openly toward a Marxist mode of thinking. Until the first appearance of the movement’s own journal Informationen zur Abrüstung (IZA, “Information on Disarmament”) in 1963 the two journals Pläne and Wir sind jung can essentially be seen as unofficial organs of the Easter March movement.56 The reason things developed in such a way can be exemplified by looking at an article in which the March events of 1848 and the Paris Commune of 1871 were utilized to recall the rapid development and “courageous deeds” of the labor movement. In the “fire of German imperialism and in the light of the national betrayal of its own capitalists” the Parisian workers had proclaimed the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” However, since capitalistic society at that time was undergoing development the prerequisites for socialism had thus not yet been created. It has been strongly indicated that since then only the forms of conflict had changed, not the opposing class structure of capitalism, which therefore still had to be removed.57 An article on “socialist education,” written by the new ZA member Herbert Faller, came up with ideas as to how democracy (at the time underdeveloped) could be shaped with “socialist traits.” After considering how to create the therefore necessary critical conscience, or rather the “will to work and co-operate in the ceaseless change of the earth and the society” within various youth organizations, he states that the Easter March, in particular, is an “example of direct, democratic action” which could serve as a good learning environment.58 However, the Marxist historical cultures advocated by labor movement youth group leaders, such as Faller and Vack, who by that time were part of the ZA, were always kept in the background in direct reports on the Easter March or were integrated insofar that they did not obviously dominate. In this phase emerging descriptions of the

56 See

also H. Nehring (2004) ‘Proteste’, p. 105 (who at least states this about Pläne). Bergmann (1962) ‘Ein Gruppenabend über die Märzereignisse’, Wir sind jung, I, 5–11, here 11. 58 H. Faller (1963) ‘Was heißt sozialistische Erziehung’, Pläne. Eine junge Zeitschrift für Politik und Kultur, IV/V, 7–9. 57 O.

202  A. BERGER

Easter March as a “nonconformist political issue”59 or “manifestation of reason”60 in the official reports on the Easter March in both journals point to the fact that such Marxist modes of thinking had led to greater rethinking toward a political justification of their commitment for peace. Such a learning process can be seen even more explicitly in the fact that toward the end of this phase the movement viewed itself as a “school of democracy,” an extra-parliamentary political movement “that does not renounce the moral impulse, but tries to patiently convert it into political energy.”61 In fact, the movement was understood as a “center of attraction for all those who did not want to resign,” but were instead willing to use their influence “for a meaningful, rational and better world order.”62 Overall, it is fair to maintain that both historical cultures prevailing in this phase resulted in a hybrid. The Marxist historical cultures brought into the movement by the new ZA members, who were at the same time also involved in socialist youth organizations, were integrated in such a way that the idea of solidarity was not endangered and allowed all forces involved to maintain their specific self-images outside the movement. However, it is also clear that such an infiltration of Marxist modes of thinking into central bodies had to leave traces in the self-image of the movement. This is already clear, on the one hand, in the advanced cautious memory work of the initial phase that had then become more openly politically debated and, on the other hand, by the end of this phase in the transformed realization of wanting to be a school of democracy. The essence of which was a self-emancipated, extra-parliamentary political movement. A collective learning process as a result of a hybrid made up of a moral Christian-pacifist connoted historical culture and a Marxist historical culture. This learning process was also mirrored in the “minimal program” that was adopted toward the end of this phase. This program, advocated by the likes of Faller, Klönne, and Vack, ultimately opened the door to

59 F. Vilmar (1963) ‘Stimmen zum Ostermarsch’, Pläne. Eine junge Zeitschrift für Politik und Kultur, I/II, 3. 60 H. K. Tempel (1963) ‘Ostermarsch 1963’, Pläne. Eine junge Zeitschrift für Politik und Kultur, III. 61 ‘Kampagne 63’, Bibliothek FES, Konvolut Dieter Kramer, Z17174. 62 Ibid.

8  THE HISTORICAL CULTURES OF THE 1960S’ WEST GERMAN PEACE … 

203

all those willing to represent their concrete political demands within a general minimum consensus. In this manner communists could also be included despite the anti-communist climate of the time without providing authorities and parties with a real reason for making the “historical on-going accusation” of being an infiltrated organization.63 Moreover, since “real-socialist” détente proposals, such as the Rapacki Plan (establishment of a nuclear weapon–free zone in Poland, the FRG, and the GDR), were incorporated in the list of demands64 it can be assumed that this learning process had in a way bridged the gap to allow at least an open attitude toward (Soviet) communism. From this perspective, determining the positions of fundamental incompatibility would have certainly only served the ideological justification of the Cold War and would have paved the way for the Federal Government’s rejection of the East’s realistic attempts at easing tensions.65 Instead, it was more about attempting to overcome the well-practiced enemy stereotypes of the Cold War as a coalition movement. Thus the Easter March’s guiding slogan “Resistance against nuclear weapons of any kind, in any country in east and west”66 remained the same. Finally, this learning process in terms of historical culture was also reflected in two distinguishing name adjustments, which increasingly accentuated the extended political claim in this phase. The first occurred in September 1962 when the previous name “Easter March of the Antinuclear Protesters” had “Campaign for Disarmament” added to it. A second adjustment following the Easter Marches of 1964 consequently rearranged these two parts of the name to Kampagne für Abrüstung— Ostermarsch der Atomwaffengegner (KfA, “Campaign for Disarmament— Easter March of the Anti-nuclear Protesters”).67 Having created its own organs Informationen zur Abrüstung (IZA, “Information on Disarmament”) and Pressedienst (“News Service”) in

63 L.

Rolke (1987) Protestbewegungen, p. 208. ‘Aufruf zum Ostermarsch 1962’, Pläne. Eine junge Zeitschrift für Politik und Kultur, IX/X (1961), 1–2, here 1. 65 K. A. Otto (1977) Ostermarsch, p. 104ff.; G. Grünewald (1982) ‘Geschichte’, p. 311; and L. Rolke (1987) Protestbewegungen, p. 208. 66 ‘Kernsätze’, LAV NRW R, RW 115 no. 141. 67 K. A. Otto (1977) Ostermarsch, p. 121ff. 64 See

204  A. BERGER

1963 the Easter March movement now also had at its disposal tools of communication that were indispensable and necessary for the demands of an extra-parliamentary movement.68

The Third Phase (1964–1969): Crossroads With the marches of 1963 and 1964 the Easter March movement finally broke through the landmark barrier of having over 100,000 followers. This transformed their self-assessment as an extra-parliamentary political coalition movement through the learning process, making it increasingly important. This quantitative expansion was accompanied by direct opposition to the (arms policy of the) Federal Government. A number of remarks regarding possible connections between armament and dangers to the social fabric implied that the historical cultures were now about to gain significantly more influence in the movement. Although the central commission was always cautious about this (due to aspirations of being a coalition movement69) expansion in this direction can be seen in both journals that supported the campaign and ultimately even in the movement’s own journal, the IZA. For example, the IZA published an article by Arno Klönne in mid-1964 about “neo-fascism” in the Federal Republic. In this article Klönne referred to the necessity to “disclose the correlation of a specific line in terms of arms policy and foreign policy with the return of essentially fascist tendencies.” These tendencies would be accelerated by those political forces that worked against international détente, displayed an “immense hunger for armament,” and promoted “domestic political, state-authoritarian tendencies.”70 With such statements the Easter March movement even in this phase built upon the cautious references of Phase I to the lack of discussion on the Nazi past that was further developed in Phase II. In addition, the reference to the return of fascist tendencies, which was associated with the nascent disclosure of Nazi continuities within public

68 Cf.

K. A. Otto (1977) Ostermarsch, p. 119ff. for instance, C. Beilmann (1964) ‘Ostermarsch-Überlegungen’, Pressedienst der Kampagne für Abrüstung - Ostermarsch der Atomwaffengegner, 20 July 1964, AfsB, IGBEarchive, 19069, 1–8, here 2. 70 A. Klönne (1964) ‘Der wirkliche Neofaschismus in der Bundesrepublik’, Informationen zur Abrüstung, XIV, 6. 69 See,

8  THE HISTORICAL CULTURES OF THE 1960S’ WEST GERMAN PEACE … 

205

offices at that time, was directly connected to the West German armament policy that specifically ran contrary to the international tendency toward easing tensions. Moreover, such statements already point to the fascism accusations of the anti-authoritarian movement of 1968, which heated up in the second half of the decade.71 Such (historical) analogies were linked to the symbolism of 1964. That year, which reawakened “the darkest chapters of recent German history,” provided a suitable framework for drawing attention to the long continuity of German power politics and military policy.72 Some 50 years had passed since 1914 and 25 since 1939. Now the trail of violence, already emphasized in the memory work of Phases I and II and directly linked to the nuclear threat, was also extended to include World War I, which was also preceded by “a long period of policy of strength on the verge of ultimate risk.” Moreover, with the more deliberate preparation for World War II since 1924 the national socialists were ultimately successful “through the support of those strata in industry and the military” and “in an intentional suppression of Democrats and Socialists,” which would have basically led to the start of the war.73 Neither did such references spare the social democrats, whose meantime advocacy for a multilateral force “would have inspired the emperor, who had no longer acknowledged any parties.”74 Thus the approval of the SPD for the arms policy of the Federal Government could be directly connected with its so-called Burgfriedenspolitik (“Political Truce”) of 1914, which was associated with their consent to war loans. With such obvious references to the long lines of tradition of power politics and military policy emanating from Germany, toward which the SPD now “once again” switched its course, the movement presumably wanted to open society’s

71 See K. Hammerstein (2008) ‘Wider den Muff von 1000 Jahren. Die 68er Bewegung und der Nationalsozialismus’ in Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, http://www.bpb. de/geschichte/deutsche-geschichte/68er-bewegung/51791/wider-den-muff-von-1000jahren?p=all, date accessed 22 December 2017. 72 Pressedienst der Kampagne für Abrüstung—Ostermarsch der Atomwaffengegner, 30 July 1964, AfsB, IGBE-archive, 19069. 73 H. Faller (1964) ‘25 Jahre danach?’, Wir sind jung, XVII, 1–3, here 1. 74 ‘Rede von Dr. Arno Klönne—Kundgebung der Kampagne für Abrüstung—Ostermarsch der Atomwaffengegner in Essen am 03.07.1964’, Pressedienst der Kampagne für Abrüstung—Ostermarsch der Atomwaffengegner, AfsB, IGBE-archive, 19069, 1–3, here 2.

206  A. BERGER

eyes in 1964, the year of these “bad anniversaries,”75 to the effect that the pursuit of participation in multilateral force would result in the same objective—namely, that of “nuclear-armed, new German power politics”76—which was just the next logical step in the long trail of violence “from Sarajevo, Auschwitz and Hiroshima to …?”77 A guiding principle of the Easter March movement was giving insight or rather “providing assistance in thinking for oneself.” Since the “existence of the peace-threatening military machinery depended on the population’s tolerance” the campaign fulfilled its self-assessed claim and seized its opportunity as a “center of enlightenment, unrest, and resistance.”78 This specific claim—along with the critique of long-standing German power politics and military policy that was interwoven with anti-capitalistic and anti-militaristic undertones (in particular, resignation to the current and historical “misconduct” of the SPD included therein)—not least indicates that the historical cultures of the new committee members, which in Phase II were still to be read as “classically Marxist,” were now gaining shape. According to this reading left-wing socialist-inspired patterns of interpretation could be picked out here. This is supported by the fact that, on the one hand, the said members of the ZA adhered to classic Marxist anti-capitalism and criticized the social democrats because of their programmatic revisionism and political reformism without wanting to become communists themselves. The goal of breaking up well-practiced enemy stereotypes in the Cold War and the interrelated call for disarmament in East and West show, on the other hand, that “real existing socialism” could not be the answer either, which ultimately points to a third way between social democracy and communism.79 That this (third) way could be connoted as left-wing socialist will eventually become

75 Ibid.,

1. 3. 77 O. K. Flechtheim (1964) ‘Von Sarajewo über Auschwitz und Hiroshima nach…?’, Stimme. Stimme der Gemeinde zum kirchlichen Leben, zur Politik, Wirtschaft und Kultur, XVII, 521–26. 78 A. Klönne (1964) ‘Nach zwei Weltkriegen—Die politische und geistige Situation in Deutschland’, Wir sind jung, XVII, 8–13, here 13. 79 See C. Jünke (2010) Linkssozialismus in Deutschland. Jenseits von Sozialdemokratie und Kommunismus? (Hamburg: VSA Verlag), p. 9ff. 76 Ibid.,

8  THE HISTORICAL CULTURES OF THE 1960S’ WEST GERMAN PEACE … 

207

clearer in the “theoretical confidence in the ability of the masses”80 that had to be politicized and emancipated. The understanding of democracy, or rather the conception of the history, of the Easter March movement’s most significant guiding commission members also slightly shines through here. They had realized that parliaments only had a limited impact and that parties were not “super-weapons,” but relied on extra-parliamentary, collective protest as far as change in the social balances of power was concerned. However, the objective was no longer to mobilize and educate the working class, but to gather all people who did not want to give up hope and wanted to use their influence instead to achieve a “better world order.”81 Thus, the aim was to exploit all of society’s critical potential. This points not least to the fact that not only the entire Easter March movement had undergone a learning process through the hybrid of both historical cultures that began in Phase II, but also the left-wing socialist-inspired commission members around Klönne, Vack, Faller, and Buro. However, a truly explicit understanding of democracy that was valid for the whole Easter March movement and would have explained the “better new world order” did not really emerge entirely and thus remains a little unclear. This is certainly due to the collective learning process encapsulated within a coalition movement for all, on the one hand, since such a movement can only function if ideologies are not settled. On the other hand, mounting smear campaigns by authorities and parties certainly also played a role within the anti-communist climate of the time. Due to the general participation of (left-wing) socialist groups and opening up the movement to communists since the end of the second phase the Easter March movement was increasingly exposed to such campaigns.82 Nevertheless, as a logical consequence of the Easter March movement’s aspirations of instructing the masses and “helping people to think

80 A. Klönne (2010a) ‘Anmerkungen zur Geschichte und Aktualität deutscher Linkssozialisten’ in GlobKult Magazin, https://www.globkult.de/geschichte/zeitgeschichte/446-anmerkungen-zur-geschichte-und-aktualitaet-deutscher-linkssozialisten, date accessed 22 December 2017; see also A. Klönne (2010b) ‘Linkssozialisten in Westdeutschland’ in C. Jünke (ed.) Linkssozialismus in Deutschland. Jenseits von Sozialdemokratie und Kommunismus? (Hamburg: VSA Verlag), pp. 90–104. 81 ‘Kampagne 63’, Bibliothek FES, Konvolut Dieter Kramer, Z17174. 82 See, for instance, ‘Vertrauliches Schreiben des Leiters der Abt. VII an den „Herrn Innenminister“’, 17 April 1963, LAV NRW R, NW 308, no. 85; as well as K. A. Otto (1977) Ostermarsch, pp. 136–39.

208  A. BERGER

for themselves” in the form of a coalition movement,83 which was made concrete in this third phase, topics like the emergency laws were also included. This legislation, which reminded many of the Enabling Act of 1933, further reinforced the suspected connection between a “certain armament and foreign-policy line” with the feared return of fascist, “state-authoritarian” tendencies.84 As a result, the need for an extraparliamentary coalition movement to defend democracy became even more urgent. Such interpretive approaches in terms of historical culture finally allowed the predominant historical cultures of the first two phases to coalesce completely. However, such developments led the original initiator Hans-Konrad Tempel, who in Phase II had still tried to continue to steer the Easter Marches in a purely pacifist direction, to resign from the central commission after the marches of 1964.85 In addition, the movement expanded such that the SDS, who up to that point acted rather cautiously, tried to get more involved. This once again rejuvenated the marches and resulted in a large increase in numbers through student participation and—due to their involvement in the so-called board of trustees Notstand der Demokratie (“Democracy in Crisis”), in which they took part on advice from the SDS—parts of the unions.86 To some extent this intensified involvement of the SDS was due to the inclusion of the emergency legislation issue, or rather the necessity of an extra-parliamentary opposition, which of course not only came about as a result of the campaign, but also by getting involved in the Vietnam War issue, which the movement made part of its protest from 1965 on when the United States extended aerial warfare against North Vietnam.87 Apart from that, the SDS could certainly identify extremely well with such a historical culture-based conception of protest in the Easter March movement. This is not surprising because the highly vocal anti-fascist,

83 A.

Klönne (1964) ‘Nach zwei Weltkriegen’, p. 13. Klönne (1964) ‘Neofaschismus’, p. 6. 85 Cf. K. A. Otto (1977) Ostermarsch, p. 121ff. 86 Cf. K. A. Otto (1977) Ostermarsch, p. 157; G. Grünewald (1982) ‘Geschichte’, p. 319. 87 ‘Mit amerikanischen Demokraten gegen den US-Krieg in Vietnam’, Informationen zur Abrüstung, XXVII/XXVIII (1965), 1; Kampagne für Abrüstung—Ostermarsch der Atomwaffengegner (1967) ‘„Frieden für Vietnam“’, LAV NRW R, RW 115 no. 215. 84 A.

8  THE HISTORICAL CULTURES OF THE 1960S’ WEST GERMAN PEACE … 

209

anti-capitalist, and anti-imperialist factions within the SDS toward the middle/end of the decade linked the most diverse left-wing tendencies and factions together.88 Yet, the SDS went far beyond mere integration with the Easter March movement. From the second half of the 1960s it intensified its efforts to turn the campaign into an explicit, revolutionary-socialist mass movement under its leadership.89 Even in the SDS’s understanding of history it was no longer the workers who should bring about social change, but the socially excluded groups or those who were not yet integrated by the “late capitalist system”—especially young academics—who as the new “revolutionary subject” could break the assumed “context of manipulation” (lack of dealing with the Nazi past, exploitation and the economic order based on social injustice, as well as the subjugation of Third World countries by those of the First and Second world).90 However, since the aspirations of a coalition movement should remain ideologically uncommitted any such attempts were always rejected by the ZA.91 Moreover, no representatives of the SDS seem to have made it into the committee work of the Easter March movement—as far as we can tell. As the campaign toward the end of the decade intensified its adaptation to the anti-capitalist, anti-fascist rhetoric of the SDS as a result of impending emergency legislation92 and ultimately took part in actions that were co-initiated by the latter, such as the Anti-Springer Campaign, it was able to continue integrating the SDS, which in the meantime had become the vanguard of the formation of a student opposition that for their part now claimed to be an extra-parliamentary opposition. The last name change to Kampagne für Demokratie und Abrüstung (KfDA,

88 See

W. Kraushaar (2001) ‘Denkmodelle der 68er Bewegung’, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, XXII–XXIII, 14–27, here 15. 89 Cf. G. Grünewald (1982) ‘Geschichte’, p. 319ff. 90 See A. Schildt (2008a) ‘Neue Linke und Studentenbewegung’ in Bundeszentrale für plotische Bildung, http://www.bpb.de/geschichte/deutsche-geschichte/68er-bewegung/ 51815/neue-linke?p=all, date accessed 27 December 2017; W. Kraushaar (2001) ‘Denkmodelle’, p. 15. 91 Cf. G. Grünewald (1982) ‘Geschichte’. 92 See, for instance, ‘Enteignet Springer!’ (1967) Informationen zur Abrüstung, L, 1–2; ‘Gegen Thadden, Springer, Strauss—gegen jeden neuen Faschismus’ (1968) Informationen zur Abrüstung, LXIV/LXV, 12.

210  A. BERGER

“Campaign for Democracy and Disarmament”) at the beginning of 1968 clearly shows the change of emphasis of the subject of protest, which was increasingly incorporated via the SDS and the radicalizing student opposition in the wake of the shooting of the student Benno Ohnesorg in a demonstration against the Shah of Persia in the summer of 1967. Although all crucial members of the campaign contributed up to this point,93 it can be assumed that the (cultural-) revolutionary, antiauthoritarian, neo-Marxist historical cultures of the movement of 1968 eventually almost completely overlaid the claim, grown through the learning process in terms of historical culture, of a pure coalition movement that ultimately had to break up. The Easter initiatives of 1968, which finally turned into violent Springer blockades in many places, were among the last major actions of the Easter March movement,94 which could thus no longer be regarded as a peaceful coalition movement.95

Conclusion This chapter has shown that historical cultures of various provenances prevailed in the West German Easter March movement of the 1960s. They complemented and further advanced each other in a continuous learning process and finally coalesced. The moral historical culture, which was pursued by the Christian-pacifist initiators around Tempel during the first phase, served as a deliberate yet cautious reminder of the still hushed-up Holocaust as well as a reminder of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hence the Easter March movement not only kept in the public eye the trail of violence that continued through the threat of nuclear armament, but also ensured even at the beginning of the 1960s a political relocalization of Nazi crimes, which aimed at raising awareness of German guilt and responsibility. In the second phase from 1961 to 1962 a hybrid Christian-pacifist and Marxist historical culture evolved. This, along with continuous development of the historical culture of the initial phase, led to a

93 Cf.

G. Grünewald (1982) ‘Geschichte’, p. 320. Grünewald (1982) ‘Geschichte’, p. 320f.; K. A. Otto (1977) Ostermarsch, p. 172f. 95 See H. Stubenrauch (1968) ‘Zur Entwicklung der APO—hat die Kampagne noch eine Chance?’, Außerparlamentarische Opposition. Informationen für Demokratie und Abrüstung, LXIV/LXV, 16. 94 G.

8  THE HISTORICAL CULTURES OF THE 1960S’ WEST GERMAN PEACE … 

211

collective learning process, at the end of which the Easter March movement viewed itself as a guiding coalition movement. In the process such classical Marxist historical thinking, which was brought into the central bodies of the movement at the beginning of this phase by leftwing youth group leaders and/or co-editors of socialist journals (such as Faller, Klönne, or Vack), led to a distinctly more political style of protest. The realization was that anti-nuclear protest simultaneously represented a fight for democracy. However, because of the collective movement character being pursued Marxist historical cultures were intentionally integrated into the movement in such a way that they did not obviously dominate, which meant that Marxist undertones—whether heard at all in official reporting at this stage—always had to resonate in the background. This labor-moved potential led to a more open attitude toward “real-socialist” proposals on détente and communist opportunities for participation. However, they can ultimately be construed as attempts to overcome well-practiced enemy stereotypes of the Cold War. In the third phase between 1964 and 1969 this situation, together with additional open criticism of the SPD motivated by historical culture, finally pointed to the left-wing socialist orientation of new commission members who joined in the second phase. From this perspective, the theoretical confidence in the ability of the masses can ultimately be better understood. Various patterns of interpretation in terms of historical culture emerging in this phase were interwoven with anti-capitalist anti-military undertones, and at the time increasingly alluded to long lines of tradition of power politics and military policy emanating from Germany. They pointed to increasing politicization of the movement, on the one hand, and to a more open emergence of left-wing socialist-inspired historical cultures, on the other. An assumed, growing threat to democracy, evident through increasingly emerging interpretive patterns in terms of historical culture, such as those on neo-fascism in the Federal Republic, led consequently to the inclusion of topics such as the emergency legislation and the Vietnam War. The categories of anti-fascism, anti-capitalism, and anti-imperialism resulting from historical culture, which partly resonated in the protest against these issues, not only completely conflated the two historical cultures predominant in the movement, but also linked the anti-nuclear protest of the Easter March campaign with the forming student movement. This provided the Easter March movement with yet another tremendous increase in the number of participants. However,

212  A. BERGER

the maintenance of a peace-based coalition movement, which enabled all forces involved to maintain their specific self-images outside the movement, was no longer possible and was ultimately overshadowed by the revolutionary anti-authoritarian neo-Marxist alignment of the SDS or the radicalizing student movement. Whether the stated and constantly maintained claim of being a coalition movement was actually about an objective that grew as part of a learning process in the matter of historical culture, or whether this was due to the anti-communist climate of the time must remain pure speculation. The fact that individual members of the commission, such as Klönne, Vack, and Buro, co-founded or were active in the Sozialistisches Büro (SB, “Socialist Office”) from 1969 on, whose aim was the unification of socialist forces in the Federal Republic of Germany, once again allows for various interpretive patterns. However, what emerges from the learning process in terms of the historical culture presented in this chapter is the fact that the Easter March movement anticipated much of what culminated at the end of the decade in the assumed context of manipulation of the student movement. This is because the West German Easter March movement of the 1960s can even in this respect be seen as a precondition to the formation of an extra-parliamentary opposition.

References Angster, J. (2012) Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1963–1982. Reform und Krise (Darmstadt: WBG). Bebnowski, D. (2014) ‘Die Kampagne’. See, as first approaches to bring these two fields together, K. Davison (2017a) Conference report ‘History, Memory and Social Movements’, H-Soz-Kult, http://www.hsozkult.de/conferencereport/id/tagungsberichte-7336, date accessed 1 December 2017. Boyens, A. (1971) ‘Das Stuttgarter Schuldbekenntnis vom 19. Oktober 1945— Entstehung und Bedeutung’, Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte, XIX, 374–97. Brockhaus, G. (2012) ‘The Emotional Legacy of the National Socialist Past in Post-War Germany’ in A. Assmann and L. Scott (eds.) Memory and Political Change (New York: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 34–49. Buro, A. (1977) ‘Die Entstehung der Ostermarsch-Bewegung als Beispiel für die Entfaltung von Massenlernprozessen’ in Hessische Stiftung Friedensund Konfliktforschung (ed.) Friedensanalysen. Schwerpunkt: Friedensbewegung (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp), pp. 50–78.

8  THE HISTORICAL CULTURES OF THE 1960S’ WEST GERMAN PEACE … 

213

Buro, A. (2011) Gewaltlos gegen den Krieg. Lebenserinnerungen eines streitbaren Pazifisten (Frankfurt am Main: Brandes & Apsel Verlag). Cooper, A. (1996) Paradoxes of Peace: German Peace Movements Since 1945 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press). Creuzberger, S. (2014) “Geistige Gefahr” und “Immunisierung der Gesellschaft”. Antikommunismus und politische Kultur in der politischen Kultur der frühen Bundesrepublik (München: Oldenbourg). Demantowsky, M. (2005) ‘Geschichtskultur und Erinnerungskultur—zwei Konzeptionen des einen Gegenstandes. Historischer Hintergrund und exemplarischer Vergleich’, Geschichte, Politik und ihre Didaktik, XXXIII, 11–20. Eyerman, R. (2016) ‘Social Movements and Memory’ in A. L. Tota and T. Hagen (eds.) Routledge International Handbook of Memory Studies (Oxford: Routledge), pp. 206–26. Faller, H. (1963) ‘Was heißt sozialistische Erziehung’, Pläne. Eine junge Zeitschrift für Politik und Kultur, IV/V, 7–9. Faller, H. (1964) ‘25 Jahre danach?’, Wir sind jung, XVII, 1–3. Flechtheim, O. K. (1964) ‘Von Sarajewo über Auschwitz und Hiroshima nach…?’, Stimme. Stimme der Gemeinde zum kirchlichen Leben, zur Politik, Wirtschaft und Kultur, XVII, 521–26. Frei, N. (1999) Vergangenheitspolitik. Die Anfänge der Bundesrepublik und die NS Vergangenheit, 2nd ed. (München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag). Frei, N. (2017) Der Antikommunismus in seiner Epoche. Weltanschauung und Politik in Deutschland, Europa und den USA (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag). Geyer, M. (2001) ‘Der Kalte Krieg, die Deutschen und die Angst. Die westdeutsche Opposition gegen Wiederbewaffnung und Kernwaffen’ in K. Naumann (ed.) Nachkrieg in Deutschland (Hamburg: Hamburger Edition), pp. 267–318. Giesen, G. (2004) ‘The Trauma of Perpetrators: The Holocaust as the Traumatic Reference of German National Identity’ in J. Alexander and R. Eyerman et al. (eds.) Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press), pp. 112–154. Greschat, M. (2010) Protestantismus im Kalten Krieg. Kirche, Politik und Gesellschaft im geteilten Deutschland 1945–1963 (Paderborn: Schöningh). Gunkel, M. (1995) Unser Nein zur Bombe ist ein Ja zur Demokratie. Ostermarsch Nord 1960–1969 (Köln: GNN Verlag), p. 14. Hammerstein, K. (2008) ‘Wider den Muff von 1000 Jahren. Die 68er Bewegung und der Nationalsozialismus’ in Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, http://www.bpb.de/geschichte/deutsche-geschichte/68er-bewegung/ 51791/wider-den-muff-von-1000-jahren?p=all, date accessed 22 December 2017.

214  A. BERGER Hein, P. and Reese, H. (1996) Kultur und Gesellschaft der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Eine Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Arno Klönne (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften). Heinemann, K.-H. (1993) ‘Herbert Stubenrauch. Ich hab da meine kleine Schubkarre, und mit der fahr ich soviel weg, wie ich schaffen kann’ in K.-H. Heinemann and T. Jaitner (eds.) Ein langer Marsch. ’68 und die Folgen; Gespräche mit Lutz von Werder, Thomas Ziehe, Kurt Holl … (Köln: PapyRossa), pp. 63–70. Holl, K. (1988) Pazifismus in Deutschland (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp). Jünke, C. (2010) Linkssozialismus in Deutschland. Jenseits von Sozialdemokratie und Kommunismus? (Hamburg: VSA Verlag). Kaiser, W. (2011) ‘Historisch-politische Bildung in Gedenkstätten’ in Gedenkstätten Forum, http://www.gedenkstaettenforum.de/nc/gedenkstaetten-rundbrief/rundbrief/news/historisch_politische_bildung_in_gedenkstaetten/, date accessed 7 December 2017. Kantsteiner, W. (2006) ‘Losing the War, Winning the Memory Battle: The Legacy of Nazism, World War II, and the Holocaust in the Federal Republic of Germany’ in R. N. Lebow and W. Kantsteiner et al. (eds.) The Politics of Memory in Postwar Europe (Durham: Duke University Press), pp. 102–46. Kleßmann, C. (1997) Zwei Staaten, eine Nation. Deutsche Geschichte 1955–1970 (Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung), pp. 72, 235. Klönne, A. (1964) ‘Der wirkliche Neofaschismus in der Bundesrepublik’, Informationen zur Abrüstung, XIV, 6. Klönne, A. (1964) ‘Nach zwei Weltkriegen—Die politische und geistige Situation in Deutschland’, Wir sind jung, XVII, 8–13. Klönne, A. (2010a) ‘Anmerkungen zur Geschichte und Aktualität deutscher Linkssozialisten’ in GlobKult Magazin, https://www.globkult.de/ geschichte/zeitgeschichte/446-anmerkungen-zur-geschichte-und-aktualitaet-deutscher-linkssozialisten, date accessed 22 December 2017. Klönne, A. (2010b) ‘Linkssozialisten in Westdeutschland’ in C. Jünke (ed.) Linkssozialismus in Deutschland. Jenseits von Sozialdemokratie und Kommunismus? (Hamburg: VSA Verlag), pp. 90–104. Korte, J. (2008) ‘Bundesdeutsche Vergangenheitspolitik und Antikommunismus’, Forum Demokratischer Sozialismus in archive.today, http://archive.today/hqxse, date accessed 21 March 2018. Kraushaar, W. (2001) ‘Denkmodelle der 68er Bewegung’, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, XXII–XXIII, 14–27. Lorenz, R. (2011) Protest der Physiker. Die „Göttinger Erklärung“ von 1957 (Bielefeld: Transcript). Loth, W. (2002) Overcoming the Cold War: A History of détente, 1950–1991 (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan).

8  THE HISTORICAL CULTURES OF THE 1960S’ WEST GERMAN PEACE … 

215

Negt, O. and Vack, K. et  al. (1993) Politische und soziale Lernprozesse. Möglichkeiten, Chancen, Probleme (Beerfelden: Komitee für Grundrechte der Demokratie). Nehring, N. (2004) ‘Die Proteste gegen Atomwaffen in der Bundesrepublik und Großbritannien 1957–1964—ein Vergleich zweier sozialer Bewegungen’, Mitteilungsblatt des Instituts für soziale Bewegungen, XXXI, 81–108. Nehring, N. (2007) ‘Die eigensinnigen Bürger. Legitimationsstrategien im politischen Kampf gegen die militärische Nutzung der Atomkraft in der Bundesrepublik der frühen sechziger Jahre’ in H. Knoch (ed.) Bürgersinn mit Weltgefühl. Politische Moral und solidarischer Protest in den sechziger und siebziger Jahren (Göttingen: Wallstein-Verlag), pp. 117–37. Nehring, N. (2013) Politics of Security. British and West German Protest Movements and the Early Cold War, 1945–1970, 1st ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Otto, K. A. (1977) Ostermarsch; G. Grünewald (1982) ‘Zur Geschichte des Ostermarsches der Atomwaffengegner’, Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik, III, 303–22. Rolke, L. (1987) Protestbewegungen in der Bundesrepublik. Eine analytische Sozialgeschichte des politischen Widerspruchs (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag). Routen der vier Märsche des Ostermarsches der Atomwaffengegner von 1961’ Pläne. Eine junge Zeitschrift für Politik und Kultur, IV/V (1961), 5. Rupp, H. K. (1980) Außerparlamentarische Opposition in der Ära Adenauer. Der Kampf gegen die Atombewaffnung in den fünfziger Jahren, 2nd ed. (Köln: Pahl-Rugenstein). Rüsen, J. (1994) ‘Was ist Geschichtskultur?’ in K. Füßmann and H. T. Grütter et al. (eds.) Historische Faszination. Geschichtskultur heute (Köln: Böhlau), pp. 3–26. Schildt, A. (2008) ‘Neue Linke und Studentenbewegung’ in Bundeszentrale für plotische Bildung, http://www.bpb.de/geschichte/ deutsche-geschichte/68er-bewegung/51815/neue-linke?p=all, date accessed 27 December 2017. Schildt, A. (2009) ‘“Atomzeitalter”—Gründe und Hintergründe der Proteste gegen die atomare Bewaffnung der Bundeswehr Ende der fünfziger Jahre’ in Forschungsstelle für Zeitgeschichte Hamburg (ed.) „Kampf dem Atomtod“. Die Protestbewegung 1957/58 in zeithistorischer und gegenwärtiger Perspektive (München: Dölling und Galitz), pp. 39–56. Schönemann, B. (2006) ‘Geschichtskultur als Wiederholungsstruktur’, Geschichte, Politik und ihre Didaktik, XXXIV, 182–91. Stubenrauch, H. (1968) ‘Zur Entwicklung der APO—hat die Kampagne noch eine Chance?’, Außerparlamentarische Opposition. Informationen für Demokratie und Abrüstung, LXIV/LXV, 16.

216  A. BERGER Taylor, R. and Pritchard, C. (1988) The Protest Makers. The British Nuclear Disarmament Movement 1958–1965 Twenty Years On (Oxford and New York: Pergamon Press). Tempel, H. K. (1963) ‘Ostermarsch 1963’, Pläne. Eine junge Zeitschrift für Politik und Kultur, III. Tenfelde, K. (1996) ‘Geschichtskultur im Ruhrgebiet’, Gewerkschaftliche Monatshefte, IV, 240–53. Thomas, N. (2003) Protest Movements in 1960s West Germany. A Social History of Dissent and Democracy (New York: Berg). Vilmar, F. (1963) ‘Stimmen zum Ostermarsch’, Pläne. Eine junge Zeitschrift für Politik und Kultur, I/II, 3. Werner, M. (2006) Die „Ohne mich“-Bewegung. Die bundesdeutsche Friedensbewegung im deutsch-deutschen Kalten Krieg (1949–1955) (Münster: Monsenstein und Vannerdat). Wolfrum, E. (2001) Geschichte als Waffe. Vom Kaiserreich zur Wiedervereinigung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht). Wolfrum, E. (2006) Die geglückte Demokratie. Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland von ihren Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta). Wüstenberg, J. (2017) Civil Society and Memory in Postwar Germany (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Ziemann, B. (2004) ‘Zwischen sozialer Bewegung und Dienstleistung am Individuum. Katholiken und katholische Kirche im therapeutischen Jahrzehnt’, Archiv für Sozialgeschichte, XLIV, 357–93.

CHAPTER 9

Fugacious Marxisms: Some Thoughts on the Aesthetics of Marxism in the West German Student Movement (1961–1972) Benedikt Sepp

That the West German Student Movement of the 1960s harboured a particular fascination for Marxist theory has grown to be a cliché. There seems to be no retrospective of the students rebellion that does not reference the apparently fanatic and voracious reading mania of the rebelling students that drove them onto the streets. In the vast and seemingly limitless historical scholarship of the student movement, one implicit line of questioning seems to shine through: How serious were the rebelling students about their theories, and to what extent did these impact and guide their political action? While much of the literature concerned with the reception of theories by the student movement assumes that the

B. Sepp (*)  Universität Konstanz, Constance, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2019 S. Berger and C. Cornelissen (eds.), Marxist Historical Cultures and Social Movements during the Cold War, Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03804-5_9

217

218  B. SEPP

rebellion finds its origin in its synoptic texts,1 recollections by contemporaries give the impression that the student movement’s uniting theories, including its Marxism, played only a superficial role in the protest against the established order.2 This position is surely arguable if one does not wish to reduce the student movement to its salient intellectuals and their publications. However, the view that the student movement only instrumentalised Marxism to satisfy an adolescent need for rebellion could be seen as a very peculiar form of vulgar materialism. This view also implicitly suggests that the students hadn’t ‘properly’ understood Marx. If we consider the underlying logic of the movement’s actions, particularly where its Marxism is concerned, we may resolve such dichotomies. It may be worthwhile to ponder what Marxist theory, as opposed to other theories, might have offered its readers in relation to their current predicament. Following this line of thought, a work of philosophy, literature or theory has little imminent meaning for action; only when combined with a specific situation can meaning or a call to action be elicited in the consciousness of those involved.3 In order to comprehend the spread of Marxist theorems within the student movement of the 1960s, one could ask: What opportunities did the employment of Marxism offer the acting persons? And what type of Marxism was engendered in correlation with the specific situation? This line of inquiry is not intended to come to rest in an analysis of the reception of such theories but will try to understand the spread of Marxist terms and dogmas throughout the student movement in terms of their 1 H. Weiss (1985) Die Ideologieentwicklung in der deutschen Studentenbewegung (München, Wien: R. Oldenbourg; Verlag für Geschichte und Politik); L. Landois (2008) Konterrevolution von links. Das Staats- und Gesellschaftsverständnis der “68er” und dessen Quellen bei Carl Schmitt, 1st ed. (Baden-Baden: Nomos); and J. Benicke (2010) Von Adorno zu Mao. Über die schlechte Aufhebung der antiautoritären Bewegung, 1st ed. (Freiburg im Breisgau: ça-ira-Verlag). 2 G. Koenen (2001) Das rote Jahrzehnt. Unsere kleine deutsche Kulturrevolution 1967– 1977, 1st ed. (Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch); U. Enzensberger (2006) Die Jahre der Kommune I. Berlin 1967–1969 (München: Goldmann); and P. Schneider (2008) Rebellion und Wahn. Mein 68: eine autobiographische Erzählung, 1st ed. (Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch). 3 A. Reckwitz (2006) Die Transformation der Kulturtheorien. Zur Entwicklung eines Theorieprogramms (Weilerswist: Velbrück Wiss), p. 606; S. Reichardt (2007) ‘Praxeologische Geschichtswissenschaft. Eine Diskussionsanregung‘, Sozial.Geschichte, 22, 3, 43–65, 54.

9  FUGACIOUS MARXISMS: SOME THOUGHTS … 

219

situation-specific capacity for influence and interpretation—Armin Nassehi has suggested the term ‘aesthetics of theory’4 to mean the result of the mode of presentation of a given theory as a way of understanding the appeal a theory had with its readers beyond its actual content. Keeping this concept in mind we shall focus on some specific elements from which we hope to gain insight into the habitual appropriation of Marxist theory and shall examine its situation-specific capacity to affect and establish situation-specific consciousness as well as thought and language patterns. From a methodological perspective, this can shift the focus from the analysis of the debates of and within Marxist circles to searching for the traces of Marxist theory in the lived-in world of the revolutionaries. In letters, diaries, notes, training reports and similar sources one finds transient and ephemeral fugacious Marxisms that expose the heterogeneous and inconsistent image of the relationship the rebelling students had to their proposed philosophical-ethical and academic foundations. A disentangling of the dichotomy between the intellectual leaders of the movement and those who were merely called to follow, who in contrast to profound theoretical reading consumed agitational fast food, may lead to an understanding of the relationship between the internal dynamics of a protest movement and its inwardly and outwardly communicated justifications for being, and therefore, also the complexity and inconsistency that the political activity of such a movement may inevitably take on. Without claiming comprehensiveness, the following uses sample analysis aims to spotlight several aspects where the practice of Marx appropriation took place among the anti-authoritarian student movement and its followers. The questions are: What did Marxist theory offer the rebelling students, what actions were sanctioned by it and what form did the Marxist theory as conceived by the rebelling students take? In 1961, the long developing controversy between the SPD (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands) and their student union, the Sozialistischer Deutscher Studentenbund (that no longer followed the mother party’s realpolitik) ended in the students’ expulsion.5 The official

4 A. Nassehi (2003) Geschlossenheit und Offenheit. Studien zur Theorie der modernen Gesellschaft, 1st ed. (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp), p. 83. 5 W. Albrecht (1994) Der Sozialistische Deutsche Studentenbund (SDS). Vom parteikonformen Studentenverband zum Repräsentanten der Neuen Linken (Bonn: Dietz).

220  B. SEPP

reason was communist infiltration of the SDS, which it denied. However, the union’s orientation towards theory, in this case, particularly Marxist theory, was manifest and became a pillar upon which the SDSs self-conception as a union of critical intellectuals rested. The SDS, in its presentation and manifestos, asserted that political action ought to find its basis in the pronouncements of theory. A contemporary describes the appeal of profound thoughts and ideas that the SDS radiated: ‘The SDS was highly regarded because it was so highbrow and theory orientated. Most people generally couldn’t follow, but found it somehow, good’.6 Their concern with Marxist theory surely made them one of the more radical political groups in relation to the available options, at least in the eyes of the public. The difficulty in acquiring the right literature and the anti-communist sentiment of the period gave Marxist theory, even beyond the universities, an air of secret or forbidden knowledge. Ulrich Enzensberger, a member of the still to be founded Kommune 1, recalls of his first revolutionary attempts in his native city: ‘The name Marx had an erotic feel. Words like international, decomposing, clandestine or subversive suggested a tempting and forbidden world’.7 The fact that possibilities for studying Marxist theory were rather limited at the universities must have contributed to an associative rather than erudite understanding of Marxist terminology. Due to the system rivalry between both German states, Marx was not generally, with the exception of a minority of left-leaning academic chairs, studied at West German universities.8 Instead, Marx scholarship was largely restricted to smaller and decentralised groups. An interest in Marxist theory was largely considered from the perspective of intellectual curiosity in the early 1960s, not as a call to political action or as politically motivated work. The various chapters of the heterogeneous SDS received and discussed Marxist theory to varying degrees; however, all of them seemed to employ their engagement with Marxist theory to distinguish

6 B. Spix (2008) Abschied vom Elfenbeinturm? Politisches Verhalten Studierender 1957–1967, 1st ed. (Essen: Klartext), p. 127f. 7 U. Enzensberger (2006) Kommune 1, p. 37. 8 C. Henning (2013) ‘Attraktion und Repulsion. Marxistische Gesellschaftsentwürfe zwischen Selbstverwirklichung und Gewalt’ in T. Kroll and T. Reitz (eds.) Intellektuelle in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Verschiebungen im politischen Feld der 1960er und 1970er Jahre (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), pp. 71–86, p. 75f.

9  FUGACIOUS MARXISMS: SOME THOUGHTS … 

221

themselves externally from other groups and to internally crystallise an identity. For intellectuals, the idea that the working out of a socialist theory on the foundations of Marxist theory was the right form of action was held in many internal discussions. This association with a secret or forbidden knowledge was however not always appreciated in the SDS if it did not imply the possibility for political change. Even in the earliest meetings of the SDS, where the union’s orientation and strategy were topical, the question regarding the position of Marxist theory, and thus, the capacity for a socialist movement to bring about change was much discussed. However, the opinion was that Marxism tended to get bogged down in political and economic analysis while rarely transcending its monkish role as marked by impotent knowitall-ism. ‘The Marxist is removed and follows from the safety of his armchair the social developments and traverses Marx for explanations when he is dumbfounded. The theory decays into quotations. Change is extraneous’9: these are the realisations of an author of the SDS’s periodical neue kritik who criticised the contemporary reading and discussion sessions as an excuse to avoid real political engagement. Although Marxist theory was understood as the fulcrum for leftist, critical social science, there was a hunger, among the younger generations of the SDS for a theory that transcended Marxism and did not reduce the intellectual to a lone voice in the desert or shout in the street. A further incubation cell of the student movement, the Subversive Aktion, carried out similar discussions. Originally adherent to the artist collective Situationistische Internationale, the members of Subversive Aktion conceived for themselves a strategy to illuminate repressive mechanisms in society with the aid of psychoanalysis and critical theory. The GDR refugees Rudi Dutschke and Bernd Rabehl, both well acquainted with Marxism, were able to exalt Marxist analysis for subversive work. The promise of a scientific style, potential for action, and the rediscovery of diverse and varied Marxist traditions made the trigger-orientated political happenings previously pursued by the Subversive Aktion appear unsystematic and toothless.10 9 T. von der Vring (1965) ‘Antikritisches zur Strategiediskussion (I)ʼ, neue kritik, 6, 28, 17–23, 18. 10 W. Kraushaar (1976) ‘Kinder einer abenteuerlichen Dialektik’ in F. Böckelmann and H. Nagel (eds.) Subversive Aktion. Der Sinn der Organisation ist ihr Scheitern (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Neue Kritik), pp. 9–31, p. 21f.

222  B. SEPP

As the Subversive Aktion increasingly aligned itself with Marxism, certain critical positions, similar to those the SDS brought against Marxism, were brought against the Frankfurt school: the appraisal and description of misery with increasingly artificial jargon, so they argued, would only contribute to stabilising the status quo. As a bulwark against revolutionary theories ossifying to orthodoxy, one should employ critical reading that subjects the canonical texts to scrutiny, particularly regarding their current relevance. The Subversive Aktion echoed this approach in their reception of what they deemed to be renegade Marxist authors that diverged from the official Marxist understanding of the party. These included Georg Lukács, Karl Korsch and Wilhelm Reich. While the necessity of Marxist theory to understand the economic foundations of the psychological rejection of social structures was recognised, it was intended to receive and study Marx without taking on the romantic notion of a united workers’ movement. And so it was engendered to create a more action-orientated Marxism that surpassed the previous conception of practice which could only momentarily illuminate systemic and structural instruments of repression through artistic intervention. Although it was an integral part of the initial conception of Subversive Aktion to satirise and poke fun at all types of organised revolutionary politics, the infiltration by other leftist groups such as the SDS gave rise to a new strategy. In Munich, a flyer about the current situation of the SDS issued by members of the Subversive Aktion opened by quoting early Marx: ‘the relentless critique of all that is’, in which the inclusion of psychoanalysis, modern social science and the devotion of the ‘complete individual’ to ‘practical criticism’ was enshrined as a fundamental requirement for socialist work.11 The SDS-federal executive committee’s answer confirmed all prejudices of theoretical nit-picking the young socialists had about the established SDS since it criticised that the quotation was ‘neither the “Marx of the Kapital nor the Marx of the Communist Manifesto but the Marx of 1843’.12 11 E. Altvater, F. Böckelmann, T. Schmitz-Bender, R. Führer, D. Kunzelmann and L. Menne (1976) ‘Thesen zur Situation des SDS’ in F. Böckelmann and H. Nagel (eds.) Subversive Aktion. Der Sinn der Organisation ist ihr Scheitern (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Neue Kritik), pp. 270–77. 12 F. Böckelmann (1976) ‘Brief an Dieter Kunzelmann vom 28.1.1965’ in F. Böckelmann and H. Nagel (eds.) Subversive Aktion. Der Sinn der Organisation ist ihr Scheitern (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Neue Kritik), pp. 265–268.

9  FUGACIOUS MARXISMS: SOME THOUGHTS … 

223

In their own study of Marx which included a radical need for contemporary interpretation and action, the Subversive Aktion styled themselves as a dynamic counterpart to the ‘White-collar Marxists and Union representatives’13 of the SDS. These were implicitly accused of being, in their orthodox and ossified condition, well established within the capitalist order. With the increasing amount of influence that members of the Subversive Aktion acquired particularly in the West-Berlin SDS, this conflict began to be increasingly stylised as generational conflict and was, e.g. in discussions over mandatory theoretical seminars, fought out over and by reading lists. In the various conflicts between the myriad of SDS fractions, the meaning of Marxism was hotly debated. These debates evidenced a very heterogeneous understanding of a leftist political style. Being well presented with the ability to connect with established bourgeois circles was validated by Marxist theory just as much as street-battles, riots and revolutionary uprising. Meanwhile, the term ‘Marxism’ was within the anti-authoritarian student movement no longer so firmly associated with the more emphatic concept of ‘theory’. The students read voraciously and did not restrict themselves to the classics of the worker’s movement but stretched to anarchist as well as psychoanalysis, progressive education and sexual theory. Still, a Marx reconstructed and assembled from many sources played a more central role than other casually quoted thinkers. The recurrence to Marx, particularly in the eyes of the media, helped the student movement to present themselves as a serious, intellectual and critical entity and in turn be characterised by the media as a symbol for the successful combination of revolutionary rhetoric with civilised modes of expression and manners. When a student leader told the SPIEGEL that he supported a student protest although ‘from a Marxist perspective it is obviously foolish to go on strike because of a 30 Pfennig increase in the University Canteen’,14 he presented himself as well versed strategist that understood the needs of the masses and was in a position to serve the cause, while being beyond it himself. Converging academic interest in conjunction with anarchist action grew together in the application of the iridescent term ‘Marxism’ to a revolutionary appeal: ‘Marxism, as understood by

13 D. Kunzelmann (1998) Leisten Sie keinen Widerstand! Bilder aus meinem Leben (Berlin: Transit), p. 51. 14 n.A. (1967) ‘Sex und Marx’, Der Spiegel, 29, 27–28, 28.

224  B. SEPP

us, is a method to analyse the social reality while upholding an uncompromising warcry for the anti-authoritarian revolutionaries’,15 Bernd Rabehl claimed in DER SPIEGEL in 1968. The claim to a total philosophy and therefore also critique that Marxism allegedly made led to an encroachment of Marxist thought patterns into the consciousness of the revolutionary students. As the writer Peter Schneider noted in his diary in 1967: ‘Marxism, the only critical appraisal of reality, does not judge or sentence, but explains, and so allows for a transformation of reality’.16 This clarifies the status potential that one ascribed to theoretical vocabulary in more than just a political context. Seeming able to translate everyday problems into Marxist categories opened certain possibilities for treating them and characterising a member of a counterparty as ‘not a Marxist’ or ‘Bourgeois’ a priori labelled them as having nothing to contribute to debates. Group identities and their manoeuvre space were so both explored and solidified. For the majority of the revolutionary students, especially those inspired by the movement’s energy as late as 1967, aesthetics and associations of this kind will have characterised their largely subjective understanding of Marx more than a careful or academic exploration of Marxist theory. In diaries and other modes of self-interpretation, transcending into the objective Marxist worldview was conceived of as an existential leap, for which the subject had to be ready. How much more you tend to existentialism than to Marxism! It is time now for you to study existentialism in depth and not drift only on the surfaces. Only then will you be truly open to Marxism. Consider the extent to which you relate all things to your person, and how you ignore the social constructions! And so you ask yourself at irregular intervals the same questions and stand before the same problems.17

This self-reproach Inga Buhmann penned in her diary, that she had fallen to a still too bourgeois philosophy, elaborated Marxism as the antithesis to subjective content that one generally allowed to encircle oneself and be only of oneself. Internally accepting 15 B.

Rabehl (1968) ‘Karl Marx und der SDS’, Der Spiegel, 16, 86. Schneider (2008) ‘Rebellion und Wahn’, p. 232f. 17 I. Buhmann (1977) Ich habe mir eine Geschichte geschrieben, 1st ed. (München: Trikont-Verlag), p. 189. 16 P.

9  FUGACIOUS MARXISMS: SOME THOUGHTS … 

225

Marxism didn’t mean the accepting of a different philosophical worldview as much as it meant that one practised the ability of seeing hidden connections that flowed from global structures and instruments of repression to one’s daily trivialities. In a Marxist understanding, it was possible to link the anti-colonial freedom movements of the third-world with the youth revolt of the west and to understand both as being part of a global revolutionary movement in which personal woes and the resulting political action come together effortlessly. Such thinking in structures meant that one’s consciousness moved along routine and inert patterns of apprehension. The ability to see power relationships formed through economics in aggressive police officers or repressive sexual morality instead of ill will on behalf of the authorities was something to be learnt and used in daily life. The almost too predictably hysterical reaction on behalf of the established order only strengthened the belief that one was on the right road. If simply protesting elicited such opposition, one must have touched one of the order’s sore points. The theory adapted and verified itself in relation to its practice and the process of history seemed to be influenceable as a result. A youth revolt supported by this form of Marxism must therefore have seen it as a teleological plan that made a revolutionary overthrowing of the established order seem possible. With its appearance as an intellectual master key for world history, Marxism functioned as a metaphor and blueprint for an aesthetic of a total theisability, a total philosophy that required an amount of devotion to the subject. To speak and think in Marxist terms, even without ever having read Marx, gave one the feeling of belonging and the capacity to express muddled and opaque feelings through clearer socio-philosophical concepts. The dispersion of the student movements after the assassination attempts on Rudi Dutschke and the following mass upheavals also represented a crisis of confidence in the theories accepted so far—the failure of the revolution was not anticipated by its followers. While the majority of the rebelling students moved back into other political or apolitical milieus, a number of fractions got to work processing and critiquing the actions of the student movement. Specifically, the rejection of the assumption (now seen as not Marxist) that the students could voluntaristically start the revolution was staged as a grand return to the intellectual foundations of the worker’s movement. Psychoanalytic tendencies were cast overboard as they were felt to be under the remit of the petit

226  B. SEPP

bourgeois. ‘Let’s organise studying the socialist classics together!’,18 was the title of a circulating SDS paper and also the maxim of a comprehensive reading movement that was facilitated through an increased publishing infrastructure that provided new and old reading material.19 Thus, instead of eclectically fishing in dry running tributaries for obscure revolutionary literature, a return to the main river channel carrying the blue and brown volumes seemed more successful in the task of promising to set the keel floating again. ‘After the pointlessly cyclic debates of the SDS that tended to suffocate in jargon, the systematic reading of the ‘classics’ came like a breath of fresh air’,20 is how Gerd Koenen recalls the now directed voracity that promised a continuation of the status of theory of the anti-authoritarian movement. Besides the work of Lenin and Mao that were now enjoying growing acceptance, the collected works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were obviously the source of the greatest fascination with the ‘classics’. With the desire to acquire the ‘complete Marx’21 in the original instead of merely fitted pieces over secondary literature, every thorough volume and every reading party sought to embed the reading revolutionaries further in the tradition of the historic workers’ movement. The search for historical developments and revolutionary practices was not limited to the reading of theoretical literature but included revolutionary art, films of the Russian revolution, the poetry of Majakowskij, and particularly workers’ literature of the Weimar Republic, the inclusion of which into the high literary canon communist literary scholars campaigned for. After the ever increasing and spiralling cluster of theories of the anti-authoritarian movement, Marx (and Lenin) functioned as foundation to which one could always refer, which could explain the petit bourgeois follies of the student movement and which could offer historically validated modes

18 B. Rabehl and P. Neitzke Das Studium der Klassiker im Verband reorganisieren! 1967/1968. APO-Archiv FU Berlin, File SDS 364 SDS Berlin Doppel I. 19 U. Sonnenberg (2016) Von Marx zum Maulwurf. Linker Buchhandel in Westdeutschland in den 1970er Jahren, 1st ed. (Göttingen, Niedersachs: Wallstein). 20 G. Koenen (2001) ‘Das rote Jahrzehnt’, p. 189. 21 R. Reiche (1988) ‘Sexuelle Revolution - Erinnerung an einen Mythos’ in L. Baier (ed.) Die Früchte der Revolte. Über die Veränderung der politischen Kultur durch die Studentenbewegung (Berlin: K. Wagenbach), pp. 45–72, p. 49.

9  FUGACIOUS MARXISMS: SOME THOUGHTS … 

227

of action.22 Being conscious of having now found the source code of society, which was deemed important in both understanding and shaping history, inspired optimism in having found the right theory at the right time. The failures of the historical workers’ movement could now be improved upon, as Lutz von Werder recapitulated his contemporary interpretation: ‘We will order everything correctly, it’s all misunderstood, all wrongly interpreted. It was like the spirit of Luther’s reformation, who says, they interpreted the bible all wrong, now we’ll do it right’.23 This confidence was set into action through often diverse and often short-lived organisations. Many former anti-authoritarians no longer believed that it was possible to start the revolution themselves. The target of theoretical work was no longer educating the people, but rather awaking the instinctive class-consciousness believed to be inherent in the working class. In West-Berlin, among other locations, students went to working communities or even directly to factories and workplaces to acquaint working men and women with Marxist theory through focus groups and thereby draw long-felt inequalities to the surface through the resulting discourse. These actions presupposed a principle difference in identity between students and workers in that the students believed themselves, as intellectuals, to be sensorially withered and therefore understood their own compulsive yearning for theory as a subconscious compensation for this deficit. Workers however could, through the acquisition of Marxist terminology, learn to identify and recognise in their everyday life the mechanisms of oppression and exploitation that were hitherto received only unconsciously. Once the exploited understood their position, the revolution would almost reliably follow by organic and intuitive processes. Through their communal political work, students and workers who were traditionally kept apart by the reigning class structure could begin to grow towards one another and finally become consubstantial in one revolutionary existence.

22 U. Kadritzke (1989) ‘Produktive und unproduktive Illusionen in der Studentenbewegung’ in H. Bude and M. Kohli (eds.) Radikalisierte Aufklärung. Studentenbewegung und Soziologie in Berlin 1965 bis 1970 (Weinheim, München: Juventa), pp. 239–82, p. 267. 23 As Lutz von Werder put it in a conversation I had with him in Berlin in January 2015.

228  B. SEPP

The, albeit limited, sources that provide exact information about the reading practices, suggest that the awakening was expected to take place through reading Marx—once a subject was confronted with Marx’ words alone, an immediate effect was expected to take place. This was exemplified in that students partially just read texts out-loud to a congregation of workers (that they themselves had laboriously covered in reading parties and bore much marginalia and highlight).24 And although this practice was rather ineffective in the long term, it can be assumed that the collectively experienced texts facilitated a feeling of community that let the theoretically developed seem plausible in everyday life. Similarly, in other leftist circles it was hoped that the beginnings of a collective could be formed through a communal reading of Marx. In this fashion, the parent-group of a newly formed anti-authoritarian kindergarten planned to clarify their political position by collectively reading and discussing the ‘early works’.25 What was immediately attractive about this (here merely sketched) functional transition of Marxist theory was surely that it offered not only a plausible explanation for the failure of the anti-authoritarian movement but also prescribed tangible instructions for action that could stretch beyond politicised yet scholastic labour. The partially existential step to ‘take on the monk’s cloak, leave behind the academic work, and get knee deep into the proletarian mire’26 enabled the continuation of reading as a form of political action, institutionalised through reading parties. At the same time, the years 1968–1970 indicated a phase of transformation within the student movement. Marxist orthodoxy, which the revolutionaries wore on their caps and banners, did not yet directly imply changing the otherwise anti-authoritarian lifestyle to a more

24 I.

Buhmann (1977) ‘Geschichte geschrieben’, p. 297. Lankwitz, H. J. Breiteneicher, R. Mauff and M. Triebe (1972) Kinderläden. Revolution der Erziehung oder Erziehung zur Revolution?, 41st ed. (Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt-Taschenbuch-Verlag), p. 43. 26 Lönnendonker, Siegward, Hochschulpolitik und Kommune I. Interview mit Wolfgang Lefèvre am 30 December 1969. Attachment of S. Lönnendonker Die Politik des Sozialistischen Deutschen Studentenbundes (SDS), Landesverband Berlin. Versuch einer Rekonstruktion der Entwicklung vom Dezember 1964 bis zum April 1967 unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Organisation, Strategie und Taktik (Unpublished Diploma thesis), pp. 52–92, p. 74. 25 Autorenkollektiv

9  FUGACIOUS MARXISMS: SOME THOUGHTS … 

229

proletarian one. This however was to rapidly change in certain parts of the leftist milieu. Apparently, introducing workers to the foundations of Marxist theory did not always lead to the expected results. The students thus had to contend more with incomprehension with respect to their reading programme than the hoped for eliciting of an instinctive class-consciousness (merely wanting to be ordered through Marxist terminology). Those students that left behind their previous more playful political style and approached working communities often found a proletariat that was particularly interested in this style, and thus more in theories of sexual freedom than corporate policy.27 The desire for compulsory reading parties came as a reaction to this finding in many of the, as yet sporadically, organised groups that were often dependent on the commitment of the organising individuals. The problem was not, as it was perceived by a grassroots organisation in the Berliner district Wedding, that the workers could not understand or identify with the theory but more that the students had, in a fallacious derivation from the principal contradiction, neglected the political-economic training. Their proposed solution was held to be more and more relevant theory and better organised mediation.28 The previously structureless forms of mediation and organisation were then increasingly loaded with the Leninist dictum of ‘fiddling’. From the perspective of the social dynamics of reading practices, the formation of the first Maoist cadre parties was sequacious: the theory of the anti-authoritarian movement had not had a uniform foundation but a largely eclectic character. Methods of differentiation and the establishment of hierarchies functioned largely through the discovery and appropriation of new theoretical literature, the reserving of which, with respect to other groups, became an instrument of power by having a head start in knowledge. A collective return to the ‘classics’ implied on the other hand a uniform foundation that had to be intensely studied to have the upper hand in debates. Insofar, the radicalisation of the political action up until the construction of cadre parties (inspired by the KPD of the Weimar Republic) was consistent with the actual situation.

27 I.

Buhmann (1977) ‘Geschichte geschrieben’, p. 298. Wedding (1969) Kritik und Selbstkritik der Basisgruppe Wedding, 25.10.1969. APO-Archiv FU Berlin, File APO-Basisgruppen Berlin Interna. 28 Basisgruppe

230  B. SEPP

The Marxist–Leninist philosophy that the K-groups and other communist parties promised suggested an end to the subjective and situative interpretations of random Marxist theorems. Instead, this approach implied an internal logic to the unfolding process of Marxism and so also a clear direction for the construction and practice of a party—that now only had to be implemented. Ricardo begot Smith, Smith begot Marx, Marx and Engels begot Lenin. Lenin begot Stalin. Stalin begot Chairman Mao. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Chairman Mao begot the Marxist-Leninists. These will beget a party. This party will be the vanguard of the working classes. The working class will, under the direction of this party, beget a revolution.29

This is how the narrator of the autobiographical novel Der schöne Vogel Phönix described his worldview and that of his party at that time. Ascribing these phases of theory development to historical persons, whose portraits decorated the party manifestos as powerful visual symbols,30 created a sense of teleology and tradition. Moreover, the above implied that readings and interpretations of the urtexts were divided into the absolute categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ as well as indicating the forms taken by the internal debates and the timbre with which competing projects were rejected. Unsurprisingly, the high status attributed to Marxist literature allowed it to become an instrument of power for everyday political work: daily political action had to be somehow related back to the theory adopted by the party. It was obvious then that this would promote the possibility of internal competition being situationally fought out using one’s knowledge of the ‘classics’ as weapon of choice and reading the blue volumes ‘with regard to the small advantage afforded by a generally unknown footnote’.31 Such behaviours promoted and underscored the status of Marxism as different from that of ordinary theory. ‘I never read Marx while lumped onto the sofa’, wrote Sybille Lewitscharoff about her time in a Trotskyist organisation, ‘even when I was alone in the room, I dived into my copy of Das Kapital and turned its pages with such devotion, as

29 J.

Schimmang (1979) Der schöne Vogel Phönix (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp), pp. 127f. Partei Deutschlands/Aufbauorganisation (1971) ‘Programmatische Erklärung der Kommunistischen Partei Deutschlands’, Rote Fahne, 2, 21, 1–2; 12–16. 31 J. Schimmang Vogel Phönix, pp. 127f. 30 Kommunistische

9  FUGACIOUS MARXISMS: SOME THOUGHTS … 

231

if a hundred dead Communists were looking over my shoulder’.32 Such reading practices surrounded Marxist theory with a nimbus of something to behold with awe and lifted the reader into a development visible in the past and in the future. The fact that Marx could not simply be read without having a life-changing effect on the reader was also a common narrative in official party autobiographies. The author of a booklet which sketched her political autobiography as archetypical of a communist career tells us that, through the dramas of Bertolt Brecht and the knowledge about Auschwitz, a diffuse feeling that hidden powers were at play under the surface of social reality made itself felt. Never, however, had she been able to put this discomfort into words before she finally came across the key to the understanding of history: Marx - I only encountered him at 21; I soon understood why. (…) Once one had started, the only remaining options were: set the book down, or read on and act (…) There is no book that is as decisive. The indeterminate feeling that something is not right immediately was followed by (…) a theory that is unsentimental, scientific and comprehensible, which reveals and explains without hesitation. It does not stop at the moving description of misery and the helpless request to help but clearly outlines the only viable path, assigns a place to each and indicates the steps leading to the solution.33

The presentation of such narratives—from emotional alienation from mainstream society, to an approach to psychoanalysis and critical theory and finally a conversion experience through the discovery of Marxism— was also an integral part of so-called co-op talks, which the party leaders led with potential candidates as part of the vetting process. In these narratives, the future communist presented him/herself as a questing subject, who had finally found the right path through personal experience and intellectual turmoil owing to the encounter with Marxist theory. By ultimately becoming a different person through reading, the candidate would now take the marked path of the communist cadre in an

32 S. Lewitscharoff (2009) ‘So superverfolgt und supergeheim. Schwatzschwatz, meistens ernst, selten witzig: Wie es um 1970 wirklich war’, Süddeutsche Zeitung (10/11 January 2009), 12. 33 D. Basten (1976) Ich, die “Verfassungsfeindin” (Köln: Pahl Rugenstein Verlag), p. 9.

232  B. SEPP

existential step. ‘You don’t become a communist by personal desire nor overnight. It is the social reality and the theory that enables them to see through and change these that begets the radicals. One becomes a communist, as a result of one’s personal experience in ordinary capitalism, which is classified by the lengthy study of the theories of Marx, Engels, and Lenin’,34 concludes the narrator of the quoted text. Even if scepticism is appropriate to such parallels, it is thought that certain echoes of Christian reading traditions are occasionally heard in such reading practices—that a Marxist reading seminar held a ‘Marx mass’ during a retreat in Odenwald, which, following a pantomime account of the revolution was completed by a ‘revolutionary prayer’, gives credence to this impression.35 We must not, however, make the mistake of holding such official accounts as a proof of a hermetically closed political world. Every attempt to abolish private life and lead an uninterrupted cadre-existence failed by the contradictions of daily existence and the individual self-assertive practices of appropriation. Being a member of a communist cadre party was certainly also characterised by the overlapping of different private and public spheres, internal power struggles and individual resistances, not unlike other political groupings. However, the dominant status given to Marxism as the basis of political work in many spheres of life has led to specific forms of appropriation and forced confrontations into certain patterns from the outset. From the beginning of the 1960s onwards, identities and the potential for action were negotiated through the medium of Marxism within the emerging student movement. The self-understanding of the SDS as a socialist and theory-oriented intellectual association forced the discussions about political practice along theoretical paths, thereby promoting the situational use of Marxist theorems. In different interpretations of the Marxist vocabulary, interpretations of political practice, which differed widely in the lived-in world of the actors, were ultimately carried out. Around 1968, the changed circumstances led to a corresponding adaptation of reading practices and, consequently, to a changed status of Marxism. The dynamics of a ‘return to the classics’ initiated a radicalisation in parts of the former anti-authoritarian movement, which led to the

34 D.

Basten (1976) Ich, p. 9. v. Werder (1979) Schwarze Landschaft. Berliner Erfahrungen 1966–1979 (Tübingen: IVA-Verlag Polke), p. 118. 35 L.

9  FUGACIOUS MARXISMS: SOME THOUGHTS … 

233

establishment of authoritarian and hierarchically structured cadre parties within a period of not even two years. All these movements referred in different ways to a Marxism which manifested itself through varying perceptions, depending on the context, and thus yielded and legitimised very different forms of practice.

References Albrecht, W. (1994) Der Sozialistische Deutsche Studentenbund (SDS). Vom parteikonformen Studentenverband zum Repräsentanten der Neuen Linken (Bonn: Dietz). Altvater, E., Böckelmann, F., Schmitz-Bender, T., Führer, R., Kunzelmann, D. and Menne, L. (1976) ‘Thesen zur Situation des SDS’ in F. Böckelmann and H. Nagel (eds.) Subversive Aktion. Der Sinn der Organisation ist ihr Scheitern (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Neue Kritik), pp. 270–77. Autorenkollektiv Lankwitz, Breiteneicher, H. J., Mauff, R. and Triebe, M. (1972) Kinderläden. Revolution der Erziehung oder Erziehung zur Revolution? 41st ed. (Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt-Taschenbuch-Verlag). Basten, D. (1976) Ich, die “Verfassungsfeindin” (Köln: Pahl Rugenstein Verlag). Benicke, J. (2010) Von Adorno zu Mao. Über die schlechte Aufhebung der antiautoritären Bewegung, 1st ed. (Freiburg im Breisgau: ça-ira-Verlag). Böckelmann, F. (1976) ‘Brief an Dieter Kunzelmann vom 28.1.1965’ in F. Böckelmann and H. Nagel (eds.) Subversive Aktion. Der Sinn der Organisation ist ihr Scheitern (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Neue Kritik), pp. 265–68. Buhmann, I. (1977) Ich habe mir eine Geschichte geschrieben, 1st ed. (München: Trikont-Verlag). Enzensberger, U. (2006) Die Jahre der Kommune I. Berlin 1967–1969 (München: Goldmann). Henning, C. (2013) ‘Attraktion und Repulsion. Marxistische Gesellschaftsentwürfe zwischen Selbstverwirklichung und Gewalt’ in T. Kroll, T. Reitz (eds.) Intellektuelle in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Verschiebungen im politischen Feld der 1960er und 1970er Jahre (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), pp. 71–86. Kadritzke, U. (1989) ‘Produktive und unproduktive Illusionen in der Studentenbewegung’ in H. Bude and M. Kohli (eds.) Radikalisierte Aufklärung. Studentenbewegung und Soziologie in Berlin 1965 bis 1970 (Weinheim, München: Juventa), pp. 239–82. Koenen, G. (2001) Das rote Jahrzehnt. Unsere kleine deutsche Kulturrevolution 1967–1977, 1st ed. (Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch).

234  B. SEPP Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands/Aufbauorganisation (1971) ‘Programmatische Erklärung der Kommunistischen Partei Deutschlands’, Rote Fahne, 2, 21, 1–2, 12–16. Kraushaar, W. (1976) ‘Kinder einer abenteuerlichen Dialektik’ in F. Böckelmann and H. Nagel (eds.) Subversive Aktion. Der Sinn der Organisation ist ihr Scheitern (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Neue Kritik), pp. 9–31. Kunzelmann, D. (1998) Leisten Sie keinen Widerstand! Bilder aus meinem Leben (Berlin: Transit). Landois, L. (2008) Konterrevolution von links. Das Staats- und Gesellschaftsverständnis der „68er“ und dessen Quellen bei Carl Schmitt, 1st ed. (Baden-Baden: Nomos). Lewitscharoff, S. ‘So superverfolgt und supergeheim. Schwatzschwatz, meistens ernst, selten witzig: Wie es um 1970 wirklich war’, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 10/11 January 2009), 12. n.A. (1967) ‘Sex und Marx’, Der Spiegel, 29, 27–28. Nassehi, A. (2003) Geschlossenheit und Offenheit. Studien zur Theorie der modernen Gesellschaft, 1st ed. (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp). Rabehl, B. (1968) ‘Karl Marx und der SDS’, Der Spiegel, 16, 86. Reckwitz, A. (2006) Die Transformation der Kulturtheorien. Zur Entwicklung eines Theorieprogramms (Weilerswist: Velbrück Wiss). Reichardt, S. (2007) ‘Praxeologische Geschichtswissenschaft. Eine Diskussionsanregung’, Sozial.Geschichte, 22, 3, 43–65. Reiche, R. (1988) ‘Sexuelle Revolution - Erinnerung an einen Mythos’ in L. Baier (ed.) Die Früchte der Revolte. Über die Veränderung der politischen Kultur durch die Studentenbewegung (Berlin: K. Wagenbach), pp. 45–72. Schimmang, J. (1979) Der schöne Vogel Phönix (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp). Schneider, P. (2008) Rebellion und Wahn. Mein 68: eine autobiographische Erzählung, 1st ed. (Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch). Sonnenberg, U. (2016) Von Marx zum Maulwurf. Linker Buchhandel in Westdeutschland in den 1970er Jahren, 1st ed. (Göttingen, Niedersachs: Wallstein). Spix, B. (2008) Abschied vom Elfenbeinturm? Politisches Verhalten Studierender 1957–1967, 1st ed. (Essen: Klartext). Vring, T. von der (1965) ‘Antikritisches zur Strategiediskussion (I)’, neue kritik, 6, 28, 17–23. Weiss, H. (1985) Die Ideologieentwicklung in der deutschen Studentenbewegung (München, Wien: R. Oldenbourg; Verlag für Geschichte und Politik). Werder, L. v. (1979) Schwarze Landschaft. Berliner Erfahrungen 1966–1979 (Tübingen: IVA-Verlag Polke).

CHAPTER 10

Dispersion and Synchronization: Surge and Crises of the New Left in West German Leftist Periodicals in 1959 and 1976 David Bebnowski

In a paper in 2007 Régis Débray claimed that the life cycle of socialism had been over for almost 40 years. The former French revolutionary identified changes in the material base of idea formation and distribution as being responsible for this development. According to Débray, socialism was intertwined with a particular era—the graphosphere. This period stretched from the invention of the printing press to the visual revolution brought about by the spread of television after 1968. For Débray socialism was a product of reason. It could not have come into existence as a political movement without its newspapers, books, journals, the culture of debate, and a certain eagerness for knowledge. Embodying this, “[t]ypographers, intellectuals and teachers were the three supports of the

D. Bebnowski (*)  Zentrum für Zeithistorische Forschung, Potsdam, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2019 S. Berger and C. Cornelissen (eds.), Marxist Historical Cultures and Social Movements during the Cold War, Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03804-5_10

235

236  D. BEBNOWSKI

socialist movement.”1 With the growing importance of visual culture due to the rise of TV the base of socialism eroded steadily. “The crisis for socialism, then, is that even if it can resume its founding principles it cannot return to its founding cultural logic, its circuits of thought production and dissemination.”2 It may seem counterintuitive to take Débray’s ideas as a starting point for thinking about the New Left, because it is able to call into question long-held assumptions about the nature of the movement. First, the material analysis employed by the philosopher shifts attention toward the social base of the New Left. This is because the New Left first and foremost consisted of intellectuals and academic teachers, who founded journals for political and intellectual debate, eventually fueling political causes. In this regard the New Left did not differ much from general trends in the sociology of intellectuals. Journals had always been a main nexus for intellectual group formation.3 Drawing on these considerations the New Left could perhaps be characterized as a movement consisting of different journals, open for intellectual debate of politics, society, and innovations in critical social theory (understood in an open sense). Indeed we could characterize the New Left primarily as a reader’s or reading movement (Lesebewegung).4 Regarding the New Left as such a movement of course does not entail a dismissal of the New Left’s politics but is meant to precisely describe their accession of political issues. Their political platforms lay in journals designed to form nuclei in a new political movement or movements. Second, relying on the accounts of a crisis of socialism unfolding around “68” runs counter to the idea that this iconic year showed an upswing for the left. This second claim is especially important with respect to the West German case. Here, 1968 continues to be remembered and debated as the heyday of the postwar left. Maybe it is time 1 R.

Débray (2007) ‘Socialism: A Life-Cycle’, New Left Review, 46, 5–28, at p. 7. Débray (2007) ‘Socialism’, p. 27. 3 M. Grunewald and H.-M. Bock (2002) ‘Zeitschriften als Spiegel intellektueller Milieus. Vorbemerkungen zur Analyse eines ungeklärten Verhältnisses’ in M. Grunewald and H.-M. Bock (eds.) Das linke Intellektuellenmilieu in Deutschland, seine Presse und seine Netzwerke, 1890–1960 (Berne: Lang), pp. 21–32, at p. 30. 4 A. von Saldern (2002) ‘Markt für Marx. Literaturbetrieb und Lesebewegungen in der Bundesrepublik in den Sechziger- und Siebzigerjahren’, Archiv für Sozialgeschichte, 44, 149–80. 2 R.

10  DISPERSION AND SYNCHRONIZATION: SURGE AND CRISES … 

237

to question this date more than 50 years later. Thus drawing from the assumptions outlined here this chapter will portray the New Left at two points in time that undercut the meaning of 1968 for the New Left. I will focus on two other points in time, the first roughly 10 years before, and the second roughly 10 years after this iconic date. The chapter concentrates on the takeoff of the New Left in the second half of the 1950s, before turning to its beginning downswing roughly 20 years later. The latter point in time marked a period in which the New Left debated its self-conception internationally and was employing headlines such as “Crisis of Marxism.” Albeit undoubtedly being an international phenomenon in this chapter I want to challenge the treatment of the New Left as a coherent entity. Rather, I would like to present the New Left as an only loosely related international movement. Thus the convergences that will be presented here are treated as events synchronizing the movement. The main focus of this chapter thus rests on the West German New Left. It mainly focuses on debates in West Berlin–based journals, primarily Das Argument. Focusing on this particular journal is a natural choice. This is due to the fact that unlike many other German periodicals Das Argument offers some parallels to international developments of the New Left. Conversely, it differed in many other aspects symptomatic of unique paths of development of the German New Left. Putting the focus on the German debate is meant to provide this chapter with the chance to underscore the international character of the New Left, while simultaneously stressing the differences that rested within the movement. In a first step I will present a sketch of the international character of the New Left and its German peculiarities by focusing on some of its most influential journals, thereby inserting Das Argument into the discussion. In a second step I will outline the founding moments of the New Left and its repercussions in West Germany. This step is followed, third, by focusing on the theory employed in Das Argument in its founding years. Thereby I will present existentialism as a hinge priming young intellectuals for Marxism as the dominant theory of the New Left. Fourth, the chapter will give attention to the debates within the New Left by the end of the 1970s. Being stalled after years of surge, difficulties were discussed by Leftists funneling into terms like a “Crisis of Marxism.” The concluding section will summarize the arguments of this chapter and provide a brief outlook on today’s debates.

238  D. BEBNOWSKI

A Journalistic Left: The New Left and Its Periodicals Starting in the second half of the 1950s new and innovative journals were founded in a number of countries. In 1956 the French journal Arguments was founded by a group of dissident members of the French Communist Party. Most of them had ties with the Résistance during World War II and were already well-known intellectuals, such as Edgar Morin, Roland Barthes, or Henri Lefebvre.5 Following an occupational stint of its contributor Jean Bollack in West Berlin, three years later it would have built ties with the German journal Das Argument. Although the names of the journals were strikingly similar, the German name Das Argument derived from a leaflet founded by the anti-nuclear activist Ulrike Meinhof, who later turned to be a terrorist in West Germany’s Red Army Faction (RAF).6 In Great Britain the formation of journals followed a similar pattern. In the spring of 1957 two journals, The New Reasoner, its editorial board consisting of Communist Party members E. P. Thompson and John Saville, and Universities & Left Review were established. In contrast to the Reasoner, whose editors were born in the 1920s, the latter periodical was mainly centered around a younger generation of left activists on the verge of entering academic or intellectual careers such as Stuart Hall (born 1932) or Charles Taylor (born 1931). However, in 1960 both British journals merged into the iconic New Left Review (NLR), whose name stood for peers and intellectual program alike. Keeping in mind the difficulties in tracing the roots of certain names or concepts historically it seems very likely that the locus for the term New Left lay in 1950s’ France. More specifically, the New Left at first seems to have been a direct adaption of the French nouvelle gauche, circulating around the French journal France Observateur, which in 1964 changed its name into Nouvel Observateur, in the United Kingdom. 5 G. Dellannoi (1984) ‘Arguments, 1956–1962. Ou la Parenthèse de L’Ouverture’, Revue Française de Science Politique 34, 1, 127–45; M. Poster (1975) Existential Marxism in Postwar France. From Sartre to Althusser (Princeton: Princeton University Press); and R. Rieffel (1993) Le Tribu des Clercs. Les Intellectuels sous la Ve République 1958–1990 (Paris: Calmann-Levy). 6 K. Lehto-Bleckert (2010) Ulrike Meinhof 1934–1976: ihr Weg zur Terroristin (Marburg: Tectum) p. 93; J. Dittfurth (2010) Ulrike Meinhof. Die Biographie (Berlin: Ullstein), p. 114; B. Röhl (2007) So macht Kommunismus Spass! Ulrike Meinhof, Klaus Rainer Röhl und die Akte Konkret (Hamburg: Europäische Verlagsanstalt), p. 199.

10  DISPERSION AND SYNCHRONIZATION: SURGE AND CRISES … 

239

Equally likely the dispersion of the concept in the United Kingdom was due to the involvement of the journal’s founder Claude Bourdet in the 1956-founded International Society for Socialist Studies (ISSS). Under the auspices of Oxford-based historian and Labor politician G. D. H. Cole this group was designed to bring leftist intellectuals together in debate.7 It is interesting that the term was called into existence by political intellectuals struggling with their own position on the left. Neither Soviet-style communist nor Western social democratic parties were any longer able to gain a foothold among the younger generation of intellectuals. Thus they set out to reform socialist thought and herewith inspire the student movement of the late 1960s. Although these sentiments were felt in Germany as well, its New Left differed from the paths of development in France and the United Kingdom. Due to the political persecution of socialists in Germany during the Nazi dictatorship, leftist traditions were ruptured almost completely. This was amplified by the division of Germany, which had divided the remaining parts of socialist political culture. In West Germany a staunch anti-communism became one of the central characteristics of political culture, which found expression in the fact that in 1956 the Communist Party of (West) Germany (KPD) was banned. Broadly speaking all these factors merged into one main distinguishing factor between West Germany and the cases of the United Kingdom and France. The intergenerational connection between actors experiencing World War II and a postwar-socialized youth central for the British as well as French left, which was best embodied in the case of the NLR, was largely absent in Germany. Virtually all journals that could be ascribed to the New Left had their footing in the generation born after 1930.

1956: International Meeting Points of National New Left Cultures Nonetheless, it can be argued that the New Left over time developed a common base resting in its theoretical innovations to Marxist thought. Before we start with this intellectual history though, it is important to stress the political points of convergence between the different New Lefts that formed in different states. During the 1950s a greater realignment of the left took place internationally. In all of this a set of common 7 S. Hall (2010) ‘Life and Times of the First New Left’, New Left Review 61, 177–96, at p. 180; C. Jünke (2014) Streifzüge durch das rote 20. Jahrhundert (Hamburg: Laika).

240  D. BEBNOWSKI

features was observable, which crystallized in 1956. Even though a New Left was emerging in many European countries, France and Great Britain might be presented as ideal types sharing the central characteristics in question. This is also because developments in both countries had a higher influence on their surroundings due to the fact that considerably more people abroad were able to understand English and/or French. Reminiscent of the early beginnings of the New Left Stuart Hall stated “The ‘first’ New Left was born in 1956, a conjuncture—not just a year—bounded up on one side by the suppression of the Hungarian Revolution by Soviet tanks and on the other by the British and French invasion of the Suez Canal zone.”8 As much as this is the case, pointing toward theoretical developments in an international comparison, a third cause needs to be highlighted here. It was the struggle of young people and (leftist) intellectuals against nuclear armament that was central to forming a progressive political movement. (1)  After the historic speech of the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), Nikita Khrushchev, at the CPSU’s 20th Congress in May 1956, a period of reforms began in the periphery of the Soviet Union. Khrushchev’s aim to scale back on a doctrinaire party rule was welcomed greatly in Poland and Hungary. In both countries workers’ councils were formed that demanded a democratization of communist regimes. The Soviet army quite mercilessly suppressed the movement resulting in many casualties. Maybe these events proved to be more influential on the reorientation of communist intellectuals than any other during this year overdetermined with conflict. The New Reasoner, for example, intentionally wanted to stay with the Communist Party of Great Britain but felt no longer able after the conflicts.9 The developments around the French journal Arguments were similar. In 1957 the journal devoted articles to the suppressed revolution in Hungary and explained workers’ councils using the Hungarian and Polish cases.10

8 A.

Hall (2010) ‘First New Left’, p. 177. Thompson (2010) Pessimism of the Intellect? A History of the New Left Review (London: Merlin), p. 3. 10 See P. Broué and F. Fejtö (1957) ‘La revolution Hongroise’, Arguments 4, 21–29. 9 D.

10  DISPERSION AND SYNCHRONIZATION: SURGE AND CRISES … 

241

(2) With their political ties to party communism weakened the editors now got engaged in political struggles that until then were resting beneath the surface. One of the main influences appearing on their mental political landscapes now was the colonial question. It is no surprise that these topics gained traction in France and Great Britain alike. In 1956 both countries joined forces with Israel in a military endeavor to block the Suez Canal, to prevent Egyptian president Nasser’s attempt to socialize the operating company of the canal. Moreover, Great Britain got involved in another conflict in its former colony Cyprus. In no way though were these enterprises comparable with the conflict France faced in its North African colony Algeria. The calls for independence in Algeria resulted in an 8-year-long asymmetrical war between France and the Algerian socialist militants of the Front de Libération Nationale. It was during this period that the notion of a “Third World” evolved thereby influencing actors on the left greatly. It can be argued that the emergence of a new radical left in France after World War II was deeply interwoven with the political discovery of the Third World. Imaginations of a Third World as a coherent entity became plausible due to a triad consisting of gaping inequality in modernized capitalism, the dynamics of the Cold War, and the process of decolonization. Hence it was no coincidence that the radical left developed simultaneously with the notion of the Third World: “Both were mutually constitutive.”11 Resonances of the French–Algerian war in the West German New Left were strong.12 Members of the Argument Club, which was the political base of the German journal, organized a traveling exhibition on the war between France and Algeria in 1959. Only a few months later the impact of the Algerian question was directly visible in Das Argument in 1960. Until that time the publication 11 C. Kalter (2008) ‘“La Monde va de l’avant. Et vous êtes en marge.” Dekolonialisierung, Dezentrierung des Westens und Entdeckung der ‘Dritten Welt’ in der radikalen Linken in Frankreich in den 1960er Jahren’, Archiv für Sozialgeschichte 48, 99–132, at p. 105. 12 For an overview see C. Leggewie (1984) ‘Kofferträger. Das Algerien—Projekt in den 50er und 60er Jahren und die Ursprünge “des Internationalismus” in der Bundesrepublik’, Politische Vierteljahreshefte 25, 2, 169–187.

242  D. BEBNOWSKI

had not been much more than a political leaflet, now it turned into a journal. The first topic in the new design was Algeria. Introducing the issue, socialist theologian Helmut Gollwitzer explained the relevance of the Algerian events for Germany. The cleric argued for an involvement of German intellectuals in the French–Algerian war, in the process connecting the war in Algeria with the experience of Germany under Nazi rule. Gollwitzer stated that Germans due to their experiences with Nazism now faced an especially strong moral obligation not to remain silent. “This time … we do not want to become complicit again.”13 Two issues later another article of French writer Françoise Sagan portrayed the case of the Algerian freedom fighter Djamila Bouhired who was incarcerated and tortured during interrogation by the French military.14 After a pause the strand of colonial topics was later given more attention again. Beginning in 1965 Das Argument started to publish a series on “Problems of developing countries.” Due to the unfolding of the war in Vietnam its emphasis rested on the years 1965–1966 thereby adding to the global appearance of the evolving student movement. (3) Even if the criticism of party communism and issues on the Third World were very influential, the New Left would hardly have formed as a visible political movement without its opposition to nuclear armament. On the colonial question the West German New Left were influenced by their French counterparts first and foremost. The British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) proved to be a role model for German anti-­militaristic activism. Indeed we should not underestimate the influence of anti-war and anti-nuclear sentiment in the formation of the New Left. The CND, established in 1957, and its West German counterpart, the Campaign for Democracy and Disarmament, were mass movements that politicized a great number of young people. Here in their main political expression, the Easter March movement (huge demonstrations against the stationing of nuclear arms), they were able to get into contact with different political actors. In West Germany it is safe to say that the impact of

13 H. 14 F.

Gollwitzer (1960) ‘Was können wir tun?’, Das Argument, 16, 2, 141. Sagan (1960) ‘Die Folterung der Algerierin Djamila Bouhired’, Das Argument, 17.

10  DISPERSION AND SYNCHRONIZATION: SURGE AND CRISES … 

243

the radical student left during the 1960s would have been considerably smaller without these political forerunners.15 It was the anti-nuclear campaigns that laid the organizational foundation for the extra-parliamentary opposition of the years around 1968 because they provided a common cause that was able to tie different actors, such as unions, students, and dissident party members of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), together. Drawing on his impressions of the CND in 1959 E. P. Thompson sympathized with the young generation. The dissident communist argued that the young already possessed a critical political consciousness because their schooling included knowledge about Hiroshima and Nazi death camps.16 Thompson placed the postwar generation right in the crevice opening up between humanist aspirations und capitalist status quo in Western societies. “But at the same time, confronted with the idiocies of the Cold War and the facts of power within Western ‘overdeveloped societies’, a taut radical temper is arising among the post-war generation of socialists and intellectuals in the West. In the exchange between the two a common language is being discovered. (…) They are socialist theorists who distrust the seductive symmetry of socialist theory, and revolutionaries who are on the guard against the dogmatic excesses and the power drives of professional revolutionary.”17

Existentialist Beginnings: Das Argument and the Philosophy of Guenther Anders But what was the content of the New Left’s theorizing? Here I will argue that the very situation described above gave rise to the ideas the New Left employed in the years to follow. Morally charged due to the conflicts developing in the Third World and lacking a political base the intellectuals shifted their theoretical attention to the individual. The main 15 K. A. Otto (1977) Vom Ostermarsch zur APO. Geschichte der außerparlamentarischen Opposition in der Bundesrepublik 1960–1970 (Frankfurt and New York: Campus); D. Bebnowski (2014) ‘Die Kampagne vor dem Dogma. Die Ostermärsche und das Jahr 1964’ in R. Lorenz and F. Walter (eds.) 1964—Das Jahr, mit dem “68” begann (Bielefeld: transcript), pp. 259–74. 16 E. P. Thompson (1959) ‘The New Left’, The Reasoner, 9, 1–17, at p. 1. 17 E. P. Thompson (1959) ‘New Left’, p. 10.

244  D. BEBNOWSKI

strands of thought in the early New Left did not seek to employ a new mass base for political action, but rather wanted to develop an understanding of the condition humans were facing in modern (capitalist) society. For the scope of this chapter it is sufficient to focus on two main characteristics visible in the thought of the postwar New Left. The first is the influence of existentialist theory, and the second, in close connection with this precursor, are the ideas of alienation in modern society. The unfolding of these lines of thought in the German case are best demonstrated in Das Argument. As stated above the journal started out as a political leaflet in 1959 and shortly thereafter developed into a journal with academic and intellectual aspirations. In this regard it is important to know that the group from which Das Argument emerged was the Student Group against Nuclear Death at the Free University of Berlin. Thus it is clear that the students involved with the journal were strongly opposed to nuclear armament and very prone to engage in anti-nuclear political activism. It comes as no surprise that Das Argument advertised the Easter March movement from 1961 on and included statements of intellectuals engaged in the fight against nuclear arms internationally. Among them were Nobel laureate Linus Pauling and Bertrand Russel, who was a central figure in the CND movement in Britain.18 It is difficult to trace the origins responsible for an existentialist tone in Das Argument. All the more so since existentialism was one of the main traits of postwar intellectual debate. The French existentialists in particular were rising stars in intellectual life in Europe. Most important among them was Jean Paul Sartre, who also gained great influence due to his writings on the Third World. The Frenchman was one of the main intellectual influences on the thought of Das Argument’s editor in chief, Wolfgang Fritz Haug. His doctoral dissertation, which was finished in 1965, focused on Sartre. Another person with noticeable intellectual influence in the journal was Assistant Professor Margherita von Brentano, who contributed considerably to the journal’s development during its first years. Brentano however was deeply influenced by the thought of German existentialist Martin Heidegger. Her dissertation would have been supervised by him had he not been banned from teaching at universities because of his relationship with Nazism. Also in Das Argument’s French counterpart Arguments the influence of 18 B.

Russel (1959) ‘Vernunft und Atomkrieg’, Das Argument, 5, 1–4.

10  DISPERSION AND SYNCHRONIZATION: SURGE AND CRISES … 

245

existentialism was starkly visible. Aside from Sartre, Arguments can be regarded as the second point of a conjuncture of Marxism and existentialism in postwar France.19 The main figures responsible for the intellectual outline of the French journal, such as Pierre Fougeyrollas or Kostas Axelos, were inspired by Heidegger as well, thereby forging a unique brand of Marxism and existentialism.20 The main topic influencing this line of thought was Heidegger’s idea that humankind “was faced with a crisis due to the technification of his existence that traditional philosophy could not clarify.”21 This “thrownness” (Geworfenheit) of humans into society always bore a certain alienating tendency. German philosopher Hans Jonas stated that this recurring feature of existentialism rooted in a sharp dualistic separation of the world was key for understanding the Zeitgeist of the 1950s and 1960s.22 This general openness for the intellectual enterprise of existentialist thought was best exemplified by the Austrian philosopher Guenther Anders, who was the main source for engaging in an existentialistically toned discussion of society. It was Anders who became the prime intellectual in the early stages of Das Argument. The Viennese claimed this role because of his radical interpretation of the human fate in the age of the atomic bomb. Being one of Heidegger’s critical scholars it is easy to see the influence of the German existentialist philosopher in Anders’ work. Heidegger argued that humans were always inextricably put (Gestell or gestellt-sein) into the very technology they themselves invented and could not escape it so that being put into technology became the human condition.23 Anders adopted this idea in his own reasoning and coined it as negative anthropology. The focal question for an interpretation of society was “what has technology made of us and what will it turn us into before we will have any turnout from technology. (…) 19 M.

Poster (1975) Existential Marxism. Elden (2004) ‘Kostas Axelos and the World of the Arguments Circle’ in J. Bourg (ed.) After the Deluge. New Perspectives on the Intellectual and Cultural History of Postwar France (Oxford: Lexington Books), pp. 125–48; M. Poster (1975) Existential Marxism, p. 222. 21 M. Poster (1975) Existential Marxism, pp. 229–30. 22 H. Jonas (1963) Zwischen Nichts und Ewigkeit. Drei Aufsätze (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), p. 11. 23 M. Heidegger (1994) Gesamtausgabe. Bremer und Freiburger Vorträge (Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann), p. 24. 20 S.

246  D. BEBNOWSKI

[N]ow technology is our fate.”24 Anders conceptualized a fatal switch in the relation of technology and humanity. Since technology was no longer controllable it itself gained control over humanity. All this was especially the case in the nuclear age. Starting with Hiroshima Anders proclaimed a new era that he termed “end of times” (Endzeit). Since it was possible to annihilate the entire human population, humanity entered a stage in time that was confronting it with drastically altered conditions. The atomic bomb was to shape human life completely because of its potential to destroy all life on the planet. Drawing on this thought Anders claimed that the bomb was a total abstraction that could not be classified. This was due to the fact that the use of the bomb would destroy humanity and herewith the entire frame of reference in which the bomb itself could make sense.25 Anders’ thought gained traction among the young intellectuals because he was combining his thoughts with a call for political involvement. Acceptance of the bomb was to accept it, hence it was a moral obligation to protest against it.26 But from the early theorists of the New Left it was not only Anders whose thoughts could be connected with existentialist ideas. Herbert Marcuse, arguably the most influential prophet of the radical left of the 1960s on the global scale, was deeply influenced by Heidegger as well. Interestingly enough in Das Argument it was Marcuse who followed Anders as the prime source for intellectual inspiration. His book Eros and Culture gained huge influence among the editors of the periodical thereby leading them toward revolutionary Marxism.27 Aside from him, other members of the soon-to-be iconic Frankfurt School had been all but prophets for attempts at political mass organization. Therefore it is interesting enough that their ideas first and foremost were used as a means for practical advice in everyday life. Adorno’s influential and deeply pessimistic Minima Moralia was read as a manual on how to steer through the thicket of an ideologically twisted society.28 24 G. Anders (1985) Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen: Über die Seele im Zeitalter der zweiten industriellen Revolution, vol. 1 (Munich: C.H. Beck), p. 7. 25 G. Anders (1985) Antiquiertheit, p. 49. 26 T. Metscher (1961) ‘Notizen für eine Ontologie der atomaren Situation’, Das Argument, 18, 10–38, at p. 24. 27 P. Furth and W. F. Haug (1962) ‘Gespräch mit Herbert Marcuse’, Das Argument, 23, 2–11, at p. 2. 28 P. Felsch (2015) Der lange Sommer der Theorie. Geschichte einer Revolte (Munich: C.H. Beck), p. 28.

10  DISPERSION AND SYNCHRONIZATION: SURGE AND CRISES … 

247

Of course we have to be careful not to depict the intellectual history of the West German New Left as a teleological narrative unfolding from just one source. Looking at different actors the same holds true. Obviously, different attempts were made in different intellectual circles. Nonetheless, the case of Das Argument is intriguing because it shows that the New Left in West Germany did not necessarily start out with attempts to transform society with socialist vigor. The body of thought these young intellectuals sympathized with was directed toward an understanding of the role of the individual in the grips of a Cold War nuclear standoff capable of eradicating humankind. Anders’ thought conceptualized this era fittingly. Indeed he might be regarded as “in fact our most salient theorist of omnicide.”29 To be provocative Anders’ ideas might well be better characterized as being moralistic than political. He himself accusingly posed the question of how it would be possible not to be a moralist in these times.30 Notwithstanding this idea, it might be exactly this moralistic tone central to Anders’ thought that resonated with young intellectuals searching for clarity. To put Anders in a broader context again, it is easy to discern similarities between his ideas and those of the Frankfurt School. His claim that technology dictated the very conditions of society without society knowing it resembled the context of delusion (Verblendungszusammenhang) central to the depiction of ideology in capitalism in the Frankfurt School’s Critical Theory. In an article in 1959 an author in Das Argument stressed this connection describing Anders’ ideas using this category.31 Therefore, Anders can be seen as a thinker priming young intellectuals for a critique of ideology that they began to employ in the years to follow. Reducing the source of evil in society to the fundamental antagonism between technology and society, Anders himself lay the grounds for a dualism that was later to be found in Marxism. From here on the West German New Left was primed to turn toward Marxist thought. 29 J. Dawsey (2016) ‘After Hiroshima: Günther Anders and the History of Anti-Nuclear Critique’ in M Grant and B. Ziemann (eds.) Understanding the Imaginary War. Culture, Thought and Nuclear Conflict, 1945–90 (Manchester: Manchester University Press), pp. 140–64, at p. 141. 30 M. Greffrath (2011) ‘Zorn der Vernunft’, ZEIT-Online, http://www.zeit. de/2011/21/Anti-Atomkraft-Avantgarde/komplettansicht, date accessed 20 August 2017. 31 E. Kramm (1959) ‘Eine “empfindsame reise” nach Hiroshima. Zum HiroshimaTagebuch von Günther Anders’, Das Argument, 11, 1–6, at p. 1.

248  D. BEBNOWSKI

Debating Crisis at the End of the 1970s It is obviously a big break to jump forward in time 20 years from these early beginnings of the West German New Left. Necessarily, central features and paths of developments have to be left out, thereby putting the argument of this chapter on only a loose footing. However, if the debate in the periodicals of the German New Left in the second half of the 1970s underlines one thing it is the wish to find common ground again that is noticeable. To put it in the terms of this chapter’s title: after a period of political dispersion the wish to synchronize action again could be witnessed. In Germany the discussion about the causes of a crisis of the left oscillated between international and national reasons. Whereas the international debate was able to deliver the catchwords under which the discussion was subsumed, it would be incorrect not to take the national context into consideration. Regarding intellectual history on an international scale, a debate concerning Marxism as the then hallmark theory of the New Left unfolded in the second half of the 1970s. Now the New Left debated whether Marxism itself had slipped into crisis. The French Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser instigated a broad discussion among Western European Marxists in the fall of 1977. At a conference of Eurocommunists in Venice he argued that the left was facing a crisis of Marxism. The twist of his argument was an anticipation of productive impulses for the left due to this crisis. Potentially, they could result in a revitalization of the left, Althusser reasoned. According to him this goal could be reached by stepping aside from outdated convictions and unearth the useful elements of Marxism only.32 In Germany his ideas spurred a debate in different journals on the left. In 1978 Althusser’s intervention formed the core piece of the journal Die Alternative. In the same year the publishing house VSA published The Crisis of Marxism. One of the earliest German publishers of Althusser’s works, Merve Verlag, even changed the name of their book series from International Marxist Debate to International Merve Discourse. Das Argument and another West Berlin–based journal, PROKLA, chimed in with the crisis of Marxism. Both journals started open debates over cleavages on the left and connected these with the 32 L. Althusser (1978) ‘Endlich befreit sich etwas Lebendiges aus und in der Krise des Marxismus’, Die Alternative, 199, 66–73, at p. 66.

10  DISPERSION AND SYNCHRONIZATION: SURGE AND CRISES … 

249

role of Marxist thought. Das Argument started a series of discussions on socialism thereby positioning itself as a new platform to reunite the fragmented German left. PROKLA undertook a rather drastic change: it was at this time that it abbreviated its name Probleme des Klassenkampfes (“Problems of Class Struggle”) to PROKLA. One year earlier, Perry Anderson, then editor in chief of the NLR, also made the case for a renovation of Marxist thought. In his book Considerations on Western Marxism he set out to dethrone some of the thinkers who had risen to admiration among critical intellectuals during the years before. The historian distinguished the so-called Classical Tradition from diverse groups of Western Marxists. One group was centered on thinkers from the Second International like Rosa Luxemburg, W. I. Lenin, or Karl Kautsky. A second group assembled younger intellectual luminaries from the Frankfurt School or the vast cosmos of French intellectual socialism. Most of the thinkers in question, such as Adorno, Horkheimer, or Althusser, had had a great impact on the intellectual formation of young intellectuals, which comprised the main group of the New Left. Anderson’s main thesis and the very argument for distinguishing between both groups was that the Western Marxists, albeit offering innovations in Marxist thought, showed considerable deficiencies in the realm of politics. Thus in a moment when the New Left seemed to be politically stalled again after years of surge, Anderson tried to revoke faith in Marxism by arguing for Trotskyism with an addition of Antonio Gramsci to reinvigorate the left.33 Another look at German periodicals reveals that it was not necessarily Marxism that was in crisis. The year in which Anderson’s classic was published Bernhard Blanke, a former core member of the editorial board of Das Argument, pictured the German left in crisis. The left had become sectarian. Instead of analyzing the situation, their fellow agents were in, they imported theory from foreign countries. Hoping for international connections the German left tended toward mere identification thereby dodging political differences and glossing over theoretical cleavages.34 The big impact of Althusser’s reasoning on the crisis of Marxism fits this pattern as does an all too easy adaptation of Anderson’s ideas. 33 P. Anderson (1976) Considerations on Western Marxism (London and New York: Verso), p. 95. 34 B. Blanke (1976) ‘Kritik und Selbstkritik. Zu Inhalt und Stil der innerlinken Auseinandersetzungen nicht nur in einer Phase der Stagnation’, PROKLA, 23, 3–15, at p. 3.

250  D. BEBNOWSKI

Blanke’s controversial claim best shows the dilemma the New Left somewhat inevitably had navigated into. Obviously, the fight for common causes had to take place under locally specific circumstances. This was not solely due to Marxism, but Marxism certainly added to this tendency. Analyzing society in material terms while aspiring to do so with utmost specificity led inevitably to differences between the national cultures of the New Left rising to the fore. Appeals to leftist identity were hardly able to gloss over these tendencies. As a result of different strands of development, albeit claiming a common philosophy, the New Lefts differed much more from one another than their common name implies. Reviewing Blanke’s arguments it is interesting that he analyzed the shortcomings of the German New Left largely without making generalizations that went beyond the political context of Germany’s New Left. This shows that topics, such as ecology or feminism, calling Marxist thought into question did not necessarily have to be placed at the center of the debate. The same applies to the surge in neoliberalism and the preceding crisis of Keynesian approaches. Hence the reasons for the crisis of the Left had to be found in the German left itself. Indeed an extensive review of the German edition of Perry Anderson’s book by Wolfgang Fritz Haug in Das Argument hinted at one reason for the unique development of the left. Haug largely accepted Anderson’s description of Western Marxism as showing central characteristics of theory formation in the journal. Furthermore, he made the point that the unique history of the German New Left was bereft of connections with the Old Left due to national socialism. Trying to come to terms with this past the West German New Left developed differently from its European counterparts. These peculiar starting points led to a tendency for provincial theory formation and hence one of Anderson’s main critiques of Western Marxism. Haug writes: “So provinciality, which Anderson presents as a factor of his ‘western Marxism’, certainly circumscribes an all-surrounding phenomenon here with us.”35 In a footnote Haug deliberated on the causes of this provinciality: “Over the course of two decades this journal devoted itself to the unfolding of a national realm of discourse, aspiring to draw an entire generation into it. A theoretical culture, which discussed particular problems and ‘disciplines’ was to be

35 W. F. Haug (1978) ‘Westlicher Marxismus? Kritik eines notwendigen Versuchs, die marxistische Theorie zu historisieren’, Das Argument, 109, 484–502, at p. 494.

10  DISPERSION AND SYNCHRONIZATION: SURGE AND CRISES … 

251

promoted. Fashionable theoretical trends did not play a big part in this. The price we paid for this endeavor was a certain provinciality.”36 Describing provinciality in different terms reveals the dilemma the West German New Left had steered into. Provinciality implies boundedness to certain locations that conversely imply particular convictions. Thus provinciality can be treated as a proxy for cutting oneself off from general trends. So Haug’s considerations showed that the specific circumstances under which the West German New Left developed furthered tendencies of encapsulating itself. Herein exactly lay the reasons Althusser’s claim of a productive crisis of Marxism was welcomed so greatly by different factions of the West German New Left. Indeed, debates in different journals in the 1970s were more or less restricted to debating about the particular roles that activists and journals played during the preceding years. It is interesting to note here that the commonly viewed heyday of the West German New Left was 1968. Much as Débray stated, 1968 marked the beginning of a crisis. This was due to several different developments, but mainly to the great number of activists the student movement attracted without channeling them toward feasible political goals. Hence a period of reorientation started in which the novelty of the New Left’s open approach to politics was given up in favor of either different strands of doctrinaire Marxism or non-factionary leftism. During this process the journals adopted stands as well. Das Argument, for example, did not distance itself from the Soviet intervention in Prague in May 1968 and thus was seen as a journal sympathizing with the Soviet Union and the GDR.37 PROKLA was founded as a counterpunch to the redoctrinization of the left to promote an open intellectual debate grounded on Marxist insight in 1971. The tensions between the different strands of the left could clearly be seen in many publications by the end of the 1970s. Pessimism was gaining the upper hand now. Aside from terrorism undertaken by the West German RAF, 1977 was the year in which a great deal of reorientation took place. The journal Das Kursbuch, which like Das Argument and PROKLA was also published in West Berlin, debated on the New Left. Author Klaus Hartung criticized the dogmatization of the left

36 W.

F. Haug (1978) ‘Westlicher Marxismus’, p. 501, footnote 8. G. Anders, W. F. Haug, and F. Tomberg (1968) ‘Editorial’, Das Argument, 48, 260–65. 37 See

252  D. BEBNOWSKI

political scene, which for him was accompanied by theoretical erosion.38 Otto Kallscheuer a young philosopher born in 1949 stated that even the undogmatic left adhered to a rather dogmatic Marxism, and lacked leeway for independent thought.39 In PROKLA in 1979 philosopher Frieder Otto Wolf recurred to Louis Althusser’s idea of a crisis of Marxism. He stated that the attempt to conceive different struggles together outside the “fortress of Marxism” (Althusser) in which non-Marxists are regarded as comrades implies a “freeing effect of the crisis of Marxism!”40 By the end of the 1970s the New Left had to find new approaches to debate politics and society.

Conclusion This chapter’s aim was to show that the intellectual New Left was an internationally diverse phenomenon grounded in different traditions, embedded in particular histories, and developing under different circumstances. It is important to show these peculiarities between different cultures of the New Left to avoid a simplistic treatment of it as an entity. However certain shared characteristics may be observable in a cross-country comparison, it is very important to keep in mind the situation of young leftist intellectuals in Germany during the 1950s. Bereft of ties to older socialists due to the national socialist dictatorship and facing strong anti-communist sentiment the New Left here developed somewhat isolated as a largely intellectual phenomenon. Ironically, being cut off generationally and to some extent internationally added to the diffusion of the movement by the end of the 1970s. Obviously, this general outline of broad historic developments of the New Left needs further investigation. Nonetheless, this line of reasoning is able to call certain common beliefs about the New Left into question. First and foremost, it shows the need to look out for national peculiarities. Second and resulting from this, it is able to present developments within the New Left in smaller frames of reference thereby making the case for different New Left cultures. Third and stemming from these 38 K. Hartung (1977) ‘Versuch, die Krise der antiautoritären Bewegung wieder zur Sprache zu bringen’, Das Kursbuch, 48, 14–43. 39 O. Kallscheuer (1977) ‘Das “System des Marxismus” ist ein Phantom. Argumente für einen theoretischen Pluralismus der Linken’, Das Kursbuch, 48, 59–74, at p. 66. 40 F. O. Wolf (1979) ‘Auflösung und Erneuerung des Marxismus’, PROKLA, 36, 25–34, at p. 34.

10  DISPERSION AND SYNCHRONIZATION: SURGE AND CRISES … 

253

considerations, we can recur to the title of this chapter. Most importantly then, the New Left seems far less like a closed movement, interwoven by shared beliefs, intellectual convictions, and theoretical assumptions. Rather, the New Left should be treated as a diverse phenomenon that was synchronized at different points in time followed by periods of recurring dispersion. From this perspective the histories of New Left cultures could lead to unexpected discoveries and shed light on points of departure still resting in the shadows of commonly held convictions. Therefore, one aim of this chapter has been to show that existentialist ideas were able to gain a foothold among young intellectuals during the formative period of the New Left. The formative period started with Marxism, which is largely unchallenged as the common denominator of the New Left in intellectual terms. However, Marxism is only one of several theoretical traits that were employed by the young intellectuals. Although Marxist thought remains one of the main intellectual sources of inspiration for leftism, Marxism in the New Left could also be pictured as having been an episode followed by different intellectual systems such as poststructuralism. Thus an intellectual history of the theories employed in the different New Left cultures could be regarded as a unique and important field of inquiry in the history of the New Left fitting with the idea of synchronization and dispersion presented in this chapter. Lastly, a focus on this scheme looking for differences and recurring convergences of the New Left would imply that the life cycle of socialism is not over yet.

References Althusser, L. (1978) ‘Endlich befreit sich etwas Lebendiges aus und in der Krise des Marxismus’, Die Alternative, 199, 66–73. Anders, G., Haug, W. F. and Tomberg, F. (1968) ‘Editorial’, Das Argument, 48, 260–65. Anderson, P. (1976) Considerations on Western Marxism (London and New York: Verso). Andres, G. (1985) Die Antequiertheit des Menschen: Über die Seele im Zeitalter der zweiten industriellen Revolution, vol. 1 (Munich: C.H. Beck). Bebnowski, D. (2014) ‘Die Kampagne vor dem Dogma: Die Ostermärsche und das Jahr 1964’ in R. Lorenz and F. Walter (eds.) 1964: Das Jahr, mit dem “68” begann (Bielefeld: transcript), pp. 259–74.

254  D. BEBNOWSKI Blanke, B. (1976) ‘Kritik und Selbstkritik: Zu Inhalt und Stil der innerlinken Auseinandersetzungen nicht nur in einer Phase der Stagnation’, PROKLA, 23, 3–15. Broué, P. and Fejtö, F. (1957) ‘La revolution Hongroise’, Arguments, 4, 21–29. Dawsey, J. (2016) ‘After Hiroshime: Günther Anders and the History of AntiNuclear Critique’ in M. Grant and B. Ziemann (eds.) Understanding the Imaginary War: Culture, Thought and Nuclear Conflict, 1945–90 (Manchester: Manchester University Press), pp. 140–64. Débray, R. (2007) ‘Socialism: A Life-Cycle’, New Left Review, 46, 5–28. Dellannoi, G. (1984) ‘Arguments, 1956–1962: Ou la Parenthèse de L’Ouverture’, Revue Française de Science Politique, 34, 1, 127–45. Elden, S. (2004) ‘Kostas Axelos and the World of the Arguments Circle’ in J. Bourg (ed.) After the Deluge: New Perspectives on the Intellectual and Cultural History of Postwar France (Oxford: Lexington Books), pp. 125–48. Felsch, P. (2015) Der lange Sommer der Theorie: Geschichte einer Revolte (Munich: C.H. Beck). Furth, P. and Haugg, W. F. (1962) ‘Gespräch mit Herbert Marcuse’, Das Argument, 23, 2–11. Gollwitzer, H. (1960) ‘Was können wir tun?’, Das Argument, 16, 2, 141. Greffrath, M. (2011) ‘Zorn der Vernunft’, ZEIT-Online, http://www.zeit. de/2011/21/Anti-Atomkraft-Avantgarde/komplettansicht, date accessed 20 August 2017. Grunewald, M. and Bock, H.-M. (2002) ‘Zeitschriften als Spiegel intellektueller Milieus: Vorbemerkungen zur Analyse eines ungeklärten Verhältnisses’ in M. Grunewald and H.-M. Bock (eds.) Das linke Intellektuellenmilieu in Deutschland, seine Presse und seine Netzwerke, 1890–1960 (Berne: Lang), pp. 21–32. Hall, S. (2010) ‘Life and Times of the First New Left’, New Left Review 61, 177–96. Hartung, K. (1977) ‘Versuch die Krise der antiautoritären Bewegung wieder zur Sprache zu bringen’, Das Kursbuch, 48, 14–43. Haug, W. F. (1978) ‘Westlicher Marxismus? Kritik eines notwendigen Versuchs, die marxistische Theorie zu historisieren’, Das Argument, 109, 484–502. Heidegger, M. (1994) Gesamtausgabe: Bremer und Freiburger Vorträge (Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann). Jonas, H. (1963) Zwischen Nichts und Ewigkeit: Drei Aufsätze (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Jünke, C. (2014) Streifzüge durch das rote 20. Jahrhundert (Hamburg: Laika). Kallscheuer, O. (1977) ‘Das “System des Marxismus” ist ein Phantom: Argumente für einen theoretischen Pluralismus der Linken’, Das Kursbuch, 48, 59–74.

10  DISPERSION AND SYNCHRONIZATION: SURGE AND CRISES … 

255

Kalter, C. (2008) ‘“La Monde va de l’avant. Et voues etes en marge.” Dekolonialisierung, Dezentrierung des Westens und Entdeckung der ‘Dritten Welt’ in der radikalen Linken in Frankreich in den 1960er Jahren’, Archiv für Sozialgeschichte, 48, 99–132. Kramm, E. (1959) ‘Eine “empfindsame reise” nach Hiroshima: Zum HiroshimaTagebuch von Günther Andres’, Das Argument, 11, 1–6. Leggewie, C. (1984) ‘Kofferträger: Das Algerien-Projekt in den 50er und 60er Jahren und die Ursprünge “des Internationalismus” in der Bundesrepublik’, Politische Vierteljahreshefte, 25, 2, 169–187. Metscher, T. (1961) ‘Notizen für eine Ontologie der atomaren Situation’, Das Argument, 18, 10–38. Otto, K. A. (1977) Vom Ostermarsch zur APO: Geschichte der außerparlamentarischen Opposition in der Bundesrepublik 1960–1970 (Frankfurt and New York: Campus). Poster, M. (1975) Existential Marxism in Postwar France: From Sartre to Althusser (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Rieffel, R. (1993) Le Tribu des Clercs: Les Intellectuels sous la Ve République 1958– 1990 (Paris: Calmann-Levy). Russel, B. (1959) ‘Vernunft und Atomkrieg’, Das Argument, 5, 1–4. Sagan, F. (1960) ‘Die Folterung der Algerierin Djamila Bouhired’, Das Argument, 17. Thompson, D. (2010) Pessimism of the Intellect? A History of the New Left Review (London: Merlin). Thompson, E. P. (1959) ‘The New Left’, The Reasoner, 9, 1–17. von Saldern, A. (2002) ‘Markt für Marx: Literaturbetrieb und Lesebewegungen in der Bundesrepublik in den Sechziger- und Siebzigerjahren’, Archiv für Sozialgeschichte, 44, 149–80. Wolf, F. O. (1979) ‘Auflösung und Erneuerung des Marxismus’, PROKLA, 36, 25–34.

CHAPTER 11

The Hour of the Gun: Anti-imperialist Struggle as the New Left’s Hope of Salvation in Germany and Italy Petra Terhoeven

The Gun as Revolutionary Icon ‘1968’ has fittingly been described as the long summer of theory’.1 But we fail to do justice to the protest movement, both in terms of its widespread impact and its cultural legacy, if we reduce it solely to the content of texts that were consumed like a ‘narcotic’2 at the time and since then have been thoroughly researched. The canon of New Left readings was only one factor, if also a quite important one, for the fundamental

1 P. Felsch (2015) Der lange Sommer der Theorie. Geschichte einer Revolte 1960–1990 (Munich: C.H. Beck). 2 U. Raulff (2014) Wiedersehen mit den Siebzigern. Die wilden Jahre des Lesens (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta), p. 51.

P. Terhoeven (*)  Seminar für Mittlere und Neuere Geschichte, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2019 S. Berger and C. Cornelissen (eds.), Marxist Historical Cultures and Social Movements during the Cold War, Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03804-5_11

257

258  P. TERHOEVEN

outlook of the revolt, an outlook that was also defined in part by a very particular ‘sound.’3 It’s no coincidence that the ‘red decade’ is considered the last great period of the political song. Stefano Pivato, author of a study on the relationship between politics and song in Italian history, holds that the singing of political songs is one of the most effective ways of empowerment which both publicly demonstrate and perform a shared commitment to a particular ideal—‘un credo politico’ (‘a political creed’).4 Some of the movement’s anthems can actually be interpreted as sung professions of faith that point up not just the emotional dimension of the protests, but also their increasingly recognized ‘religious roots.’5 Pino Masi, singer for the Italian group Lotta Continua (LC, in English: The Struggle Continues), is among the songwriters of the time who quite successfully used a guitar to crusade on behalf of their political beliefs.6 Lotta Continua had begun during the wave of strikes and factory occupations in the ‘hot autumn’ of 1969 as a forum for radical strands of the Italian student movement that, unlike its German counterpart, had successfully—if temporarily—joined ranks with segments of the working class.7 As interpreter of the Maoist-inspired LC anthem ‘Lotta di lunga durata’ (‘A Lengthy Struggle’) and the widely acclaimed ‘Ballata del Pinelli’ (‘Ballad of Pinelli’), Masi became one of the most popular cantautori of the Italian APO.8 Masi also wrote ‘La violenza,’ the infamous apotheosis of violence repeatedly intoned at demonstrations and rallies.9 3 D. Siegfried (2008) Sound der Revolte. Studien zur Kulturrevolution um 1968 (Weinheim: Juventa). 4 S. Pivato (2005) Bella ciao. Canto e politica nella storia d’Italia (Rome and Bari: Editori Laterza), pp. vii, ix. 5 W. Kraushaar (2008) Achtundsechzig. Eine Bilanz (Berlin: Propyläen), pp. 268–85. 6 J. MacPhee (2016) ‘Discs of the Gun. A Trip Through Music and Militancy in Postwar Italy’, Signal: A Journal of International Political Graphics and Culture, 5, n.p.; S. Dessi and G. Pintor (eds.) (1976) Bertelli, Della Mea, Manfredi, Marini, Masi, Pietrangeli: La chitarra e il potere: gli autori della canzone politica contemporanea (Rome: Savelli); and see also Pivato, Bella ciao, pp. 279–307. 7 For the history of Lotta Continua see A. Cazzullo (1998) I ragazzi che volevano fare la rivoluzione. 1968–1978. Storia critica di Lotta continua (Milan: Mondadori). 8 The ballad treats the mysterious death of the anarchist Giuseppe Pinelli, who fell from the Milan police commissioner’s window as a state murder. For a first contemporary attempt to reconstruct the events see, C. Cederna (2004, orig. 1971) Pinelli. Una finestra sulla strage (Milan: Il Saggiatore). 9 P. Masi (n.d.) Le canzoni di Lotta Continua, n.p.

11  THE HOUR OF THE GUN: ANTI-IMPERIALIST STRUGGLE … 

259

‘We sang the songs, including those that called for violence, as a chorus, often one after another, to give ourselves courage and remind ourselves over and over that we were subject to no one and that no one could harm us, including the police and other provocateurs,’ recalls a former LC member.10 In the 1971 song ‘L’ora del fucile’ (‘The Hour of the Gun’), violence is again the decisive tool on the path to salvation which here explicitly includes not just the group but all of humanity—except for the class enemy. If even non-Italians can immediately hum along with the melody, it is because the work was a Pino Masi cover of one of the bestknown protest songs of the American New Left: Barry McGuire’s ‘Eve of Destruction’ from 1965, with six million sales worldwide after its initial ban in parts of the USA.11 This musical indictment of the Vietnam War, exaggerated anti-Communism, nuclear threat, continued racism, and broadly speaking the hypocritical character of US establishment politics was originally assembled from contemporary headlines by guitarist and songwriter Phil F. Sloan. It had conveyed a nihilistic, apocalyptic mood in which the self is helplessly at the mercy of an omnipresent, unrestrained violence. In contrast, Masi’s Italian version stands completely within the tradition of authentically Communist belief in progress. As such, it is an excellent example for a particular kind of transition which has gained an increasing amount of scholarly attention, namely the transformation of cultural phenomena in the process of translation into a different social context. In Peter Burke’s words: ‘[The objects] are first decontextualized and then recontextualized, domesticated or localized. In a word, they are translated.’12 ‘L’ora del fucile’ contains a surprising number of such instances of transfer or translation: from the ‘third world’ to the ‘first,’ from the Old Left to the New, and even from western to eastern Europe. However, it is not the idea of peaceful coexistence that creates these connections—it is the gun. 10 Anna

Totolo, quoted in Cazzullo, Ragazzi, p. 195. later embraced Christianity, and from then on has been seen as the prototypical Christian rock musician. See D. W. Stowe (2011) No Sympathy for the Devil: Christian Pop Music and the Transformation of American Evangelicalism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press), esp. p. 76. 12 P. Burke (2009) ‘Translating Knowledge, Translating Cultures’ in M. North (ed.) Kultureller Austausch. Bilanz und Perspektiven der Frühneuzeitforschung (Cologne: Böhlau), pp. 69–77, here p. 70. 11 McGuire

260  P. TERHOEVEN

‘L’ora del fucile’ is written as a dialogue between comrades, one of whom—despite all the evidence—still seems unconvinced of the internal logic which seems to unite the various sites of contemporary conflict in a globally conceived world. In the view of the speaker, the enemy of humanity is the same everywhere: the US government, Franco’s Spain, Zionists, Portuguese colonial powers in Angola, even the bogus socialists behind the Iron Curtain—all represent the interests of big business. But now, true to the example set by those who vanquished the American ‘napalm civilization’ in Indochina, for all oppressed people the ‘hour of the gun,’ the hour of ‘just violence (‘la giusta violenza’) has come. While the LC logo spells out the group’s name in the form of a raised fist and thus refers back to the people’s anger as the driving force of the historic workers’ movement,13 Masi explicitly invokes the armed struggle of an imaginary community that spans the globe. In doing so, he evokes the logo of OSPAAL, founded in Havana in 1966: In keeping with the Che Guevara slogan to ‘create two, three, many Vietnams!’ on the wordless logo a gun is held out directly to the viewer. The weapon is obviously supposed to save the world, which is seen as a roughly sketched globe in the upper half of the image.14 It was not for nothing that in the Italian scene the saying went, ‘The Viet Cong wins because it shoots’ (‘Il Vietcong vince perché spara’).15 Despite his decidedly modern-sounding way of ‘global thinking,’ Masi interprets complex world events as a whole by using the binary class struggle terminology of Stone Age Marxism. As long as there are padroni, there is no peace, and even Italian barricade builders and factory occupiers are agents of world revolution. However, instead of reproducing the front lines of the Cold War in his political credo, Masi also has Polish workers protesting against their philo-Soviet oppressors with ‘The International’ on their lips and

13 See, for example, Wikipedia (2017) Wikimedia, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/thumb/4/4f/Lotta_Continua.svg/1200px-Lotta_Continua.svg.png, date accessed 24 August 2017. 14 Ospaal (2017) Social Posters, http://www.ospaaal.com/images/logo_ospaaal. jpg, date accessed 24 August 2017); see also R. Frick (2003) Das trikontinentale Solidaritätsplakat (Bern: Comedia), p. 430. 15 Quoted in I. Sommier (2012) ‘La legittimazione della violenza. Ideologie e tattiche della sinistra extraparlamentare’ in S. N. Serneri (ed.) Verso la lotta armata. La politica della violenza nella sinistra radicale degli anni Settanta (Bologna: Il Mulino), pp. 265–84, here p. 270.

11  THE HOUR OF THE GUN: ANTI-IMPERIALIST STRUGGLE … 

261

even has them equating the Polish police with the Gestapo. Thus, the experience of the (Old) Left’s defeat by historical fascism is just as much a part of this undogmatic vulgar Marxism as Lenin or Rosa Luxemburg’s theories of imperialism. ‘L’ora del fucile’ is thereby rooted in a genuinely Marxist political culture which thanks to decolonization had now become populated with new revolutionary subjects. At the same time, with the Vietnam War and the expansion of the Monroe Doctrine in the form of the Kennan Corollary a new bogeyman had emerged whose most reliable witnesses appeared to be the Black Panthers: imperialist and racist North America.16

Anti-imperialism as a Movement of Moral Awakening ‘L’ora del fucile’ is just one of many examples of the internationalist orientation of the European New Left. This orientation was most important for the self-image of its active members. I agree here with Ingo Juchler, the first German researcher to claim that the ‘driving motor’ and ‘actual catalyst’ of the ’68 protests were to be found in their orientation toward the third-world countries.17 In the past, the New Left’s ‘discovery of the third world’ was for the most part either pathologized as a kind of ‘fanciful’ and potentially dangerous ‘love from afar,’ or normalized as a ‘sense of civic duty with a feeling for the world’ and fitted into a liberal framework of justification.18 In contrast, I propose that third-world-oriented anti-imperialism should be seen as a central dogma within a secular system of belief. In doing so, I adopt the approach used by Thomas Kroll to analyze the early postwar ‘Old’ Communist Left in terms of a political 16 On the role of the Black Panthers in the international New Left, see M. L. Clemons and C. E. Jones (1999) ‘Global Solidarity: The Black Panther Party in the International Arena’, New Political Science, 21, 177–203. 17 I. Juchler (1996) Die Studentenbewegungen in den Vereinigten Staaten und der Bundesrepublik Deutschland in den sechziger Jahren. Eine Untersuchung hinsichtlich ihrer Beeinflussung durch Befreiungsbewegungen und -theorien aus der Dritten Welt (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot), pp. 17, 82. 18 Kraushaar, Achtundsechzig, p. 109; H. Knoch (2007) Bürgersinn mit Weltgefühl. Politische Moral und solidarischer Protest in den sechziger und siebziger Jahren (Göttingen: Wallstein); and J. Gomsu (1998) Wohlfeile Fernstenliebe. Literarische und publizistische Annäherungsweisen der westdeutschen Linken an die Dritte Welt (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag).

262  P. TERHOEVEN

religion and apply it to the New Left. Like Kroll, I do not believe that the moral convictions (‘Gesinnungsqualität’) of these Leftists should be dismissed out of hand as either an irrational world view or a ‘form of knowing that is of inferior cognitive quality.’19 But unlike Kroll, whose research focuses on intellectuals in the context of Western European Communist parties and hence on secular ‘churches,’ my own work incorporates aspects of Émile Durkheim’s functionalist theory of religion which I believe do greater justice to the New Left’s character as a movement, but also to the dynamics of historical processes.20 Durkheim’s well-known view is that it is not belief in a divinity or the existence of an institutionalized ecclesia which first and foremost establishes the ‘religious’ character of an interpretive model, but the Manichean division of the world into ‘good’ and ‘evil’ (or ‘sacred’ and ‘profane’). According to his theory of the ‘elementary forms of the religious life,’ social interactions which convey particularly euphoric experiences—including ones that are not explicitly religiously charged, such as political gatherings— can produce ‘collective effervescence’ and thereby ‘religious’ connections between the participants.21 Using the example of the French Revolution cited by Durkheim himself, the American sociologist William H. Sewell has shown that it is precisely in situations and events involving violence that a protest collective may experience a true sense of the value it stands for: As a result of such ‘foundational violence,’ the political goal acquires the status of an absolute and thus ‘holy’ value, while the opposing principle undergoes a negative sanctification.22 Andreas Pettenkofer has noted in addition that the occurrence of ‘effervescence’ is not directly determined by whether violence comes from the community of protesters or is inflicted on it.23 In discursive processing afterward (or in performative copying, at demonstrations, for instance), ‘foundational violence’ in ritualized form is repeatedly called up—a mechanism that strengthens the 19 T. Kroll (2007) Kommunistische Intellektuelle in Westeuropa. Frankreich, Österreich, Italien und Großbritannien im Vergleich (1945–1956) (Cologne: Böhlau), p. 10. 20 É. Durkheim (1984, orig. French 1912) Die elementaren Formen des religiösen Lebens, 2nd ed. (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp). 21 Durkheim, Formen, p. 289ff. 22 W. H. Sewell (1990) ‘Collective Violence and Collective Loyalties in France. Why the French Revolution Made a Difference’ in Politics and Society 18, 527–52. 23 A. Pettenkofer (2010) Radikaler Protest. Zur Soziologischen Theorie politischer Bewegungen (Frankfurt am Main and New York: Campus), p. 242.

11  THE HOUR OF THE GUN: ANTI-IMPERIALIST STRUGGLE … 

263

collective ‘identity’ of the group and thereafter increasingly makes it into what it is. Durkheim himself had already written about ‘sacred contagion’ which tends to generalize religious interpretations and turn them into entire cosmologies.24 The functionalist perspective on religion outlined here enables us to get a better view of the functional mechanisms in a protest environment where, despite little chance of success and sometimes hefty opposition, a protest dynamic could be maintained against all odds. In this environment, the open or secret fascination with violence played an important if elusive role. According to Pettenkofer, the ‘background consensus’ of anti-authoritarian protest in the Federal Republic had a functionally religious character because it remained ‘focused on the figure of absolute evil.’25 It is therefore not surprising that in Italy, but also north of the Alps, the ’68 revolt had a left-wing terrorist epilogue.26 An approach that draws on the sociology of religion also helps explain the virulent attraction in both countries to the idea of wanting to—or indeed, even having to—fight against an ‘absolute evil’ in order to prove one’s own faith. At the same time, we should be careful not to see terrorism simply as the logical consequence of ‘conversion’ to anti-imperialism: The vast majority of ‘believers’ themselves never became violent. And yet, even those who were only moderate converts remained blind to the suffering which terrorist sects caused on their own streets for an astonishingly long time—much as they had turned a blind eye to the crimes of anti-imperialist prophets on the other side of the world. In fact, anti-authoritarians already in the 1960s no longer viewed the Soviet Union as the ‘center of salvation,’ despite what many conservatives at the time automatically assumed. Instead, anti-colonial liberation movements were seen as world saviors, since they breathed new life

24 Durkheim,

Formen, p. 433. Pettenkofer (2009) ‘Radikale Kritik und gründende Gewalt. Eine genealogische Skizze zum “antiautoritären” Protest und seinen Folgen’, in WestEnd. Neue Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung, 6, 166–80, here p. 173. 26 Here, we should not forget that the death toll was far higher in Italy. In Germany, 41 people died as a result of left-wing terrorist attacks between 1970 and 1983, while in Italy it was 179. See D. della Porta (1995) Social Movements, Political Violence and the State (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press), p. 128. In addition, the ‘black terror’ in the south claimed even more victims, costing 199 people their lives between 1969 and 1984. 25 A.

264  P. TERHOEVEN

into the socialist idea which had been ‘betrayed’ or at least damaged by the Soviets, and with Cuba as a base even explicitly made world revolution the order of the day once more.27 Given that almost everywhere, the guerillas had yet to put their ideas about political order into practice, they brought a new dynamism to world politics which ran directly counter to the rigid fronts of the Cold War and forced everyone involved to take a position. Wherever they could prevail, they constructed an alleged socialist paradise which was not contaminated by the horrors of Stalinism. Thanks to the fire of ‘liberating violence’ they had endured, the formerly ‘wretched of the earth’ had instead become ‘new’ and better people. This at any rate was the prophecy European truth seekers eagerly adopted from Frantz Fanon, who despaired over the violence of colonialism.28 As a result, Che Guevara, Ho Chi Minh and Mao Zedong above all others came to be admired as secular saints whose exemplary dedication to the cause seemed to demand a revolutionary absoluteness even in the métropolis. As part of a group united by absolute moral certainties, their European apostles found their own position and political role by keeping alive the utopia of revolution. The religious dimension of the 68er movement can also be seen in its countless schisms and rival sects, and also in the importance of ‘holy’ icons—first and foremost the famous photographic portrait of ‘Che.’ After his ‘martyr’s death’ in the Bolivian jungle, the image of this ‘Christ with a rifle’ (‘Christus mit Knarre,’ Wolf Biermann)—which was distributed to students by the Italian publisher Giangiacomo Feltrinelli and was ubiquitous at their demonstrations— created a special kind of identifying force.29 Marxist social utopia had always suggested that only the revolutionary takeover of capitalist means of production could bring about a humanization of the social world. Guevara had extended this notion with his so-called focus theory, the summation of his experiences from the military conquest of Cuba which he turned into a handbook for revolutionizing the Latin 27 I. Juchler (2006) ‘Trikontinentale und Studentenbewegung. Antiimperialismus als Schibboleth’ in W. Kraushaar (ed.) Die RAF und der linke Terrorismus, vol. 2 (Hamburg: Hamburger Edition), pp. 205–17. 28 On the reception of Fanon, see A. Eckert (2006) ‘Predigt der Gewalt? Betrachtungen zu Frantz Fanons Klassiker der Dekolonisation’, Zeithistorische Studien 3, 169–75. 29 See S. Lahrem (2010) Che Guevara. Leben – Werk – Wirkung (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp).

11  THE HOUR OF THE GUN: ANTI-IMPERIALIST STRUGGLE … 

265

American subcontinent. Its central message was that ‘the people’s forces (…) [could] win a war against a regular army’: ‘You don’t always have to wait until all the conditions for a revolution have been met; the rebellious focus itself can create these conditions.’30 Those who were convinced by this voluntaristic message and yet failed to intervene and help steer the historical process consequently bore some guilt for the suffering in the world. The conversion to neo-Marxism, including that of the New Left, thus had a less of a theoretical basis than a clearly moral one. It originated in the ‘idea that this world cannot remain as it is, that it can become completely different and better, and that it will become so.’31

From Moral Outrage to Religious Certainty For many New Leftists, the ‘religious’ ‘awakening experience’ described above originated in the realization that their countries’ political systems had completely failed when faced with the political but also moral challenge posed by decolonization. The resultant crisis of faith, which included the now largely conformist Old Left, applied at first only to a minority and later became more widespread mainly among the young. In the Federal Republic, it was directly linked to the shock over the Nazi past, which they believed held different lessons than the political mainstream had made out. This shock to old certainties in the wars of decolonization explains in no small measure their openness toward adopting new teachings. The brutality of the French struggle for Algeria and finally the ruthless Vietnam War were decisive touchstones, but conflicts in central Africa and in the Middle East also played an important role. While this process has been researched much more thoroughly for the Federal Republic than for Italy, the standard narrative about the genesis of the West German student movement has yet to be corrected. It is still viewed as part of an international youth protest movement that derived much of its shape from its American role model and its overall direction from the effort to overcome typically German authoritarianism.32 30 Ernesto Che Guevara (1968) Guerilla—Theorie und Methode. Sämtliche Schriften zur Guerillamethode, zur revolutionären Strategie und zur Figur des Guerilleros, ed. H. Kurnitzky (West-Berlin: Wagenbach), p. 16. 31 M. Sperber (1983) All das Vergangene… (Vienna: Europa Verlag), p. 38. 32 An exception: T. Brown (2013) West Germany and the Global Sixties. The Antiauthoritarian Revolt, 1962–1978 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

266  P. TERHOEVEN

In contrast, the role played by agents from ‘third world’ countries in alienating their German counterparts from the very people who claimed to represent them, has largely been concealed until now, as shown by above all Quinn Slobodian.33 And yet, 12,000 students from ‘third world’ countries were already enrolled at West German universities in 1962; by the end of the decade, this number had doubled.34 The birth of tiersmondisme was thus by no means a mere projection of experiences from distant countries. In many cities, the political activities that ‘guests’ developed together with their German counterparts at times faced considerable obstacles by the authorities which were intent on stifling as much as possible the political protests voiced by foreigners on German streets.35 Iranian dissidents in particular clashed with the police repeatedly in the 1960s—a development which culminated in measures taken against the regime critic Bahman Nirumand in the run-up to the West Berlin anti-shah demonstration of June 2, 1967.36 Even the first postwar ‘anti-imperialist’ actions on behalf of the Algerian FLN could be attributed in part to the presence of 4–6000 Algerians in the Federal Republic who looked for help from within the narrow left-wing socialist camp.37 Internally, the fact that the FLN backed a decidedly violent course of action against the colonial power was certainly recognized as a problem. But as the peace activist and later co-founder of the ‘Socialist Bureau’ Klaus Vack recalls with a Biblical metaphor, ‘we in the republic of prosperity couldn’t go there and say that the people there should let themselves be butchered like calves in

33 Q. Slobodian (2012) Foreign Front. Third World Politics in Sixties West Germany (Durham: Duke University Press). Here, I would like to thank Pablo Schmelzer for his many suggestions that have been incorporated in the following remarks. 34 W. Schmidt-Streckenbach (1987) ‘Strukturen des Ausländerstudiums in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland’ in W. Schmidt-Streckenbach and H. F. Illy (eds.) Studenten aus der Dritten Welt in beiden deutschen Staaten (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot), pp. 45–66, here p. 46; H. Pfeiffer (1962) Ausländische Studenten an den wissenschaftlichen Hochschulen in der Bundesrepublik und West-Berlin 1951–1961 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag), p.8f. 35 Slobodian, Front, Ch. 1. See also the earlier work by N. Seibert (2008) Vergessene Proteste. Internationalismus und Antirassismus 1964–1983 (Münster: Unrast). 36 E. Michels (2017) Schahbesuch 1967. Fanal für die Studentenbewegung (Berlin: Ch. Links). 37 C. Leggewie (1984) Kofferträger. Das Algerien-Projekt der Linken im AdenauerDeutschland (Berlin: Rotbuch).

11  THE HOUR OF THE GUN: ANTI-IMPERIALIST STRUGGLE … 

267

a slaughterhouse.’38 The ‘Algeria Project’ was thus rooted less—if at all—in compassion with strangers than in compassion for those close to home, at least as far as the people and groups directly involved in FLN solidarity were concerned. In France for obvious reasons, this was even more the case.39 As a whole, the engagement of Old and New Leftists alike in the Algerian liberation movement was directly intertwined with the ambivalences of a struggle which was trying to reach a clearly legitimate goal by means that—given its foe’s military superiority—included acts of terrorism.40 Meanwhile, during the Algerian War, the question of violence was basically regionalized: The use of violence was deemed legitimate in north-south relations, but not in those between East and West, let alone inside parliamentary democracies of the West—a distinction that became increasingly shaky in the course of the decade. For the Germans involved, solidarity with Algeria was not only a political question but also one of moral conscience which placed them at odds with their home environment. This in turn upgraded it into a test of conscience: The committed saw themselves as ‘different’ and ‘better’ Germans. The release of Volker Schloendorff’s first project ‘Who Cares?’ (‘Wen kümmert’s?’), a short film with Moroccan actors about activities of the French terrorist group ‘Red Hand’ in Germany, was blocked by the authorities—‘out of political consideration for an ally nation whose just war in Algeria it is not for us to criticize,’ the director recalls. ‘Higher praise than this official ban was something I couldn’t have even dreamed of. The otherwise insignificant little film (…) thereby gained unexpected importance.’41 Against the backdrop of German history, now once again in the public eye both in and outside of Germany in the wake of the so-called

38 Quoted in W. Balsen and K. Rössel (1986) Hoch die internationale Solidarität. Zur Geschichte der Dritte Welt-Bewegung in der Bundesrepublik (Cologne: Kölner Volksblatt Verlag), p. 88. 39 C. Kalter (2011) Die Entdeckung der Dritten Welt. Dekolonisierung und neue radikale Linke in Frankreich (Frankfurt am Main: Campus). 40 The FLN did not hesitate to use terror against political rivals even among their countrymen, and the spiraling violence ultimately became out of control. See M. Crenshaw (1995) ‘The Effectiveness of Terrorism in the Algerian War’ in M. Crenshaw (ed.) Terrorism in Context (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press), pp. 473–513. 41 See Volker Schlöndorf (2017) Werke, Wen kümmert’s, http://www.volkerschloendorff.com/werke/wen-kuemmerts/inhalt/, date accessed 30 August 2017; also Leggewie, Kofferträger, p. 81f.

268  P. TERHOEVEN

anti-Semitic smear campaign and the ‘Oberländer Case,’ the committed most likely experienced their solidarity with the oppressed, persecuted, and tortured as a test of both their political will and moral beliefs.42 The outrage German activists felt over news from the FLN of mass executions, torture, forced re-settlement camps and internments in the Département Algérie was transferred directly into the pages of journals which saw themselves as institutions of the new counterculture. Unlike the mass media, where Algerian freedom fighters were described in genuinely racist terms as violence-prone Others of inferior worth, while the dirty war being fought by the French went without comment, Konkret and Sozialistische Politik, the leading media of dissent, took the opposite tack: members of the FLN appeared as ‘sensitive liberation fighters,’ ‘likable human beings and admirable heroes at the same time,’ while the French were called responsible for the ‘renewed outbreak of fascism on the opposite shore of the Mediterranean.’43 The conflation of historical fascism with colonialism which would later continue in the critique of the Vietnam War as a new Holocaust was characteristic of the New Left in other places as well. In Germany, it carried the definite risk of relativizing German crimes, since the narrative could echo tales of victimization and recrimination popular in the early postwar years, when references to real or alleged crimes of the allies had served to divert attention from German guilt. The topic was in any case an argument which the growing leftist opposition could use as a political instrument. Algeria was also ‘the needle that could be used to prick the fossilizing social democracy a bit, and the musical score that could add a few anti-colonial notes to the pathos-filled organ music of the prescribed German-French reconciliation.’44 Not coincidentally, the federal representative of the SDS Michael Schumann stated in his keynote address to the 1961 delegates’ conference that denouncing the Algerian War was among the most important public stands taken by the group in years.45 42 On the post-history of National Socialism, see among others P. Reichel, H. Schmid, and P. Steinbach (2009) Der Nationalsozialismus—die zweite Geschichte. Überwindung, Deutung, Erinnerung (Munich: C. H. Beck). 43 C. Kalter (2007) ‘Das Eigene im Fremden. Der Algerienkrieg und die Anfänge der Neuen Linken in der Bundesrepublik’, Zeitschrift für Geschichte, 55, 142–61, here 151, 156. 44 Leggewie, Kofferträger, p. 9f. 45 See D. Weitbrecht (2012) Aufbruch in die Dritte Welt. Der Internationalismus der Studentenbewegung von 1968 in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht unipress), p. 107.

11  THE HOUR OF THE GUN: ANTI-IMPERIALIST STRUGGLE … 

269

Just as the SPD was on a course of reconciliation with Nazi-tainted fellow Germans, it was willing to support the Algerian cause only in secret.46 A traveling Algerian War exhibit which was organized by the West Berlin SDS together with the city’s Lutheran student congregation and members of the Argument Club and shown at a number of universities since 1960 only deepened the mutual alienation already evident in Social Democrats’ reactions to the SDS exhibit ‘Unreconciled Nazi Justice.’47 As a result, students were excluded from the mother organization, which as of 1959 saw itself as a catch-all people’s party.48 In fact, many Germans thought they were seeing their own country’s past when they peered into the chasm which was opening up between officially supported ‘western values’ and the grave human rights abuses of the French. The resultant feeling of shock is expressed in many texts from the time which employ apocalyptic-sounding rhetoric to excoriate the general indifference of the Federal Republic as well as its Realpolitik. Strongly reminiscent of sermons, almost none of these public statements failed to mention Nazi crimes: frequently as parallels to French actions in the colonial war and hence stripped of their singularity, but more often invoked as a kind of warning to humanity to turn back. ‘The eerily distorted life of the Warsaw ghetto continues. (…) Tens of thousands of young Algerians are in political prisons and concentration camps (a total of 160,000 political prisoners). They could be our brothers. They are our brothers. But we hear nothing about the suffering of our human brothers. (…) It was not in the FAZ. Our public conscience is decayed, spiritually obese, ideologically poisoned, even precisely where it feels it is orderly, pious, clear, correct and self-evident. (…) The “world peace camp” plays aggressive politics, the “free world” has its racist friends in France and South Africa. (…) When will we come down from the realms of noncommittal ideological oratory into reality, where people suffer? When will our lack of concern about the fate of others which also

46 K. Meyer (2015) Die SPD und die NS-Vergangenheit 1945–1990 (Göttingen: Wallstein); T. Scheffler (1995) Die SPD und der Algerienkrieg (1954–1962) (Berlin: Das Arabische Buch). 47 Meyer, SPD, pp. 217–27. See also T. P. Fichter and S. Lönnendonker (2008) Kleine Geschichte des SDS. Der Sozialistische Deutsche Studentenbund von Helmut Schmidt bis Rudi Dutschke (Essen: Klartext), pp. 96–99. 48 Fichter and Lönnendonker, ‘Geschichte’, pp. 111–14.

270  P. TERHOEVEN

seals our own come to an end?’ asked the co-organizer of the Algeria exhibit Reimar Lenz.49 In June of 1961, Hans Magnus Enzensberger took a similar line when he opened the exhibit in Frankfurt with a fiery speech: ‘We are accomplices. Algeria is everywhere, it is also here, like Auschwitz, Hiroshima and Budapest. (…) Who will believe us when we claim to know nothing of the 800,000 dead Algerians? Once before we all together claimed that we knew nothing. We claimed that we knew nothing about six million murdered Jews. At the time we said: it was all kept secret from us, we could do nothing, the dictator was all-powerful. Today we have no all-powerful dictator. We can teach ourselves, we can even help. (…) Help, immediate relief: that is a rule of not just humanity, but self-defense, for it is not only peace and freedom that are inseparable; torture, hunger and war are also inseparable. Either we will eliminate them, or they will eliminate us.’50

Anti-imperialist Missionaries and the Moralization of (Counter)Violence Later on, Enzensberger, who addressed his audience as both accomplices and potential victims of diffusing evil, became the ‘central protagonist of West German debates about liberation movements and international solidarity.’51 Not only did his journal Kursbuch become the most important forum for sharing and circulating key texts from abroad—including Fanon’s ‘On Violence’— on his many trips, he also established personal contacts who would later heavily promote the internationalist orientation of the German student movement. On a 1963 reading tour, he met the opposition literary critic Bahman Nirumand in Tehran and inspired him to write the book Persien—Modell eines Entwicklungslandes oder die Diktatur der freien Welt (translated as Iran, the New Imperialism in Action), which ultimately became ‘a kind of gospel for the student movement.’52 49 R. Lenz (1961) ‘Algerien und wir’, Freies Algerien, 1/2, 5–11. On the exhibit see Leggewie, Kofferträger, pp. 28–30. 50 H. M. Enzensberger (1961) ‘Algerien ist überall’ in Balsen and Rössel (eds.) Solidarität, pp. 72–74. 51 A. Eckert (2016) ‘“Was geht mich denn Vietnam an?” Internationale Solidarität und “Dritte Welt” in der Bundesrepublik’ in A. Schildt (ed.) Von draußen. Ausländische intellektuelle Einflüsse in der Bundesrepublik bis 1990 (Göttingen: Wallstein), pp. 191–210, here p. 201. 52 P. Schneider (2008) Rebellion und Wahn. Mein ’68 (Cologne: Kiepenheuer & Witsch), p. 152.

11  THE HOUR OF THE GUN: ANTI-IMPERIALIST STRUGGLE … 

271

In an afterword, Enzensberger condensed the depressing inventory taken by his friend, who had migrated to Berlin in 1965, into the thesis that the Iranian regime could ‘only be toppled by revolutionary violence.’53 Another friend was the Chilean Gaston Salvatore, who in 1967 collaborated with Rudi Dutschke on the German translation of Che Guevara’s key text ‘Create Two, Three, Many Vietnams,’ and who with Enzensberger’s encouragement wrote his first literary texts in German.54 In his relationship to the ‘third world,’ Enzensberger by his own admission had no interest in ‘confessions,’ placed ‘doubt’ above ‘sentiments’ and viewed ‘reality’ as the sole authority in determining the viability of world views. For Rudi Dutschke, however, in many respects, the opposite was true.55 Unlike Enzensberger, who set out for Cuba in March of 1968 to put the Promised Land of the New Left to a practical test, Dutschke’s always somewhat vague travel plans for the home countries of foreign students he met with regularly in the West Berlin Latin America working group from 1964 never materialized, and probably not just because of the assassination attempt in spring 1968.56 He neither attended the Tricontinental Conference in Havana in January 1968 as planned, nor accompanied his close friend Salvatore to his home country Chile to take part in the armed conflicts there. Instead, Dutschke felt that his real mission was to spread his political profession of faith in the ‘first world,’ a creed that he had feverishly yet systematically cobbled together after leaving the GDR from Marxist texts, primarily from the 1920s and 1930s, 53 Weitbrecht,

Aufbruch, p. 108f. Guevara (1967) Brief an das Exekutivsekretariat von OSPAAL: Schaffen wir zwei, drei, viele Vietnam!—Das Wesen des Partisanenkampfes, G. Salvatore and R. Dutschke (eds. and introd.) (Berlin: Oberbaumpresse), pp. 10–31. The text, rhetorically dripping with blood and sacrifice, ends with the following passage: ‘Our entire campaign is a declaration of war against imperialism and a call for all people to unite against the great enemy of the human race: the United States of North America. It [the enemy] is welcome any—and everywhere that death could surprise us if our battle cry were well received, if another hand reached for our weapons, and if other people were prepared to strike up dirges with machine gun fire and new cries of war and victory’, p. 30f. 55 P. Weiss and H. M. Enzensberger (1966) ‘Eine Kontroverse’, Kursbuch, 6, pp. 165–76, here p. 176. 56 Dutschke was shot by a man from the radical right. He survived the shooting but suffered permanent brain damage, which ultimately caused his death in 1979. On the working group, see Weitbrecht, Aufbruch, pp. 253–61; on the following P. Terhoeven (2014) Deutscher Herbst in Europa. Der Linksterrorismus der siebziger Jahre als transnationales Phänomen (Munich: Oldenbourg Verlag), pp. 61–92, here particularly pp. 74–81. 54 Che

272  P. TERHOEVEN

and applied to the present using revolutionary theories imported from the countries of the so-called Trikont (Africa, Latin America, Asia). With the above-described crisis of stayed political truths as a backdrop, he managed to do this with an astonishing degree of success, supported also by the situational dynamic in West Berlin which he observed and actively promoted at the same time. His actual conversion was hence just as little the result of his reading as it had been for the Communist intellectuals of the Old Left. Writing about comrades in 1930s Paris, for instance, Manès Sperber noted: ‘Be it as it may, I know no one among my friends who had joined the revolutionary movement because the study of Marx’ works had moved him to do so; on the contrary, I know from all of them that first we were drawn irresistibly to the revolution as a task and an exhilarating promise for the future, and only afterwards, as converts, did we devote ourselves more or less seriously to the study of Marxism. Will, desire and decision thus preceded the theory that was supposed to inform them.’57 The man in the striped wool sweater did feel work for the revolution also as an expression of his Protestant faith as is clear from many of his own statements; so, too, is the fact that he struck many of his contemporaries as the physical embodiment of the belief in salvation he himself preached. ‘Jesus’ claim, ‘my kingdom is not of this world’, I can only understand immanently; naturally, the world in which Jesus lived and worked was not yet the ‘new reality’; it had to and still has to be created, a ‘hic-et-nunc task’ of humanity,’ noted Dutschke in his diary.58 Interestingly, when he lost faith in the revolution he also by and large abandoned his Christian beliefs.59 But in the 1960s Dutschke, who had his son baptized ‘Che,’ saw Guevara as ‘The New Man’ to be emulated following in Jesus’ footsteps. ‘Tricontinental’ students living in Berlin thus functioned as ambassadors of good, and their German counterparts

57 Cited

in Kroll, Intellektuelle, p. 85. Dutschke (2005) Jeder hat sein Leben ganz zu leben. Die Tagebücher 1963–1979 (Cologne: Kiepenheuer & Witsch), p. 17. 59 ‘Together Rudi and I read Paul Tillich’s writings, where faith and socialism are not separated’, wrote Dutschke’s wife Gretchen, a theology student at the time. ‘Rudi thought that was right. Christ stood for liberation, and Christianity had to be religion of liberation, otherwise it was meaningless. Many years later, after half a lifetime filled with excitement, disappointment, and fear, but also with success and understanding, Rudi and I discussed what Christianity meant to us once more. We discovered that we no longer believed in God, that we were no longer Christians’, Tagebücher, p. 382. 58 R.

11  THE HOUR OF THE GUN: ANTI-IMPERIALIST STRUGGLE … 

273

felt they needed to prove themselves both to this group and to themselves. Dutschke had been impressed early on by the ‘spontaneous fury and the will to direct, military deed’60 shown by African fellow students at demonstrations: ‘Our friends from the third world immediately jumped in, the Germans had to follow.’61 Yet at the same time, they needed to be made aware of their assigned role within the framework of the Guevara followers’ voluntaristic redemption. Just how eurocentric Dutschke’s thinking ultimately remained can be seen in his paternalistic appeal to the Marxist dialectic of thinkers and sufferers: ‘The constitutive function of the third world for revolutionizing the world is something the historical materialist must recognize from the uniquely socioeconomic position of this totality “poverty and dehumanization” in global society. At work here is the dialectic of ‘true poverty,’ which needs to be completed on a global scale by a ‘dialectic of proper insight’ in the capitalist métropolis in order to establish what Marx described to Ruge as the alliance between thinking and suffering humanity.’62 The crucial importance of contact with the ‘other side’ for Dutschke himself was evident in his remarks to the International Vietnam Congress of February 1968. ‘We should simply acknowledge that a comrade like Bahman Nirumand and Latin American comrades like Gaston Salvatore and others here have systematically collaborated with us for years. Without them our work would no longer even be conceivable, just as it is in fact necessary for our work to organize, mobilize the comrades from Latin America, from Portugal, from Spain, from Greece and from other countries, and to actively work on this together.’ This was his credo at an event, which he had organized and which can perhaps be best described as a large, if ultimately only one-time council of the world religion of anti-imperialism, as euphoric as it was fleeting.63 Notably, it was not Dutschke as spiritus rector of this council who gave its most radical

60 J.

Miermeister (1986) Rudi Dutschke (Reinbek b. Hamburg: Rowohlt), p. 55. Tagebücher, p. 23. 62 R. Dutschke (1968) ‘Vom Antisemitismus zum Antikommunismus’ in R. Dutschke, U. Bergmann, W. Lefèvre, and B. Rabehl (eds.) Rebellion der Studenten oder Die neue Opposition (Reinbek b. Hamburg: Rowohlt), pp. 58–85, here p. 69. 63 SDS West-Berlin and INFI (eds.) (1968) Der Kampf des vietnamesischen Volkes und die Globalstrategien des Imperialismus. Internationaler Vietnam-Kongreß-Westberlin (Berlin: Peter von Maikowski), p. 87. 61 Dutschke,

274  P. TERHOEVEN

speech, but Nirumand—since by his own account he became ‘caught up in by the mood’ and set aside the manuscript of the unemotional speech he had actually prepared.64 A short time later the two left together in order to blow up a transmission tower of the American military radio station AFN, a plan that ran into technical difficulties and was never carried out.65 In these interactions what we see at work are clearly mutual radicalization processes—a unique ‘transnational logic’ that amounts to more than ‘the combination and new configuration of the national,’ and ‘creates genuinely new forms of communication,’ thereby altering both sides.66 Looking back on his years in Berlin, Gaston Salvatore recalled that through his contact with German fellow students he had literally mutated into his own doppelgänger: ‘the one person I had known since birth, the other I saw in the faces of others. I realized that this other person embodied, if only on a modest scale, a mythical creature: the Latin American revolutionary. I worked hard to live up to this other person. It was both a great temptation and a heavy burden. I played the role of a messenger who came from desperate, but fascinating countries, countries that as seen by the Berlin students were completely foreign to me. (…) for the Berlin students, I was the representative of an entire continent.’67

Moral Crusades The key event in German protest history of the sixties, June 2, 1967, likewise grew out of the transnational transfer dynamic described above. Nirumand’s appearance at the Free University right before the controversial visit of the Shah helped considerably in mobilizing the

64 Quoted in Weitbrecht, Aufbruch, p. 268. The manuscript of the planned speech, published sometime later, nonetheless shows that even this version contains the ‘stem-winding sentences’ that were ostensibly not included. For instance: ‘Let us make sure that the awakening of the damned (Verdammte) is followed by an awakening of the dumbed-down (Verdummte) of this earth; let us therefor no longer find the pseudo-revolutionary praxis of emotional congresses and calls to action enough. Let us remember that the weapon of critique cannot replace the critique of weapons’, SDS and INFI, Kampf, pp. 62–64, here p. 62f. 65 B. Nirumand (1989) Leben mit den Deutschen (Reinbek b. Hamburg: Rowohlt), p. 112. 66 M. Werner and B. Zimmermann (2002) ‘Vergleich, Transfer, Verflechtung. Der Ansatz der Histoire croisée und die Herausforderung des Transnationalen’, Geschichte und Gesellschaft, 28, 605–36, here 630. 67 Quoted from Weitbrecht, Aufbruch, p. 267.

11  THE HOUR OF THE GUN: ANTI-IMPERIALIST STRUGGLE … 

275

student protest.68 The rest was done by the ‘Letter to Farah Diba’ distributed as a flier to demonstrators and written by the Konkret journalist Ulrike Meinhof.69 In the letter to the Shah’s wife, Meinhof referred to Nirumand’s book on Persia and cited not only its disturbing facts about hunger, poverty, and political persecution but also its depictions of drastic scenes of torture. Her text, ‘still impressive today,’ combined the two with an inflammatory accusation directed at the Western protective forces of the Shah—first and foremost the USA.70 ‘You’re surprised that the President of the Federal Republic has invited you and your husband here, knowing about all this horror?’ read the key passage of the letter. ‘We are not. Just ask him what he knows about concentration camp sites and structures. He’s an expert in this field.’71 The 2 June protest movement was equipped with this moral armor, which traced ‘third world’ problems once again back to the anti-Communism of the West and also linked it to the notorious legitimacy deficit of the successor state to the ‘Third Reich,’ and they collectively experienced the violent incidents of this day, the beating orgy of so-called celebration Persians unfettered by police intervention and, above all, the shooting of the unarmed student Benno Ohnesorg, as unifying and decisive for the moral legitimation of their movement. It was no coincidence that the ‘little sister of the RAF’ that grew out of the ‘West Berlin Tupamaros,’ who in turn drew on the Latin American context, would ultimately call itself the ‘June 2 Movement.’72 We now know that Meinhof ’s verbal attack on the President of the Federal Republic relied on a disinformation campaign launched in East Berlin to discredit Lübke as a builder of concentration camps, and that the shot which killed Ohnesorg was fired by an unofficial Stasi informant. But in the eyes of the protest movement, it looked as if the Nazicontaminated FRG were on the verge of once again becoming a fascist state, a vassal state of US imperialism which allowed a morally justified youthful protest to be violently subdued in order to shield a mass

68 Slobodian,

Front, pp. 101–34. in Balsen and Rössel, Solidarität, pp. 159–63. 70 Eckert, Vietnam, p. 204. 71 Quoted in Balsen and Rössel, Solidarität, pp. 159–63, here p. 163. 72 T. Wunschik (2006) ‘Die Bewegung 2. Juni’ in W. Kraushaar (ed.) RAF, vol. 1, pp. 531–61. 69 Reprinted

276  P. TERHOEVEN

murderer. With this, it seemed, the cause of the oppressed for which they had taken to the streets had finally become their own—and they themselves had become victims of internationally organized repression. It can be seen from Dutschke’s often-cited words from the Vietnam Congress just how complete this identification with the victims could become: ‘In Vietnam we too are beaten daily, and that is no mere image and no mere turn of phrase.’73 In less spectacular fashion, the mechanism of ‘holy’ outrage over blatant injustice, the limited rule-breaking it justified, and overreaction had become obvious already in the previous years, especially in West Berlin, a mecca for those students who were seeking credible political messages and ‘collective effervescence.’ Dieter Kunzelmann, founder of the ‘Tupamaros’ and in many respects the other, darker and cynical side of Rudi Dutschke’s Protestant-tinged messianism, spoke with disarming candor about a ‘paradise of provocation.’74 In December 1964, a delegation of the GermanAfrican demonstrators’ group, which had disrupted the state visit of Congolese dictator Moisé Tschombe so effectively that he cut short his stay in the Federal Republic, had still been invited to the Schöneberg Rathaus by Willy Brandt since to him the protest seemed morally not unjustified.75 For Dutschke, who explicitly felt it was not the Rathaus reception that signaled their success, but the earlier move to lead the demonstration into illegality—including ‘tomato bombardments’—‘internationalizing the strategy of revolutionary forces’ now seemed to be ‘increasingly urgent.’ ‘Our microcells should immediately initiate contact and cooperation with American, other European, Latin American and also Afro-Asiatic students and non-students (if possible). These contacts take priority over all other contacts with pseudo-revolutionary German groups.’76 As Dutschke’s will to ‘revolutionary’ deed grew ever larger, democratic tolerance on the side of the authorities was sinking. At the latest when eggs were thrown at the Amerikahaus during the first large-scale 73 R. Dutschke (1968) ‘Die geschichtlichen Bedingungen für den internationalen Emanzipationskampf ’ in SDS and INFI (eds.) Kampf, pp. 107–24, here p. 123. 74 Quoted in A. Reimann (2009) Dieter Kunzelmann. Avantgardist, Protestler, Radikaler (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), p. 132. 75 Slobodian, Front, p. 90f. 76 R. Dutschke (1976) ‘Diskussionsbeitrag zum Münchner Konzil’ in F. Böckelmann and H. Nagel (eds.) Subversive Aktion. Der Sinn der Organisation ist ihr Scheitern (Frankfurt am Main: Neue Kritik), pp. 307–28, here p. 316.

11  THE HOUR OF THE GUN: ANTI-IMPERIALIST STRUGGLE … 

277

Vietnam demonstration of February 5, 1966, the tide turned decisively against the protesting students; police brutally dispersed the participants and left considerable outrage behind. Peter Schneider later effectively captured the general feeling in a speech at the Free University’s Audimax: ‘We have provided information about the war in Vietnam with complete objectivity, though we have found that we can cite the most unimaginable details about American policy in Vietnam without ever stirring our neighbors’ imagination, yet we need only step onto grass that is off limits in order to incite genuine, widespread and lasting horror.’77 In this emotional state, the political crusades of the student movement threatened to increasingly take on the shape and function of a vicarious symbolic self-sacrifice. Dutschke and Kunzelmann above all others had long believed that a precisely aimed ‘subversive action’ was the way to turn ‘executive violence’ into ‘sensory certainty,’ in the ‘first world’ as well, and that it should happen without regard for the ‘fetishized rules of formal democracy.’78 While Dutschke as noted above saw himself as a ‘Christian socialist’ in the sense of his revered Paul Tillich,79 nothing seemed holy to Kunzelmann—except for anti-imperialism. For this reason, the man who had reacted to the assault on Dutschke with laughter (‘because we knew, now it’s starting’) staunchly defended himself against the persistent rumor that he was the source of a saying that had really been coined by Rainer Langhans: ‘What do I care about Vietnam? I have orgasm troubles!’80 At the Palestinian training camp, he visited with the future ‘Tupamaros’ in 1969, Kunzelmann was allegedly so excited over a visit by Yasser Arafat that for a long time, afterward he did not want to wash the hand that Arafat had shaken.81 This also helps explain his abstruse justification of violence: In his view, the aftereffects of shock over Auschwitz in the younger generation were a pathological ‘Jewish tic’ (Judenknax) of the German Left that must be cured by means of liberating violence.82

77 Schneider,

Rebellion, p. 136. ‘Antisemitismus’, p. 63. 79 Dutschke, Tagebücher, p. 22. 80 See Reimann, Kunzelmann, p. 148. On reactions to the Dutschke assassination attempt see Reimann, Kunzelmann, p. 189f. 81 Reimann, Kunzelmann, p. 235. 82 Reimann, Kunzelmann, p. 248f. 78 Dutschke,

278  P. TERHOEVEN

It was Kunzelmann’s cynical interpretation of Dutschke’s doctrine of faith that ultimately—albeit indirectly—led to the propaganda of the deed in the sense of nineteenth-century anarchistic heretics. The convoluted passages cited earlier from Dutschke’s infamous ‘Organization Report’ of September 1967 had been preceded by a companion piece as offensive as it was explicit: a flier from Kunzelmann’s ‘Commune 1.’ It evoked the ‘crackling Vietnam feeling’ which a Brussels department store fire had brought to Europe—a reference to a recent accident in the Belgian capital in which well over 300 people had lost their lives.83 With this, he set the fuse that Gudrun Ensslin, Andreas Baader, Thorwald Proll and Horst Söhnlein—who had all taken part in the West Berlin Vietnam ‘Council’ just a few weeks earlier— definitively lit by setting fire to two Frankfurt department stores. Pastor Helmut Ensslin called the act, which his daughter justified by citing people’s indifference toward Vietnam, an expression of ‘completely holy self-realization.’84 Gerd Koenen is correct in noting that the future RAF beginning to form around the Ensslin-Baader ‘core module’ was staging a ‘world drama’ in which ‘heroic identification and genuine empathy with the “wretched of the earth” [became mixed] with narcissistic arrogance and uninhibited aggression’ to the point of unrecognizability.85 Even for Andreas Baader, who had been ‘invented’ in his role as sect leader by Gudrun Ensslin, the commitment to anti-imperialism appears to have still had some meaning at least in aesthetic terms: His favorite films were Constantin Costa-Gavras’ ‘State of Siege’ about the Uruguayan Tupamaros, and Gillo Pontecorvo’s ‘The Battle of Algiers,’ the anti-colonial film epic par excellence.86 ‘Urban guerrilla warfare?!? Where is my path leading?!’ Rudi Dutschke had scribbled in the margin of his notebook in September of 1967.87 The would-be assassin of Holy Thursday 1968 would answer this question in his own way. 83 See S. Mende, “Warum brennst du, Konsument?” Das Flugblatt Nr. 7 der Kommune 1, 24. Mai 1967, 100 Schlüsseldokumente zur deutschen Geschichte im 20. Jahrhundert (2017a) Dokumente, http://www.1000dokumente.de/index.html?c=dokument_de&dokument=0085_kom&object=context&l=de, date accessed 1 November 2017. 84 G. Koenen (2003) Vesper, Ensslin, Baader. Urszenen des deutschen Terrorismus (Cologne: Kiepenheuer & Witsch), p. 185. 85 G. Koenen (2002) Das rote Jahrzehnt. Unsere kleine deutsche Kulturrevolution 1967–1977 (Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer), p. 390. 86 K. Stern and J. Herrmann (2007) Andreas Baader. Das Leben eines Staatsfeindes (Munich: dtv). 87 Quoted in Terhoeven, Deutscher Herbst, p. 80.

11  THE HOUR OF THE GUN: ANTI-IMPERIALIST STRUGGLE … 

279

Performative Shift and the Sanctification of Violence The moral radicalization of the New Left alone can of course not explain in itself the performative shift that was heralded by terrorist violence. When in their first statement of responsibility, the RAF invoked role models in ‘Vietnam, Palestine, Guatemala, Oakland and Watts, in Cuba and China, in Angola and New York,’ where ‘what is starting here now (…) has already begun,’ they were merely trying to deviously obtain the moral reputation they had not earned on their own.88 Though by this time the anti-imperialist community of faith had fallen apart, the earlier demonization of the system, which in principle had seemed to justify ‘counter-violence,’ kept many people from openly disavowing terrorism. The image of the imperialist state as ultimate enemy was a creed the New Left shared, not only in political, but also in moral terms. Experiences involving violence at demonstrations and raids strengthened this commitment to the activist sect within the radical milieu and drew many into the trap of solidarity, since they felt as if they and the RAF belonged to one and the same community of victims.89 The degree to which violence was sanctified as a benevolent midwife of history nevertheless depended heavily on the political culture of the individual country. In Italy, the terrorist strategy of violence used by the Red Brigades and their many competitor organizations can also be read as an ultimate profession of faith that grew out of an earlier sense of moral superiority.90 Nearly all of the widely read journals of the Nuova Sinistra left of the PCI became a forum for the anti-imperialism of the international New Left, first and foremost the renowned Quaderni Piacentini.91 Thanks to the intensive publishing efforts of Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, who traveled to Cuba many times following

88 U. Meinhof (1997) ‘Die Rote Armee aufbauen. Erklärung zur Befreiung Andreas Baaders vom 5. Juni 1970’ in Rote Armee Fraktion. Texte und Materialien zur Geschichte der RAF (Berlin: ID-Verlag), pp. 24–26, here p. 26. 89 For a detailed discussion, see P. Terhoeven (2017) Die Rote Armee Fraktion. Eine Geschichte terroristischer Gewalt (Munich: C.H. Beck). 90 See A. Orsini (2011) Anatomy of the Red Brigades. The Religious Mind-Set of Modern Terrorists (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press). 91 J. Kurz (2001) Die Universität auf der Piazza. Entstehung und Zerfall der Studentenbewegung in Italien 1966–1968 (Cologne: SH-Verlag), pp. 68–82.

280  P. TERHOEVEN

the revolution of 1959 and there ultimately lost ‘his identity as publisher,’92 the Che Guevara myth became more firmly established in Italy ‘than in any other country.’93 Calling the historical resistance against Nazi occupation a revolution which had ‘stalled’ or been ‘betrayed’ by the Americans was another important resource for the moral justification of political violence. It served as an ideal bridge to anti-colonial liberation movements. These groups, too, were ultimately fighting against foreign masters and the national elites who were seen as their collaborators. The apparently seamless connection between the resistenza myth and anti-imperialism which was successfully preached by the Milan Centro Frantz Fanon among others was obviously felt to largely compensate for the absence of actual contact persons from the ‘third world’ who could profess the new faith.94 Above all else, though, it was the workers’ greater willingness to mobilize due to economic and political factors which made it seem plausible to open a front of the world revolution in Italy as well. In the form of workerism or operaismo, this idea had also gained an internationally effective theoretical basis.95 Anticipation of the impending proletariat revolution led to remarkably violent language among workerists and even a veritable cult of violence which formed the context for, among other things, Pino Masi’s ballads.96 ‘From an ethical standpoint,’ wrote the leading workerist Sergio Bologna in 1993, ‘not a single militant from a single organization rejected the idea that you had to resort to weapons. If ten years later they claim the opposite, in my opinion, they are lying. The use of violence was seen as absolutely legitimate. If it wasn’t used, it was for tactical reasons. Ethically it was no problem.’97 The New Left also tended to be particularly radical in Italy because in trying to establish itself it was competing with the two ‘adult’ cultures of Communism and Catholicism which acted as complementary 92 This the judgment of his longtime colleague Enrico Filippini, quoted in A. Grandi (2000) Feltrinelli. La dinastia, il rivoluzionario (Milan: Baldini & Castoldi), p. 296. 93 Kurz, Universität, p. 72. 94 Kurz, Universität, p. 74. 95 I, Bierbrauer (1987) Operaismus. Politisches Denken im Wandel (Hamburg: unpublished thesis). 96 B. Armani (2012) ‘La retorica della violenza nella stampa della sinistra radicale (1967– 77)’ in N. Serneri (ed.) Lotta armata (Bologna: Il mulino), pp. 231–63. 97 Quoted in Sommier, legittimazione, p. 267.

11  THE HOUR OF THE GUN: ANTI-IMPERIALIST STRUGGLE … 

281

systems of belief.98 The worst-case scenario was the double sanctification of violence as a result. The interpretation of leftist Italian terrorists as cattocommunisti, proposed already at that time, has recently been given an empirical basis for the first time by Guido Panvini, who goes on to note that Catholics were involved in right-wing neo-fascist violence as well.99 With the Second Vatican Council, which from 1962–1965 also brought many ‘third world’ participants together for the first time in Rome, political Catholicism’s reservations about its traditional archenemy Communism had decreased, while the relationship to the capitalist West gradually cooled—a development that intensified even further with the Vietnam War.100 The extensive relations between many Italian parishes and representatives of liberation theology in Latin America caused a shift to the left in the Catholic base, which for many took the form of open support for the guerrilleros in the southern hemisphere.101 Catholic circles also increasingly viewed ‘third world’ poverty as a scandal for which wealthy countries should be held responsible. It was in this context that the Colombian Camilo Torres, known as the ‘red priest’ and ‘Catholic Marxist’ who had lost his life in 1966 during his first deployment with the ‘Colombian Liberation Army,’ served as Catholic ‘Che.’102 The ‘guerrillero in a soutane’ had joined the laity for political reasons so that he might violently replace an unjust society with ‘a more just, humane and Christian social order.’ Torres enjoyed prominence in the Federal Republic among politicized Christians of both denominations, in part since his writings were

98 D. della Porta (2006) ‘Politische Gewalt und Terrorismus: Eine vergleichende und soziologische Perspektive’ in K. Weinhauer, J. Requate, and H.-G. Haupt (eds.) Terrorismus in der Bundesrepublik. Medien, Staat und Subkulturen in den 1970er Jahren (Frankfurt am Main and New York: Campus), pp. 33–58. 99 G. Panvini (2014) Cattolici e violenza politica. L’altro album di famiglia del terrorismo italiano (Venice: Marsilio). On the fateful interpenetration of right- and leftwing violence see G. Panvini (2009) Ordine nero, guerriglia rossa. La violenza pofolitica nell’Italia degli anni Sessanta e Settanta (Turin: Einaudi). 100 G.-R. Horn (2015) The Spirit of Vatican II. Western European Progressive Catholicism in the Long Sixties (Oxford: Oxford University Press). 101 Here, the latter invoked an ambiguously worded passage in ‘Populorum progressio’, the encyclical published in 1967 that made reference to ‘third world’ conflicts. See Panvini, Cattolici, pp. 179–92. 102 Panvini, Cattolici, p. 168. See also the Panvini essay in this volume.

282  P. TERHOEVEN

also available in German.103 Panvini shows that many of the later Red Brigadists had attended this school of increasingly rigorous Catholic anti-capitalism and terzomondismo, which had fueled eschatological and Manichean thinking in leftist circles. Leftist terrorism has too long been used as an excuse for literally beating to death the multifaceted and highly differentiated history of the New Left. But it is also true that the lure of violence to which a small number of German and a larger number of predominantly young Italian perpetrators succumbed can only be explained if traditional Marxist historical culture and the old idea of international solidarity—now revived in the symbol of the gun—are taken into account. Orthodox Marxists might ascribe the revolutionary impatience of those who slid into socio-revolutionary terrorism to a highly questionable voluntarism. Given the barrage of conservative criticism, it was also completely understandable that leftist thinkers, both at the time and retrospectively, tried their best to banish the shooting ragamuffins from their ‘family album.’104 But the revival of traditional theories of imperialism and the resultant belief in the political possibility and moral necessity of a revolution for the good of all humanity played just as large a role in the birth of this voluntarism as the role models of Mao and Che Guevara, whose widely read handbooks allowed their eager European pupils to share in their practical experience of guerilla warfare. If the vast majority of tiersmondisme followers in the end sought peaceful ways to give practical expression to their solidarity with the ‘third world’,105 that too was the result of a moral disappointment which, however, many had to pay for with their lives.

103 A. C. Widmann (2013) Wandel mit Gewalt? Der deutsche Protestantismus und die politisch motivierte Gewaltanwendung in den 1960er und 1970er Jahren (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), here p. 97; see also Dutschke, Tagebücher, p. 64; C. Torres (1969) Vom Apostolat zum Partisanenkampf. Artikel und Proklamationen (Reinbek b. Hamburg: Rowohlt). 104 R. Rossanda (1978) ‘L’album di famiglia’ in il manifesto, 2 March 1978. 105 On the Federal Republic see C. Olejniczak (1999) Die Dritte-Welt-Bewegung in Deutschland (Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag).

11  THE HOUR OF THE GUN: ANTI-IMPERIALIST STRUGGLE … 

283

References Armani, B. (2012) ‘La retorica della violenza nella stampa della sinistra radicale (1967–77)’ in N. Serneri (ed.) Lotta armata (Bologna: Il mulino), pp. 231–63. Balsen, W. and Rössel, K. (1986) Hoch die internationale Solidarität. Zur Geschichte der Dritte Welt-Bewegung in der Bundesrepublik (Cologne: Kölner Volksblatt Verlag). Bierbrauer, I. (1987) Operaismus. Politisches Denken im Wandel (Hamburg: unpublished thesis). Brown, T. (2013) West Germany and the Global Sixties. The Antiauthoritarian Revolt, 1962–1978 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Burke, P. (2009) ‘Translating Knowledge, Translating Cultures’ in M. North (ed.) Kultureller Austausch. Bilanz und Perspektiven der Frühneuzeitforschung (Cologne: Böhlau), pp. 69–77. Cazzullo, A. (1998) I ragazzi che volevano fare la rivoluzione. 1968–1978. Storia critica di Lotta continua (Milan: Mondadori). Cederna, C. (2004, orig. 1971) Pinelli. Una finestra sulla strage (Milan: Il Saggiatore). Che Guevara, E. (1967) Brief an das Exekutivsekretariat von OSPAAL: Schaffen wir zwei, drei, viele Vietnam! - Das Wesen des Partisanenkampfes, in G. Salvatore and R. Dutschke (eds. and introd.) (Berlin: Oberbaumpresse), pp. 10–31. Che Guevara, E. (1968) Guerilla—Theorie und Methode. Sämtliche Schriften zur Guerillamethode, zur revolutionären Strategie und zur Figur des Guerilleros, H. Kurnitzky (ed.) (West-Berlin: Wagenbach). Clemons, M. L. and. Jones, C. E (1999) ‘Global Solidarity: The Black Panther Party in the International Arena’, New Political Science, 21, 177–203. Crenshaw, M. (1995) ‘The Effectiveness of Terrorism in the Algerian War’ in M. Crenshaw (ed.) Terrorism in Context (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press), pp. 473–513. della Porta, D. (1995) Social Movements, Political Violence and the State (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press). della Porta, D. (2006) ‘Politische Gewalt und Terrorismus: Eine vergleichende und soziologische Perspektive’ in K. Weinhauer, J. Requate and H.-G. Haupt (eds.) Terrorismus in der Bundesrepublik. Medien, Staat und Subkulturen in den 1970er Jahren (Frankfurt am Main and New York: Campus), pp. 33–58. Dessi, S. and Pintor, G. (eds.) (1976) Bertelli, Della Mea, Manfredi, Marini, Masi, Pietrangeli: La chitarra e il potere: gli autori della canzone politica contemporanea (Rome: Savelli). Durkheim, E. (1984, orig. French 1912) Die elementaren Formen des religiösen Lebens, 2nd ed. (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp).

284  P. TERHOEVEN Dutschke, R. (1968) ‘Die geschichtlichen Bedingungen für den internationalen Emanzipationskampf’ in SDS and INFI (eds.) Kampf, pp. 107–24. Dutschke, R. (1968) ‘Vom Antisemitismus zum Antikommunismus’ in R. Dutschke, U. Bergmann, W. Lefèvre and B. Rabehl (eds.) Rebellion der Studenten oder Die neue Opposition (Reinbek b. Hamburg: Rowohlt), pp. 58–85. Dutschke, R. (1976) ‘Diskussionsbeitrag zum Münchner Konzil’ in F. Böckelmann and H. Nagel (eds.) Subversive Aktion. Der Sinn der Organisation ist ihr Scheitern (Frankfurt am Main: Neue Kritik), pp. 307–28. Dutschke, R. (2005) Jeder hat sein Leben ganz zu leben. Die Tagebücher 1963– 1979 (Cologne: Kiepenheuer & Witsch). Eckert, A. (2016) ‘“Was geht mich denn Vietnam an?” Internationale Solidarität und “Dritte Welt” in der Bundesrepublik’ in A. Schildt (ed.) Von draußen. Ausländische intellektuelle Einflüsse in der Bundesrepublik bis 1990 (Göttingen: Wallstein), pp. 191–210. Eckert, E. (2006) ‘Predigt der Gewalt? Betrachtungen zu Frantz Fanons Klassiker der Dekolonisation’, Zeithistorische Studien 3, 169–75. Enzensberger, H. M. (1961) ‘Algerien ist überall’ in Balsen and Rössel (eds.) Solidarität, pp. 72–74. Felsch, P. (2015) Der lange Sommer der Theorie. Geschichte einer Revolte 1960– 1990 (Munich: C.H. Beck). Fichter, T. P. and Lönnendonker, S. (2008) Kleine Geschichte des SDS. Der Sozialistische Deutsche Studentenbund von Helmut Schmidt bis Rudi Dutschke (Essen: Klartext). Frick, R. (2003) Das trikontinentale Solidaritätsplakat (Bern: Comedia). Gomsu, J. (1998) Wohlfeile Fernstenliebe. Literarische und publizistische Annäherungsweisen der westdeutschen Linken an die Dritte Welt (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag). Grandi, A. (2000) Feltrinelli. La dinastia, il rivoluzionario (Milan: Baldini & Castoldi). Horn, G.-R. (2015) The Spirit of Vatican II. Western European Progressive Catholicism in the Long Sixties (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Juchler, I. (1996) Die Studentenbewegungen in den Vereinigten Staaten und der Bundesrepublik Deutschland in den sechziger Jahren. Eine Untersuchung hinsichtlich ihrer Beeinflussung durch Befreiungsbewegungen und -theorien aus der Dritten Welt (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot), pp. 17, 82. Juchler, L. (2006) ‘Trikontinentale und Studentenbewegung. Antiimperialismus als Schibboleth’ in W. Kraushaar (ed.) Die RAF und der linke Terrorismus, vol. 2 (Hamburg: Hamburger Edition), pp. 205–17. Kalter, C. (2007) ‘Das Eigene im Fremden. Der Algerienkrieg und die Anfänge der Neuen Linken in der Bundesrepublik’, Zeitschrift für Geschichte, 55, 142–61.

11  THE HOUR OF THE GUN: ANTI-IMPERIALIST STRUGGLE … 

285

Kalter, C. (2011) Die Entdeckung der Dritten Welt. Dekolonisierung und neue radikale Linke in Frankreich (Frankfurt am Main: Campus). Knoch, H. (2007) Bürgersinn mit Weltgefühl. Politische Moral und solidarischer Protest in den sechziger und siebziger Jahren (Göttingen: Wallstein). Koenen, G. (2002) Das rote Jahrzehnt. Unsere kleine deutsche Kulturrevolution 1967–1977 (Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer). Koenen, G. (2003) Vesper, Ensslin, Baader. Urszenen des deutschen Terrorismus (Cologne: Kiepenheuer & Witsch). Kraushaar, W. (2008) Achtundsechzig. Eine Bilanz (Berlin: Propyläen). Kroll, T. (2007) Kommunistische Intellektuelle in Westeuropa. Frankreich, Österreich, Italien und Großbritannien im Vergleich (1945–1956) (Cologne: Böhlau). Kurz, J. (2001) Die Universität auf der Piazza. Entstehung und Zerfall der Studentenbewegung in Italien 1966–1968 (Cologne: SH-Verlag). Lahrem, S. (2010) Che Guevara. Leben – Werk – Wirkung (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp). Leggewie, C. (1984) Kofferträger. Das Algerien-Projekt der Linken im Adenauer-Deutschland (Berlin: Rotbuch). Lenz, R. (1961) ‘Algerien und wir’, Freies Algerien, 1/2, 5–11. MacPhee, J. (2016) ‘Discs of the Gun. A Trip Through Music and Militancy in Postwar Italy’, Signal: A Journal of International Political Graphics and Culture, 5, n.p. Meinhof, U. (1997) ‘Die Rote Armee aufbauen. Erklärung zur Befreiung Andreas Baaders vom 5. Juni 1970’ in Rote Armee Fraktion. Texte und Materialien zur Geschichte der RAF (Berlin: ID-Verlag), pp. 24–26. Mende, S. “Warum brennst du, Konsument?” Das Flugblatt Nr. 7 der Kommune 1, 24. Mai 1967, 100 Schlüsseldokumente zur deutschen Geschichte im 20. Jahrhundert (2017a) Dokumente, http://www.1000dokumente.de/index. html?c=dokument_de&dokument=0085_kom&object=context&l=de, date accessed 1 November 2017. Meyer, K. (2015) Die SPD und die NS-Vergangenheit 1945–1990 (Göttingen: Wallstein). Michels, E. (2017) Schahbesuch 1967. Fanal für die Studentenbewegung (Berlin: Ch. Links). Miermeister, J. (1986) Rudi Dutschke (Reinbek b. Hamburg: Rowohlt). Nirumand, B. (1989) Leben mit den Deutschen (Reinbek b. Hamburg: Rowohlt). Olejniczak, C. (1999) Die Dritte-Welt-Bewegung in Deutschland (Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag). Orsini, A. (2011) Anatomy of the Red Brigades. The Religious Mind-Set of Modern Terrorists (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press). Ospaal. (2017) Social Posters, http://www.ospaaal.com/images/logo_ospaaal. jpg, date accessed 24 August 2017.

286  P. TERHOEVEN Panvini, G. (2009) Ordine nero, guerriglia rossa. La violenza pofolitica nell’Italia degli anni Sessanta e Settanta (Turin: Einaudi). Panvini, G. (2014) Cattolici e violenza politica. L’altro album di famiglia del terrorismo italiano (Venice: Marsilio). Pettenkofer, A. (2009) ‘Radikale Kritik und gründende Gewalt. Eine genealogische Skizze zum “antiautoritären” Protest und seinen Folgen’, WestEnd. Neue Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung, 6, 166–80. Pettenkofer, A. (2010) Radikaler Protest. Zur Soziologischen Theorie politischer Bewegungen (Frankfurt am Main and New York: Campus). Pfeiffer, H. (1962) Ausländische Studenten an den wissenschaftlichen Hochschulen in der Bundesrepublik und West-Berlin 1951–1961 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag). Pivato, S. (2005) Bella ciao. Canto e politica nella storia d’Italia (Rome and Bari: Editori Laterza), pp. vii, ix. Raulff, U. (2014) Wiedersehen mit den Siebzigern. Die wilden Jahre des Lesens (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta). Reichel, P., Schmid, H. and Steinbach, P. (2009) Der Nationalsozialismus—die zweite Geschichte. Überwindung, Deutung, Erinnerung (Munich: C. H. Beck). Reimann, A. (2009) Dieter Kunzelmann. Avantgardist, Protestler, Radikaler (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Rossanda, R. (1978) ‘L’album di famiglia’, il manifesto, 2 March 1978. Scheffler, T. (1995) Die SPD und der Algerienkrieg (1954–1962) (Berlin: Das Arabische Buch). Schlöndorf, V. (2017) Werke, Wen kümmert’s, http://www.volkerschloendorff. com/werke/wen-kuemmerts/inhalt/, date accessed 30 August 2017. Schmidt-Streckenbach, W. (1987) ‘Strukturen des Ausländerstudiums in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland’ in W. Schmidt-Streckenbach and H. F. Illy (eds.) Studenten aus der Dritten Welt in beiden deutschen Staaten (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot), pp. 45–66. Schneider, P. (2008) Rebellion und Wahn. Mein ’68 (Cologne: Kiepenheuer & Witsch). SDS West-Berlin and INFI (eds.) (1968) Der Kampf des vietnamesischen Volkes und die Globalstrategien des Imperialismus. Internationaler Vietnam-KongreßWestberlin (Berlin: Peter von Maikowski). Seibert, N. (2008) Vergessene Proteste. Internationalismus und Antirassismus 1964–1983 (Münster: Unrast). Sewell, W. H. (1990) ‘Collective Violence and Collective Loyalties in France. Why the French Revolution Made a Difference’, Politics and Society, 18, 527–52. Siegfried, D. (2008) Sound der Revolte. Studien zur Kulturrevolution um 1968 (Weinheim: Juventa).

11  THE HOUR OF THE GUN: ANTI-IMPERIALIST STRUGGLE … 

287

Slobodian, Q. (2012) Foreign Front. Third World Politics in Sixties West Germany (Durham: Duke University Press). Sommier, I. (2012) ‘La legittimazione della violenza. Ideologie e tattiche della sinistra extraparlamentare’ in S. N. Serneri (ed.) Verso la lotta armata. La politica della violenza nella sinistra radicale degli anni Settanta (Bologna: Il Mulino), pp. 265–84. Sperber, M. (1983) All das Vergangene… (Vienna: Europa Verlag). Stern, K. and Herrmann, J. (2007) Andreas Baader. Das Leben eines Staatsfeindes (Munich: dtv). Stowe, D. W. (2011) No Sympathy for the Devil: Christian Pop Music and the Transformation of American Evangelicalism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press). Terhoeven, P. (2014) Deutscher Herbst in Europa. Der Linksterrorismus der siebziger Jahre als transnationales Phänomen (Munich: Oldenbourg Verlag). Terhoeven, P. (2017) Die Rote Armee Fraktion. Eine Geschichte terroristischer Gewalt (Munich: C.H. Beck). Torres, C. (1969) Vom Apostolat zum Partisanenkampf. Artikel und Proklamationen (Reinbek b. Hamburg: Rowohlt). Weiss, P. and Enzensberger, H. M. (1966) ‘Eine Kontroverse’, Kursbuch, 6, 165–76. Weitbrecht, D. (2012) Aufbruch in die Dritte Welt. Der Internationalismus der Studentenbewegung von 1968 in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Werner, M. and Zimmermann, B. (2002) ‘Vergleich, Transfer, Verflechtung. Der Ansatz der Histoire croisée und die Herausforderung des Transnationalen’, Geschichte und Gesellschaft, 28, 605–36. Widmann, A. C. (2013) Wandel mit Gewalt? Der deutsche Protestantismus und die politisch motivierte Gewaltanwendung in den 1960er und 1970er Jahren (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Wunschik, T. (2006) ‘Die Bewegung 2. Juni’ in W. Kraushaar (ed.) RAF, vol. 1, pp. 531–61.

CHAPTER 12

Third Worldism in Italy Guido Panvini

Introduction Third Worldism has not yet received sufficient attention in the Italian historiographical debate, especially as regards the 1960s and 1970s. Much specific research has been done on individual aspects of a phenomenon that in reality is very complex and structured. Most of these studies have in fact focused on the workers’ and students’ protests of 1968– 1969, but without thoroughly investigating the various cultural origins that marked this period of political and social clashes. One is the Third Worldism tradition that firmly established itself in Italy between the late 1950s and the beginning of the following decade. We are therefore still very far from a sure definition of the category of Third Worldism, despite the results achieved in the field of archive research. Suffice it to say that the historiographical debate on Italian Marxism of the 1960s and 1970s concentrated almost exclusively on This article was submitted to the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 751592. G. Panvini (*)  Centre d’Histoire, Université Sciences Po, Paris, France © The Author(s) 2019 S. Berger and C. Cornelissen (eds.), Marxist Historical Cultures and Social Movements during the Cold War, Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03804-5_12

289

290  G. PANVINI

Workerism and neglected this cultural movement, despite of the fact that it played a crucial role in renewing the Marxist culture of those years. This absence is peculiar for many reasons—all the more so if we compare it with the attention given to Third Worldism in other historiographical reflections, starting with the Anglo-Saxon and German ones. In fact, Third Worldism falls within a wider ranging discussion on imperialism and colonialism that ran through the history of the socialist and workers’ movements in the twentieth century. It can be said that this is the last reflection of an intellectual tension that has come from afar. Beginning with the rift within the Western reformist and social democrat parties in the late nineteenth century, regarding whether or not to counteract the imperialist policies of the major European powers, right up to the theoretical splits introduced within Marxism by Rosa Luxemburg and Lenin on the relationship between imperialism and colonialism. In this chapter it is not possible to examine such a long and complex history. It is sufficient to mention the consequences of World War I on the socialist movement, the role played by Third International in supporting the struggle of colonial populations, the victory of the revolution in China in 1949, the revolution of Nasser in Egypt in 1952, the birth of pan-Arabic anti-colonialism, the war in Indochina that ended in 1954 with the defeat of the French, the Afro-Asian Conference in Bandung in 1955, the decolonization movements in Africa, the Algerian War, and the guerrilla warfare in Latin America during the 1950s and 1960s. In other words, a long chain of events that caused great consequences within international communism. Indeed, from the end of World War II on, Soviet communism still retained the character of a Eurocentric movement. Instead, it was the anti-colonial thrust coming from the Third World that caused the spread of the anti-imperialist message, which had always been linked to the myth of the Bolshevik Revolution within emerging nations. The Soviet Union was seen as a deterrent against the colonial powers and at the same time a possible model for modernization. And so the aid policy toward the Third World became a peculiar feature of the Soviet strategy, beginning in the second half of the 1950s. In Khrushchev’s opinion peaceful coexistence in the West, for example, had to be accompanied by a growing attention toward countries outside Europe, considered as the main arena for challenging Western capitalism.

12  THIRD WORLDISM IN ITALY 

291

In 1959 the Cuban Revolution further confirmed this direction of travel. The Cold War, in short, had resulted in a radical change in meaning within the international communist movement and consequently also within Marxist paradigms. The Sino-Soviet split caused further changes. Despite this overall picture the historiographical reflection within Italian Marxism on the link between communism, Third Worldism, and the political and social conflict in the 1960s and 1970s, as already mentioned, seems to be minimal. The origin of this omission also lies in the fact that the expressions Third World and Third Worldism were born within French sociology and demography of the early 1950s to describe the processes of decolonization and the rise of new nations under way at that time in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. And what was meant by these expressions depended on very different phenomena: from the question of “non-alignment” with the development strategies of emerging countries, from guerrilla movements, to movements claiming economic rights in more or less institutionalized relations with the international system. The Third Worldism of Intellectuals It is necessary to dwell albeit briefly on the different cultural origins of the Italian Third Worldism present within the political and intellectual debate beginning at least in the very early 1960s. There is, for example, a Third Worldism of intellectuals linked to the world of culture. It’s enough to think of the role played by the Einaudi publishing house in distributing the writings of Frantz Fanon whose The Wretched of the Earth—a crucial book we will talk about later—was published in Italy in 1962, with a foreword by Jean-Paul Sartre. The translation and distribution of Fanon’s books were possible, moreover, thanks to one of the most eccentric figures of the Italian intellectual scene in the 1960s: Giovanni Pirelli. Together with Pirelli it is also necessary to mention Franco Fortini and the film director Gillo Pontecorvo who, thanks to his film The Battle of Algiers (1965), helped to spread Third Worldism far beyond national borders.

292  G. PANVINI

Another Third Worldism with an intellectual origin developed at the margins of or outside historical left-wing parties. Various journals, like Problems of Socialism, of which Lelio Basso was the editor in chief, featured numerous articles on this topic.1 There were also a great many periodicals, particularly in the second half of the 1960s, that helped to make the theses of Castro and Guevara common knowledge. The magazine La Sinistra, for example, springs to mind. It was inspired by Trotsky’s views but leant toward the Cuban Revolution. This magazine went on to play a major role in the radicalization of the student movement in 1968.2 There was also the Maoist microcosm that was extremely active in spreading the struggles for national liberation in the Third World. Third Worldism represented therefore a structured and very heterogeneous intellectual movement. In fact, it reflected the expressions of a much more extensive rebellion causing the wars, revolutions, and guerrilla warfare that had taken place in Asia, Africa, and Latin America beginning in the second half of the 1950s. To this we must add finally the influence of the movement for the liberation of Palestine in the shaping of a radical Third Worldism that would mark the political culture of the radical left in the 1960s. It was, however, the Third Worldism of Catholic origin that exerted the greatest influence on extra-parliamentary movements, contaminating the Marxist theoretical view itself. Third Worldism of a Catholic Origin On April 25, 1961, during a political rally in Florence, Enrico Mattei commemorated the anniversary of Italy’s liberation with these words: Freedom, before being the essence of political life, is an inner virtue, a prerogative of the spirit, which is preserved and strengthened through ceaseless vigilance and moral rigour. If we widen our gaze to other lands … we see peoples beyond the seas, who today are still fighting for freedom.

1 L. 2 La

Basso (1961) ‘Cuba repubblica socialista’, Problemi del socialismo, p. 5. Sinistra (1967) ‘Il socialismo di Fidel’, pp. 4–5.

12  THIRD WORLDISM IN ITALY 

293

We feel close to them, precisely because our experience has made us particularly sensitive to this duty of human understanding. Wherever an invasion is attempted, wherever small tyrants or great powers, threaten to suffocate human freedom, our reaction can only be one of condemnation. […] The forces of political immobility, the allies of economic privileges, with the convenient mentality of the age-old conservatives, shout against the rebellious spirit of these populations. They are rebels, or fellow partisans, it’s true, just as we were when we were forced to rebel against injustice, tyranny and oppression, for the sacrosanct defence of human rights, and we are convinced that when a people, whether white or coloured, fights with all their soul for their freedom, God is their ally.3

Mattei, therefore, was tracing an ideal bond between decolonization movements and the anti-fascist resistance. This interpretation was a reflection in part of the foreign policies decided by the leaders of the Christian democrats. Ever since the end of World War II the Italian diplomatic corps had tried to carve out an international niche for itself, while not calling into question its bond with the United States and the Atlantic Alliance. Amintore Fanfani had played a key role in combining compliance with these bonds with the search for a new leading role for Italy in the concert of nations. In 1956 condemnation of the Soviet invasion of Hungary and the Anglo-French invasion of Egypt indicated the strength of Italy’s relationship with the United States and at the same time the desire to establish itself as a privileged interlocutor of emerging countries. The decolonization process and the awakening of the Arab world represented an opportunity that could not be missed: the concern of the United States regarding Soviet penetration in the Mediterranean and the Middle East and it distancing itself from the colonial resurgence of France and England coincided in fact with the desire of various Italian governments to carve out an influential space for themselves in those areas.

3 E.

Mattei (1963) ‘Il suo testamento’, Europa Libera, p. 13.

294  G. PANVINI

Added to this was the expansion strategy of ENI, an energy company led by Enrico Mattei from 1953 to 1962. The goal to become self-sufficient in energy and free itself from the global oil markets drove ENI to establish close ties with countries in the Middle East that were oil producers and were by then intolerant of the international oil giants that managed the production processes and used the profits of the “black gold” largely for their own advantage. Having found another interlocutor favored the thrust for independence so much so that Mattei presented his plan as an attempt to free Italy from the very same powers that were subjugating the emerging countries of the Third World. Mattei represented an important part of what was called neo-Atlanticism, the direction that Italian foreign policy had taken in an attempt to redefine the bond with the United States through an active role for Italy in the Mediterranean and Middle East. It was not a coincidence that the main figures in this new orientation were Fanfani (the political godfather of the President of ENI), La Pira, and the Christian democrat left. They were convinced that anti-communism should not be transformed into a frontal collision with the Soviet Union, but instead into a careful policy of cultural and economic penetration in areas where there was competition with communist countries. These were the premises of the dialogue begun by the leaders of the Christian Democrats with the Arab nationalist regimes and with the revolutionary movements in the Middle East, a dialogue that would continue in subsequent years. With the Arab–Israeli war of 1967, the so-called Six-Day War, the Christian Democrats opted for an equidistant stance and support for the United Nations’ role as mediator. This choice reiterated and relaunched by Aldo Moro would later expose Italy to the tensions caused by the wars that marked the Mediterranean and Middle East in the following years. There and then the pro-Arab position of the Christian democrat leaders corresponded with the way the ranks of social Catholicism and Christian partisan associationism regarded the links between the struggles for liberation in the Third World and the Résistance. Such an analogy could significantly be identified between the conditions of submission being fought against by African, Asian, and Eastern European countries under communist domination, defined as “colonies” of the Soviet Union.4 4 G.

Duse (1965) ‘Le colonie degli anticolonialisti’, Europa Libera, p. 19.

12  THIRD WORLDISM IN ITALY 

295

Within the democratic anti-communist paradigm a reasoning developed whereby the condemnation of Soviet imperialism gradually shifted toward the denunciation of Western colonial regimes that still existed such as Portugal.5 The struggle against every form of despotism was indeed part of the anti-fascism of Catholic origin that had opposed communist totalitarianism and now coherently continued its battle against colonial regimes. This was clearly stated by Don Lorenzo Milani referring to the official Catholic doctrine that allowed for rebellion against unjust authority. These reflections were given impetus by the encyclicals of Pope John XXIII and the positions taken by the Second Vatican Council toward decolonization. In the specific Italian situation, however, the revival of anti-fascism under way in the Catholic world played an important role in gaining awareness of inequalities in the balance of power between wealthy nations and the countries of the Third World. However, the problem of the violence that rebellion against unjust powers brought with it continued to remain in the shadows. In the political arena Moro’s Christian Democrat Party was engaged in enhancing the Resistance, especially in finding common ground for discussion with all the political forces involved in the creation of the Italian constitution with regard to the shared belonging of all Italians to the anti-fascist republic. Prominent in the attempts made to bring this about were the reflections of David Maria Turoldo, Ernesto Balducci, and Giorgio La Pira on anti-fascism as a shared ideal and a vehicle for peace among peoples in the face of the risk of nuclear catastrophe. Added to this was the favorable opinion expressed first by Pope John XXIII and later by Pope Paul VI on national liberation and the contribution made by Catholics to the Résistance against fascism and Nazism, by reviving the views of leading figures of that tradition such as Don Minzoni, Don Primo Mazzolari (who died in 1959), the Protestant theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and the Jesuit Rupert Mayer.6 Reflection on the liberation movements in the Third World entailed, however, a twofold assessment. First of all, the differences in conditions in which political life took place in democracies and under authoritarian regimes led to the acknowledgment of the possible ineffectiveness of non-violent methods of struggle in the latter. 5 Azione 6 La

Sociale (1962) ‘Si intensifica in Portogallo la crisi del regime’, pp. 1–2. Civiltà cattolica (1964) ‘I cattolici e la Resistenza’, p. 2.

296  G. PANVINI

Second, it led to the acknowledgement that in the armed rebellion against colonial power there was the same moral principle that had justified the choice of Catholics to join the Resistance, in that it was conceived as legitimate defense and as a “response… to a foreign intervention considered unacceptable and which therefore can be described as aggression.”7 Therefore, acknowledgement of the independence movements in Africa and in Asia drove Catholics to denounce neo-colonialism, a new form of economic domination by countries from the West that had decided to continue to exploit the resources of former colonies.8 “Fascism of Affluence” was the term used by the New Left at the end of the decade, and it became the common term to refer to the hidden authoritarian essence of highly developed capitalist democratic societies, whose wealth depended on the supremacy of the West over the rest of the world.9 This was the reason some people even went so far as to form a positive interpretation of the well-read book The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon, the intellectual who in the 1960s had contributed most to reflection on colonialism and theorized about revolutionary violence being the only instrument for the liberation of colonial peoples. The debate on capitalism and the Third World did not at first entail abandoning the anti-communist bias. Ernesto Balducci, for instance, wrote that it was the duty of Christians to denounce the “oppression of Budapest, Algiers, Suez.”10 This sentiment of equal condemnation of Western imperialism and Soviet imperialism would continue in subsequent years too. With the outbreak of the war in Vietnam, Catholic magazines in fact featured articles denouncing both the destruction caused by the US war machine and the “cruelty of the Vietcong guerrillas,” considered to be subordinates of Moscow’s plans to expand its power. However, the war in Vietnam divided the Christian anti-fascist world into those who supported the US intervention from an anti-­communist viewpoint and those who were in favor of a peaceful solution to the conflict, while acknowledging however the legitimacy of the Vietcong

7 S. Cotta (1997) ‘La Resistenza armata: la questione morale’ in G. De Rosa (ed.) Cattolici, Chiesa, Resistenza (Bologna: Il Mulino), pp. 95–96. 8 Azione Sociale (1962) ‘Sui resti del colonialismo una nuova civiltà’, p. 7. 9 A. Ercolani (1962) ‘Il fascismo del benessere’, Europa Libera, p. 11. 10 E. Balducci (1958) ‘Apertura’, Testimonianze, p. 7.

12  THIRD WORLDISM IN ITALY 

297

guerrillas. Painful soul-searching took place in the ranks of those favoring a peaceful solution regarding the nature of Western democracies and the reasons for the bond—the one between Italy and the United States— which in the past had led to liberation from Nazi fascism, but now had difficulty finding a raison d’être, when considering the destruction the civilian population in Vietnam had suffered at the hands of the American army. Similar tensions were to split Italian Catholicism, driven as it was by the positions taken by the Church of Rome to wonder about the future of the West in a world marked by wars and revolutions and by growing economic and social inequalities between countries in the north and south of the planet. The Dialogue Between Marxists and Catholics Following the Second Vatican Council The Second Vatican Council as is well known marked a turning point in the dialogue between Christians and communists—a turning point that only minority Catholic groups had tried to bring about in the preceding 20 years. The attempts to find agreement and solidarity “beyond the barricades put up in the past” with Marxists was not limited just to the Italian Catholic environment, but also occurred in other European countries, as shown by the conference on the relationship between Christianity and Marxism organized by the Catholic Society of Munich in Salzburg in the spring of 1965.11 Italian communists certainly did not let the offer of dialogue fall by the wayside, as evidenced by the direct support of Catholic–Communist intellectuals like Franco Rodano. The offer of dialogue appeared to be useful for the strategy begun by Togliatti after 1956. The 10th Italian Communist Party (PCI) Congress, held in December 1962, approved this line of action once and for all, and was reconfirmed by Togliatti during a rally in Bergamo on March 20, 1963.12 Moreover, dialogue with the Catholics had been encouraged by the positions taken by the PCI regarding the problem of nuclear war. Togliatti had crossed swords with the Chinese Communist Party,

11 Testimonianze 12 M.

(1965) ‘Salisburgo’, p. 74. Gozzini (1964) ‘I marxisti e la religione’, Testimonianze, p. 65.

298  G. PANVINI

claiming that revolutionary war on a global scale was unfeasible because of the irreversible destruction that would have resulted from a nuclear war between the two superpowers. The link between the “dialogue” and the prospect of revolution, inherent in the Marxist–Leninist doctrine the PCI officially referred to, has not yet emerged in all its complexity and above all in its interaction with the theme of revolutionary violence felt by Catholics to be one of the biggest obstacles to discussions with communists. After the crisis following the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and what had taken place in Hungary, nevertheless significant theoretical and doctrinal upheavals had taken place in international communism. Reflection on the destructiveness of nuclear weapons led to a critical revision of the Marxist–Leninist doctrine with regard to violence, especially in communist parties in the West and above all in the PCI. Regarding this Valentino Gerratana wrote: Until now violence has been capable of having a progressive function in history because the destruction it causes, although increasingly extensive and catastrophic, has always been partial and could therefore stimulate new progress. But ever since the possibility of total destruction has arisen, violence has become just destructive violence, death which no longer produces new life, at least for our species.13

These were meaningful words toward rejecting violence as an instrument of emancipation. However, paradoxically, it ended up being precisely the peaceful solution to the Cuban missile crisis, which averted the nightmare of nuclear war between the two superpowers and restored legitimacy to those who did not intend to give up violence. Revolutionary movements throughout the world felt free to continue their fight, no longer haunted by the fear of provoking a planetary catastrophe. The breakage of the monolithic position of the Soviet Union and the emergence of Maoist China increased the speed of the process of diversification of the strategies adopted by communist parties and Marxist movements to gain power in Third World countries. In Italy these changes strengthened the groups and movements that were forming

13 V. Gerratana (1959) ‘Con un piede nella nuova era e con l’altro nella preistoria’, l’Unità.

12  THIRD WORLDISM IN ITALY 

299

on the left of the PCI, ready to break with the party, because they were convinced that revolution was also possible in highly developed capitalist societies. This ferment overlapped with the agitation caused by reports coming from Catholic missions in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, which were to cause an extraordinary stir thanks to new means of mass communication. Thanks to the first satellite television channels people all over the planet were able to see images and hear reports of the poverty and oppression of peoples in the Third World—situations that needed to be addressed therefore by the commitment of Catholics and all men of goodwill, as Pope John XXIII repeatedly stressed.14 Consequently, the Church increased its missionary activity in Africa, where the number of believers was on the increase and the conditions of poverty were intolerable. The Holy See was having to strike a delicate balance there: de-colonization had culminated in civil wars and a wave of violence against white minorities who were forced to emigrate. The Vatican, however, struggled to identify its mission with the defense of Western interests, all the more so since new possibilities for evangelization were opening up thanks to agreements made with the new national states. It was necessary to safeguard the delicate balance between the need to strengthen the bonds with Catholic European nations, like Portugal, which still had a colonial empire and the need to establish relations with the countries that had just achieved independence. The Impact of the Populorum Progressio Encyclical In 1967 the worsening international situation—the outbreak of the Arab–Israeli conflict, the coup of the colonels in Greece, the military escalation in Vietnam, and the spiral of violence in Latin America—drove the new Pope Paul VI to place emphasis on the imbalances present in the power relations in the world. According to Pope Paul VI, “Today the peoples in hunger are making a dramatic appeal to the peoples blessed with abundance.” These words were written in the Populorum Progressio, the encyclical that denounced

14 l’Osservatore Romano (1960) ‘Il sommo pontefice elogia le iniziative della: campagna mondiale contro la fame’, l’Osservatore Romano, published 5 May 1960.

300  G. PANVINI

widening the gap of inequality in the standards of living of nations—an abyss clearly perceived by the poor populations.15 The state of emergency, however, did not just regard the Third World. Capitalist countries, too, needed to find a way of developing within their own boundaries that was not “mere economic growth.” Capitalism, therefore, had become the harbinger of injustice and imbalance that was jeopardizing peace both within nations and among nations. In some regions of the world, like Latin America, unchecked liberalism had badly affected populations that were already tormented by outdated and feudal social structures. Therefore, according to the encyclical, what was being created were “situations whose injustice cries to heaven. When whole populations destitute of necessities live in a state of dependence barring them from all initiative and responsibility, and all opportunity to advance culturally and share in social and political life, recourse to violence, as a means to right these wrongs to human dignity, is a grave temptation.”16 Following this passage Pope Paul VI addressed the problem of armed revolution with no little caution: We know, however, that a revolutionary uprising—save where there is manifest, long-standing tyranny which would do great damage to fundamental personal rights and dangerous harm to the common good of the country—produces new injustices, throws more elements out of balance and brings on new disasters. A real evil should not be fought against at the cost of greater misery.17

This was a decisive passage that emboldened many Third Worldism Catholic circles to radicalize their positions. Progressive Catholic magazines, such as Questitalia, Testimonianze, il Gallo, Note di cultura, and il Tetto, added yet more fuel to the fire of these tensions. Environments in which religious sensibility was pre-eminent argued that Christian parties in Italy and Europe had neglected the task of building a “new Christian civilization” and had identified with the

15 Lettera enciclica del sommo pontefice Paolo PP. VI “Populorum Progressio” sullo sviluppo dei popoli, § 1. 16 ivi., § 30. 17 ivi., § 31.

12  THIRD WORLDISM IN ITALY 

301

capitalist attitude of society. It was claimed that such a path had been taken long ago at the time secularization took hold and the crisis of faith in industrialized countries. According to the magazine Testimonianze, for instance, what had ended was a long process that had begun with the Protestant Reformation, continued with the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, and culminated in the building of a consumer civilization. This judgment reflected the interpretative pattern of a Catholicism that was uncompromising toward modernity, which both before and after the Second Vatican Council began to spread and gained approval even outside traditionalist currents. Suffice it to say that one of the most active Catholic groups in Milan during the student protest of 1968 took its name from Georges Bernasos, known for his condemnation of Francoism and being the author of a heated debate against capitalist society and democracy. Pope John XXIII had openly taken up a position against the “prophets of doom,” the bearers of an apocalyptic view of modern times. There had also been the theological reflection formed in France in the 1950s, through the work of Pierre Theilard de Chardin, Emmanuel Mounier, Jacques Maritain, and the magazine Esprit, on the relationship between faith and contemporary society, whose stimuli were at first opposed and then acknowledged by the Second Vatican Council, thereby influencing Italian and Latin American theology in the years to follow. The problem of the relationship with modernity remained however unresolved, despite indications contained in the Gaudium et Spes Pastoral Constitution regarding the role of the Church in the contemporary age and the impact that this had on the various Catholic environments (in Testimonianze, for instance, which gave up its original critical position). The Second Vatican Council in fact had left a difficult legacy around which the anxieties and uncertainties that marked the postconciliar period simply grew and increased. The crumbling of farming society, urbanization processes, internal emigration, and the resumption of social conflict had in fact thrown the Catholic world into turmoil, depriving it of its traditional points of reference. In some environments these upheavals led to radical criticism of the present. The inequalities of affluent society became intolerable, as did the conditions of poverty that burdened many areas of the planet, and

302  G. PANVINI

both were ascribed to the capitalist economic system. The consumer and abundance culture was thus experienced as a trauma, a veritable sin to expiate. In this way a particularly pessimistic, at times even apocalyptic, view of reality became widespread. The more extremist groups soon accused the ecclesiastical hierarchies of betraying the real message of the Second Vatican Council, which focused on reconciliation of the Church with the poor. This was the step that prompted them to approach the revolutionary currents of Marxism that were now fortified by the successes of guerrilla warfare in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and by the theoretical processing that had been carried out by the New Left in Europe and North America. In fact concern regarding the poverty afflicting the peoples of the Third World soon joined up with discomfort regarding the conditions of poverty in which large portions of the populations of more advanced industrial societies continued to live. At that point people began wondering whether the experiments to find political and theological solutions carried out by Christians in Latin America could be used in Europe too. This issue was particularly strongly felt in Italy where signs of a decline in the development enjoyed in the preceding years had begun to be evident. The crisis had in fact revealed differences in levels of wealth within the country and the social costs of the “economic miracle,” as a result of the emptying of the farming countryside and rapid industrialization and urbanization, especially in the Center–North. In the radical Catholic circles that had been created in years immediately following the Second Vatican Council there was a widespread belief that the negative economic trend was the first sign of a more serious and profound crisis, destined to get worse, and to involve a growing number of the population. In reality it was an opinion that was only partially true because, while it took into consideration the consequences of imbalances that had accumulated over time, it did not take into account the profound changes taking place in the nation’s social and economic structures. The inequalities had not disappeared—far from it—but highly developed capitalist societies had social tensions and forms of conflict that were entirely different and until then unknown.

12  THIRD WORLDISM IN ITALY 

303

The great political cultures of the country—Catholic, communist, stakeholder–republican, and socialist—had split into various internal factions when it came to interpreting these changes. On the left the heady economic development had given rise to heated debate on Italian capitalism. Among the socialists there were discussions about structural reforms and at the Congress of the Gramsci Institute on capitalist trends, held in March 1962, there were various speeches by Giorgio Amendola, Bruno Trentin, Pietro Ingrao, and Lucio Magri—all of which indicated just how much widespread uncertainty there was about the nature of the transformations that had taken place. The most progressive parts of the reformist alignment—the communist left, and the pro-worker intellectual and critical Marxist currents— nevertheless shared a somewhat similar opinion in acknowledging the fact that in capitalism, contrary to what Marxist doctrine professed, an unprecedented level of development had taken place; however, they differed radically in their conclusions. The reformists considered it necessary to rethink the role of the State in the promotion of social equality and to redesign the relationship with the market economy; the communist left, instead, thought it necessary to revisit the concept of revolution in a society, like the consumer society, which through the increase in wages and the spread of prosperity aimed to integrate the working class in the capitalist system. With respect to this reference framework, the reflection of radical Catholicism occurred in two stages and featured an ideological and unilateral anti-capitalism. What initially prevailed were the pauperism theories that insisted there would be imminent impoverishment of Western nations as a result of exploitation, just as was happening in the Third World. It was only later that an awareness grew regarding the fact that the consumer society posed a series of completely new problems, not only of a social nature but also of an anthropological and religious nature. The prospect of gradual pauperization led them to consider the revolutionary path that Christians in Latin America experimented with might be possible in Italy too, although until then it had only been considered applicable by virtue of the extraordinary conditions of poverty and oppression of the context itself.

304  G. PANVINI

Similar conclusions were also reached by some theorists on the extreme left. In the first half of the 1960s pro-worker theses had in fact met with much reservation by the rest of the radical left, who were instead strongly attracted to the Cuban Revolution model. During the agitated phase of the birth of the New Left, before it settled at the end of the decade, there was a long discussion that went from one extreme to another and even at a certain point brought back in vogue theories on the collapse of capitalism of a Third International tradition. Leo Huberman and Paul M. Sweezy, for example, two leading representatives of the Anglo-Saxon New Left, even wrote about an “internal colonial war” in the United States.18 Taking their cue from the riots in the black ghettos the two authors believed that the racial character of the protest movements was secondary to the classist character of the clashes, which according to them were destined to spread to the rest of the impoverished population, regardless of the communities they belonged to. The United States was therefore seen as an advocate of a twofold colonial war: one abroad with the armed forces busy in Vietnam and its support for authoritarian regimes in South America, and another inside its own country against the North American working class. During the same years Jean-Paul Sartre spoke of capitalism as a single colonial system operating in European countries and in developing countries, seeing an analogy between the beginning of working class clashes in France and the struggles for decolonization. In his foreword to Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth he wrote: We in Europe too are being decolonized: that is to say that the settler which is in every one of us is being savagely rooted out». In his view, revolutionary violence had a liberating function and at the same time one of redemption, because it would have freed the peoples of the Third World and redeemed the Europeans themselves. This reasoning was then brought

18 L. Huberman and P. M. Sweezy (1968) La controrivoluzione globale. La politica degli Stati Uniti dal 1963 al 1968 (Torino: Einaudi), pp. 52–67.

12  THIRD WORLDISM IN ITALY 

305

to its extreme consequences. He concluded: «to shoot down a European is to kill two birds with one stone, to destroy an oppressor and the man he oppresses at the same time.19

Stretching reality ideologically in this remarkable way was no less effective in welding into a single Welthanschauung (“worldview”) the social tensions in advanced societies together with anti-imperialist struggles. This view, which presented protest movements as a moment in the process of “internal decolonization” within capitalist societies, corresponded to the sensibility of radical Catholic environments, where there was a widespread temptation to imitate the revolutionary movements of the Third World.

Conclusions As already mentioned, in 1967 escalation of the war in Vietnam, the Arab–Israeli Six-Day War, and the spread of guerrilla movements in Latin America prompted groups on the extreme left and the student movement to reformulate the theme of the struggle against US imperialism as it had been traditionally set out by workers’ movements and the Communist Party. A great deal of time and space was given over at that time to exalting violence as something that might speed up economic and social processes. The question certainly was not new (quite the opposite—it had been present throughout the history of Marxism), but its recurrence was a turning point because the balance of terror imposed by the nuclear weapons of the United States and the Soviet Union had driven the extreme left to believe that revolution in Europe was not possible due to the risk of causing a catastrophic chain reaction at the international level. With the increasing number of wars and crises that since the second half of the 1950s had involved Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America this conviction faded away. In particular, the solution

19 J.-P. Sartre (1962), preface to F. Fanon I dannati della terra (Torino: Einaudi), pp. 17–19.

306  G. PANVINI

of the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962 showed that antagonism between the two superpowers would not necessarily end in a nuclear war. Therefore, in the second half of the 1960s the student protests in Europe and in North America went hand in hand with the belief that revolution was possible even in the heart of the West. Translations of texts on the Algerian Revolution, the Cuban Revolution, and on the Vietnamese guerrillas led to the belief that the overwhelming superiority of the superpowers in terms of technology and military capacity was not a sufficient deterrent to stem the tide of all the revolutionary movements together. Hence the belief that these needed to be coordinated thereby giving life to a new working class internationalism to destroy the peaceful co-existence of the United States with the Soviet Union and at the same time promote a single insurrectional strategy on a global scale: “Create two, three… many Vietnams …” as Ernesto “Che” Guevara wrote in his political testament. The consequences of such theories within Marxism couldn’t not be felt. Hannah Arendt was one of the first to notice this contradiction. As early as 1970 the German philosopher had noticed the great importance attached to violence by the nascent extra-parliamentary left: The more doubtful the outcome of violence in international relations, the more it has gained in reputation and appeal in domestic affairs, specifically in the matter of revolution. The strong Marxist flavor in the rhetoric of the New Left coincides with the steady growth of the entirely non-Marxian conviction, proclaimed by Mao Tsetung, “Power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” To be sure, Marx was aware of the role of violence in history, but this role was to him secondary; not violence but the contradictions inherent in the old society brought about its end. The emergence of a new society was preceded, but not caused, by violent outbreaks, which he likened to the labor pangs that precede, but of course do not cause, the event of organic birth.

Recovering this dimension of the intellectual debate within Italian Marxism would help to better understand the more profound demands of that period.20

20 H.

Arendt(1996) Sulla violenza (Parma: Guanda), pp. 14–15.

12  THIRD WORLDISM IN ITALY 

307

Bibliography Arendt, H. (1996) Sulla violenza (Parma: Guanda). Brundenius, C. and Weeks, J. (2001) Globalization and Third World Socialism: Cuba and Vietnam (London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan). Burke, E. (1998) ‘Orientalism and World History: Representing Middle Eastern Nationalism and Islamism in the Twentieth Century’, Theory and Society, 4, 489–507. Byrne, J. J. (2016) Mecca of Revolution: Algeria, Decolonization and the Third World Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Calchi Novati, G. P. (1979) Decolonizzazione e terzo mondo (Rome: Laterza). Carel, I., Comeau, R., and Warren, J.-P. (2013) Violences politiques: Europe et Amériques, 1960–1970 (Montreal: Lux Editeur). Cornelißen, C., Mantelli, B., and Terhoeven, T. (2012) Il decennio rosso. Contestazione sociale e conflitto politico in Germania e in Italia negli anni Sessanta e Settanta (Bologna: Il Mulino). Corradi, C. (2011) Storia dei marxismi italiani (Rome: manifestolibri). Cotta, S. (1997) ‘La Resistenza armata: la questione morale’ in G. De Rosa (ed.) Cattolici, Chiesa, Resistenza (Bologna: Il Mulino). De Giuseppe, M. (2012) ‘Il «Terzo mondo» in Italia. Trasformazioni di un concetto tra opinione pubblica, azione politica e mobilitazione civile (1955– 1980)’, Ricerche di Storia Politica, 1, 29–52. De Giuseppe, M. (2016) ‘Cattolici italiani e l’America Latina nei lunghi anni settanta. Tra Terzo mondo e altro Occidente’, Italia Contemporanea, 280, 40–65. Dirlik, A. (1983) ‘The Predicament of Marxist Revolutionary Consciousness: Mao Zedong, Antonio Gramsci, and the Reformulation of Marxist Revolutionary Theory’, Modern China, 2, 182–211. Gentili, D. (2012) Italian Theory. Dall’operaismo alla biopolitica (Bologna: Il Mulino). Hopkins, A. G. (2008) ‘Rethinking Decolonization’, Past & Present, 211–47. Huberman, L. and Sweezy, P. M. (1968) La controrivoluzione globale. La politica degli Stati Uniti dal 1963 al 1968 (Torino: Einaudi). Jobs, R. I. (2009) ‘Youth Movements: Travel, Protest, and Europe in 1968’, The American Historical Review, 2, 376–404. Kruijt, D. (2008) Guerrillas: War and Peace in Central America (London: Zed Books). Martelli, A. (2008) L’altro atlantismo. Fanfani e la politica estera italiana 1958– 1963 (Milano: Guerini e Associati). Marzano, A. (2016) ‘Il mito della Palestina nell’immaginario della sinistra extraparlamentare italiana degli anni settanta’, Italia Contemporanea, 280, 15–39. Mastrofini, F. (2006) Geopolitica della Chiesa cattolica (Rome: Laterza).

308  G. PANVINI Melloni, A. (2000) L’altra Roma. Politica e S. Sede durante il concilio Vaticano II (1959–1965) (Bologna: Il Mulino). Menozzi, D. (1980) Chiesa, poveri, società nell’età moderna e contemporanea (Brescia: Queriniana). Mugnaini, M. (2006) ‘La diplomazia di Paolo VI di fronte ai problemi della guerra e della pace’ in L. Goglia, R. Moro, and L. Nuti (eds.) Guerra e pace nell’Italia del Novecento (Bologna: Il Mulino), pp. 403–35. Panvini, G. (2009) Ordine nero, guerriglia rossa. La violenza politica nell’Italia degli anni Sessanta e Settanta (Torino: Einaudi). Panvini, G. (2011) ‘La nuova sinistra’ in M. Gervasoni (ed.) Storia delle sinistre nell’Italia repubblicana (Marco: Lungro di Cosenza). Panvini, G. (2014) Cattolici e violenza politica. L’altro album di famiglia del terrorismo italiano (Venezia: Marsilio). Pellettier, D. and Schlegel, J. L. (2012) A la gauche du Christ: Les Chrétiens de Gauche en France de 1945 à nous jours (Paris: Seuil). Pirelli, G. (ed.) Fanon (1971) Decolonizzazione e indipendenza. Violenza, spontaneità e coscienza nazionale (Torino: Einaudi). Pons, S. (2014) The Global Revolution. A History of International Communism (1917–1991) (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Pozzi, D. (2010) ‘Entrepreneurship and Capabilities in a “Beginner” Oil Multinational: The Case of ENI’, The Business History Review, 2, 253–74. Rapoport, D. C. (2004) ‘Modern Terror: The Four Waves’ in A. K. Cronin and J. M. Ludes (eds.) Attacking Terrorism: Elements of a Grand Strategy (Georgetown: Georgetown University Press), pp. 46–73. Rothwell, M. (2009) ‘Transpacific Revolutionaries: The Creation of Latin American Maoism’ in K. Dubinsky, C. Krull, S. Lord, S. Mills, and S. Rutherford (eds.) New World Coming. The Sixties and the Shaping of Global Consciousness (Toronto: Between the Lines), pp. 106–14. Ruth Hosek, J. (2009) ‘Interpretations of Third World Solidarity and Contemporary German nationalism’ in K. Dubinsky, C. Krull, S. Lord, S. Mills, and S. Rutherford (eds.) New World Coming. The Sixties and the Shaping of Global Consciousness (Toronto: Between the Lines), pp. 68–76. Saresella, D. (2011) Cattolici a sinistra. Dal modernismo ai giorni nostri (Rome: Laterza). Sartre, J.-P. (1962) preface to Fanon, F., I dannati della terra (Torino: Einaudi). Varsori, A. and Romero, F. (2005) Nazione, interdipendenza, integrazione: le relazioni internazionali dell’Italia (1917–1989) (Roma: Carocci).

Index

This index has been compiled by Jannik Keindorf A Abyssinia, 50 Adenauer, Konrad, 41, 190–91 Adorno, Theodor W., 246, 249 Africa; African, 49–50, 272–73, 290–92, 294, 296, 299, 302, 305 Central, 265 North, 166, 241 Agulhon, Maurice, 69, 71 Alatri, Paolo, 72–73 Algeria; Algerian, 241–42, 265, 267–70 Algerian War, 241–42, 267–69, 290, 306 National Liberation Front (FLN), 241, 266–68 Almirante, Giorgio, 51 Althusser, Louis, 175, 248–49, 251–52 Altvater, Elmar, 135 Amendola, Giorgio, 303

America Latin, 264–65, 272–76, 281, 290– 92, 299–300, 302–303, 305 North, 172, 261, 302, 304, 306 South, 304 See also United States of America (USA) Anders, Günther, 245–47 Anderson, Perry, 43, 175, 249–50 Angola, 260, 279 anti-authoritarianism; anti-authoritarian, 15, 132–33, 212, 224, 263. See also under social movements anti-fascism; anti-fascist, 8, 12, 15, 19, 36, 40–44, 48, 50–54, 56–57, 92, 102, 104, 106–107, 131, 166, 181, 208, 211, 293, 295–96 as identity formation, 33–34, 40, 45 and Marxist historical culture, 33–34, 37, 45–47, 50, 52–53, 56–58

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 S. Berger and C. Cornelissen (eds.), Marxist Historical Cultures and Social Movements during the Cold War, Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03804-5

309

310  Index as political tool, 13, 34, 36, 43, 45, 49, 51, 58, 191 as resistance against National Socialism, 43, 47, 55, 136 and social movements, 13 in Western Europe, 34–35, 37–38, 56–57 anti-Semitism; anti-Semitic, 52, 121, 268 Arafat, Yasser, 277 Arendt, Hannah, 306 Armistice Day, 118 Arrighi, Giovanni, 149 Asia; Asian, 272, 291, 292, 294, 296, 299, 302, 305 Atkins, Peter, 143 Atlantic Alliance, 293 Attlee, Clement, 35 Auschwitz, 197, 206, 231, 270, 277 Austria; Austrian, 13, 20, 37, 39, 43–45, 48–49, 53 Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), 44–45 Communist Party, 44–45 German annexation (1938), 43 Independence (1955), 44 Socialist Party of Austria (SPÖ), 44–45 Treaty of St. Germain (1919), 44 Vienna, 45 Axelos, Kostas, 245 B Baader, Andreas, 278 Balducci, Ernesto, 295–96 Balkans, 49 Barker, Colin, 151, 156–57 Barraclough, Geoffrey, 90 Barth, Emil, 120–21 Barthes, Roland, 238 Basso, Lelio, 292 Battaglia, Roberto, 104 Bauer, Otto, 3 Beilmann, Christel, 195

Belgium; Belgian, 8, 278 Berlin, 37, 119, 229, 244, 271–72, 274 East, 42, 76, 275 West, 130, 223, 227, 237–38, 248, 251, 266, 269, 271–72, 276, 278 Berlusconi, Silvio, 53 Bernasos, Georges, 301 Bess, Michael, 165, 169 Bidussa, David, 91 Biermann, Wolf, 264 Blanke, Bernhard, 249–50 Bobbio, Norberto, 92 Bollack, Jean, 238 Bologna, Sergio, 280 Bolshevism; Bolshevik, 2, 45 bolshevization, 119 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, 295 Bosio, Gianni, 98–99 Bouhired, Djamila, 242 Bourdet, Claude, 239 bourgeoisie, 66, 70, 72, 78–80, 98 Bracke, Maud, 19 Brandt, Willy, 128, 276 Brasch, Horst, 39 Brecht, Bertolt, 40, 231 Brentano, Margherita von, 244 Britain; British, 9, 12–13, 17–18, 20, 37– 44, 48–49, 51, 53, 69–70, 72–73, 78, 116, 118, 126, 168, 171–72, 175, 181, 183, 238–41, 293 Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation, 171 Britain-Democratic Germany Exchange, 40 Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), 17, 164, 168–69, 174, 176–77, 194, 242–44 Communist Party Historians Group, 73, 166 Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB), 18, 35, 38, 40–41, 68, 163, 166–68, 173, 182, 238, 240 Conservative Party, 37

Index

Labour Party, 35, 38, 40, 168, 172, 174, 182 London, 39–40, 54 London Corresponding Society, 182 Puritan Revolution, 72–73 Buhmann, Inga, 224 Bulgaria; Bulgarian, 166 Burke, Peter, 259 Buro, Andreas, 199, 207, 212 C Cafagna, Luciano, 96, 101 Cantimori, Delio, 70, 93–94, 96, 107 capitalism; capitalist, 8, 12, 17, 43, 66, 72–73, 131, 135, 173, 177, 181, 192, 201, 223, 232, 243–44, 247, 264, 300, 304 anti-capitalism, 9, 18–20, 23, 206, 209, 211, 282, 303 capitalist West, 15, 22, 165, 182–83, 281, 290 critique of, 4, 43, 180 economy, 35, 56, 79, 180, 302 society, 74, 79, 201, 243–44, 296, 299, 301–302, 305 system, 209, 223, 303 world order, 20, 181 Caracciolo, Alberto, 90, 96 Carrillo, Santiago, 56 Castro, Fidel, 292 Catholicism, 195, 280–81, 294, 297, 301, 303 Chabod, Federico, 93, 107 Chile; Chilean, 271 China; Chinese, 36, 180, 279, 298 Communist Party, 297 Revolution (1949), 290 Chirac, Jacques, 55 Chomsky, Noam, 149 Christian Democracy, 34 Coates, Ken, 171

  311

Cold War, 1, 5–6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 20, 23–24, 33–34, 36, 38, 41, 44, 49, 53–54, 57, 66, 68, 70, 97–98, 103, 115, 117, 125, 130, 136, 165, 168, 171, 175, 179–81, 206, 211, 241, 247, 260, 264, 291 culture, 177 and social movements, 12–13, 16, 18–19, 21 world order, 2, 164, 182–83, 187 Cole, Daniel, 170 Cole, G.D.H., 239 Colombi, Arturo, 100–101 colonialism, 241, 264, 268, 290, 296 anti-colonialism, 16, 19, 225, 263, 268, 280, 290 decolonization, 241, 261, 265, 290–91, 293, 295, 299, 304–305 Cominform, 34–35 communism; communist, 2–3, 7, 21, 33, 39, 52, 54, 57, 66, 73, 79, 82, 92, 122–23, 131, 133, 135, 150, 166, 168, 173–74, 177, 231, 258–59, 261, 280–81, 291, 297, 303 anti-Communism, 2, 9, 13, 119, 129, 191, 203, 207, 212, 220, 239, 252, 259, 275, 294–96 communist East, 12, 15, 21–22, 172, 182–83 critique of, 6, 44 dictatorship, 33, 36, 41, 57–58 Eurocommunism, 9, 11, 55, 248 historical culture, 21, 65, 67, 69, 75, 78, 82 intellectual, 68, 74, 90, 240 International, 22 movement. See under social movement party, 6, 8–9, 11–14, 18, 22, 24, 34–35, 37, 53, 67–68, 71, 116,

312  Index 132, 176, 230, 241–42, 262, 298 Second International, 249 Soviet, 118–19, 165, 169, 171, 181, 188, 203, 239, 290 Third International, 117, 290, 304 See also socialism Conti, Elio, 96 Costa-Gavras, Constantin, 278 Cox, Laurence, 151, 156–57 Craxi, Bettino, 52 Cresswell, Mark, 156–57 Croce, Benedetto, 46, 92, 95, 108 Crossman, Richard, 41 Cuba; Cuban, 264, 271, 279 Missile Crisis (1962), 190, 298, 306 Revolution (1959), 291–92, 304, 306 Cyprus; Cypriot, 241 Czechoslovakia; Czech, 55, 57 Prague Spring (1968), 55, 251 D Debray, Regis, 235–36, 251 De Felice, Renzo, 107–108 de Gaulle, Charles, 54–55 Denmark; Danish, 9 Deppe, Frank, 135 Dingel, Frank, 130 Dobb, Maurice, 73–74, 79 Dollfuß, Engelbert, 45 D’Onofrio, Edoardo, 48 Durkheim, Emile, 19, 262–63 Dutschke, Rudi, 221, 225, 271–73, 276–78 E Eden, Anthony, 168 Egpyt; Egyptian, 241, 290 Anglo-French invasion, 293 Eichmann, Adolf, 200

Engels, Friedrich, 66, 70, 147, 173, 226, 230, 232 Enlightenment, 301 Ensslin, Gudrun, 278 Ensslin, Helmut, 278 Enzensberger, Hans Magnus, 270–71 Enzensberger, Ulrich, 220 Erhard, Ludwig, 190 Europe; European, 8, 38, 41, 43, 45, 50, 58, 98, 168, 171–72, 177– 78, 181, 240, 264, 276, 278, 282, 290, 300, 302, 304–306 Eastern, 1, 8–9, 17, 22, 33–34, 36, 54, 56–57, 172, 178, 182–83, 259, 294 European Economic Community, 36 Western, 2, 4–6, 8–15, 17, 20, 23, 34–37, 42, 53, 56–58, 65, 67–68, 71–72, 75, 77–78, 82, 126, 164, 171–72, 177–79, 262 European Nuclear Disarmament (END), 17, 164, 171, 178, 181 existentialism, 17, 237, 244–45, 253 F Faller, Herbert, 199, 201–202, 207, 211 Fanfani, Amintore, 293–94 Fanon, Franz, 19, 264, 280, 291, 296, 304 fascism; fascist, 2, 8, 18, 34–35, 46, 50, 52–53, 57, 92, 94, 97, 103, 109, 131, 136–37, 205, 208, 275 resistance against, 33, 43, 295 See also anti-fascism Favilli, Paolo, 96 Felice, Renzo de, 51 Feltrinelli, Giangiacomo, 98–99, 264, 279 Ferree, Myra Marx, 148 feudalism, 72–74, 79 Fini, Gianfranco, 52–53

Index

First World War (1914–1918), 3, 55, 91, 115, 119–21, 205, 290 Fischer controversy (1961), 121 Flechtheim, Ossip K., 123 Fortini, Franco, 291 Fougeyrollas, Pierre, 245 France; French, 8, 12, 20, 36–37, 39, 42–44, 48–49, 51, 53–55, 57, 66, 68–70, 77, 79, 81–82, 94, 116, 118, 136, 238–42, 245, 249, 265, 267–69, 290, 293, 301 Communist Party of France (PCF), 35–36, 54–55, 78–80, 82, 238 Confederation generale du travail, 54 Enragés, 77 Fifth Republic, 54–55 Fourth Republic, 54 French Revolution, 14, 69, 75–80, 82, 262, 301 Front National, 51 German occupation of, 54, 57 Institut Maurice Thorez, 67 Institute of Social History (Paris), 98 Paris, 76, 78–79, 272 Paris Commune, 201 Resistance, 36, 51, 67, 75, 238 Socialist Party, 54 Franco, Francesco, 260 Francoism, 301 Frankfurt School, 129, 222, 246–47, 249 Freeman, Jo, 148 Fülberth, Georg, 135 Furet, Francois, 69 G Gamson, William A., 148, 158 Gandhi, Mahatma, 166 Gentile, Giovanni, 93

  313

Germany; German, 15, 18, 20, 51, 57, 118, 128, 133, 136, 155, 188, 220, 237, 239, 242, 244, 249–50, 252, 258, 266–67, 269, 273, 282 Aktionskreis für Gewaltlosigkeit, 194 Anti-Springer Campaign, 209 Außerparlamentarische Opposition (APO), 187 Basic Treaty (1972), 37 Bündische Jugend, 194 Christian Democratic Union (CDU), 125, 128 Communist Party of Germany (KPD), 11, 117–25, 128, 131–32, 229, 239 de-Nazification, 41–42 Deutsch-Britische Gesellschaft, 40 division, 12, 118, 121, 239 East; German Democratic Republic (GDR), 12, 15, 36–43, 77, 81, 116, 121–26, 129–32, 137, 191, 203, 221, 251, 271 Empire, 115, 118 Free Democratic Party (FDP), 193 German Communist Party (DKP), 12, 15, 132–33 German Federation of Trade Unions (DGB), 193 German Metalworkers’ Union (DMV), 125, 127 Hamburg, 190, 194 IG Metall, 127 Independent Social Democrats (USPD), 125 Internationale der Kriegsdienstgegner (IdK), 194, 199 Munich, 222 Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NPD), 41 National Socialist Germany, 15, 36, 38–39, 45, 54–55, 57, 70, 116,

314  Index 129, 192, 197, 204, 209, 239, 242, 252, 275 Naturfreundejugend Deutschlands (NFDJ), 198 Red Army Faction (RAF), 238, 251, 275, 278–79 Revolution (1918/19), 15, 115–26, 130, 132–37 Revolutionary Shop Stewards, 120, 125, 127, 131, 133 Ruhr area, 194–95, 197 Social Democratic Party (SPD), 120, 125, 128, 130, 135, 192–93, 198–99, 205–206, 211, 219, 222, 243, 269 Socialist Unity Party (SED), 40, 42–43, 57, 116, 124, 126, 130–31 Sozialistischer Deutscher Studentenbund (SDS), 16, 128–29, 131–32, 199, 208–210, 212, 219–23, 226, 232, 268–69 Spartacus League, 116, 118, 120, 122–25, 130–31 Union of Victims of Nazi Persecution, 131 Weimar Republic, 39, 115–16, 119, 121, 123–24, 131–33, 226, 229 West; Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), 9, 11–12, 14, 18, 21, 36–39, 41–42, 49, 57–58, 115–17, 121–25, 127–33, 137, 187, 190–91, 193–95, 197, 200, 203–205, 211–12, 236–37, 239, 241–42, 247–48, 250–51, 263, 265–66, 269–70, 275–76, 281 See also Berlin Gerratana, Valentino, 298 Globke, Hans, 41, 200

Gobetti, Piero, 92 Gollwitzer, Helmut, 199, 242 Gramsci, Antonio, 3, 69, 73–75, 77, 95, 100–101, 108, 156, 249 Great Britain. See Britain Great Depression, 118 Grass, Günter, 116 Greece; Greek, 9, 273, 299 Greven, Michael M., 155 Guerin, Daniel, 80 Guevara, Ernesto “Che”, 260, 264, 271–73, 280, 282, 292 Gutman, Herbert, 170 H Habermas, Jürgen, 144 Hager, Kurt, 39 Hall, Stuart, 168, 238, 240 Hardt, Michael, 133 Harris, Arthur, 39 Hartung, Klaus, 251 Haug, Wolfgang Fritz, 135, 244, 250–51 Haunss, Sebastian, 151 Heberle, Rudolf, 147 Heidegger, Martin, 244–46 Hill, Christopher, 69, 72, 74, 166 Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombing, 197, 200, 210, 246, 270 historical materialism, 4, 13, 151–52, 173, 273 historian Communist, 70, 108 Marxist, 14, 17, 67–71, 73, 75, 78, 81, 90, 99, 101, 108–109 professional, 14, 69–70, 94 socialist, 127 history bourgeois, 95 of Communism, 70

Index

contemporary, 14, 89, 90–91, 97, 103–104, 106, 121, 123 discipline of, 91 of fascism, 107 from below, 14, 68, 78, 82, 169, 173 intellectual, 14, 16, 23, 239, 248 labor, 133, 135, 170 of Marxism, 305 modern, 93 national, 46, 100 partisan, 124 party, 66–67, 69, 132–33 political, 76, 135 regional, 78, 100 social, 14, 69, 76, 78, 135, 170, 175 of socialism, 94 social movement, 189 world, 225 historiography academic, 70, 82 Annales school, 78 anti-fascist, 102, 105, 108 bourgeoisie, 70 Cold War, 117, 134, 136 contemporary, 109 East German, 123, 133 European, 72, 78 German, 118 left-wing, 102, 106 Marxist, 14, 16, 23, 54–55, 67–68, 71–73, 78, 89, 94, 97, 99, 102 national, 70, 72–73 social democratic, 130 Soviet, 70–73 Weimar, 118, 120 Whig, 72 Hobsbawm, Eric, 43, 69, 72, 74–75, 77, 166 Ho Chi Minh, 264 Holloway, John, 149 Holocaust, 196–98, 200, 210, 268

  315

Holocaust (TV series), 52, 56 Horkheimer, Max, 129, 249 Howard, Michael, 179 Huberman, Leo, 304 Hungary; Hungarian, 240, 298 Soviet invasion (1956), 9, 99, 101, 164, 168, 182, 240, 293 I imperialism, 6, 66, 173, 179–80, 201, 261, 275, 282, 290, 295–96, 305 anti-imperialism, 7, 19, 166, 168, 209, 211, 261, 263, 266, 273, 277–80, 290 India; Indian, 165 independence (1947), 38 Indochina, 260, 290 industrial revolution, 180 Ingrao, Pietro, 303 International Congress of Historians (Rome, 1955), 72 internationalism, 4, 166, 171, 183, 306 International Society for Socialist Studies (ISSS), 239 International Sociological Association, 147 interwar period, 2–4, 6–7, 23 Iran; Iranian, 266, 271 Irish Republican Army, 51 Israel; Israeli, 241 Six Day War (1967), 294, 299, 305 Italy; Italian, 8, 11–12, 14–15, 18, 20, 36–37, 39, 42, 44, 46–47, 50, 52–53, 55, 57, 68–71, 73–74, 77, 89, 93, 95, 97–98, 100–101, 109, 116, 133, 136, 166, 258, 265, 279–82, 289, 292–94, 297–98, 300, 302–303 Alleanza Nazionale (AN), 53

316  Index Associazione nazionale tra le famiglie italiane die martiri (ANFIM), 47 Catholic left, 19 Christian Democratic Party, 293–95 Communist Party of Italy (PCI), 11, 14, 19, 35–36, 47–50, 52, 55–56, 75, 93, 95–96, 98, 100–101, 104, 107–108, 279, 297–99 Democrazia Cristiana (DC), 48–50, 52 Fascist Italy, 46–48, 51, 53, 90–91, 95, 99, 104, 106, 108 Feltrinelli Library, 14, 90, 97–99, 101–102 Genoa, 102 German occupation of, 46–47, 49 Gramsci Foundation, 14, 67, 90, 97, 100–102 Lotta Continua (LC), 258–60 Mezzogiorno, 74 Movimento Sociale Italiano (MSI), 46, 49, 51, 53 National Institute for the History of the Italian Liberation Movement (INSMLI), 14, 90, 97, 102, 105–106, 108 Red Brigades, 49–50, 279, 282 Republic, 50–51, 102, 106, 295 Republic of Salò, 51 Resistenza, 36, 46–49, 52–53, 67, 73, 102–103–105, 109, 280, 294–96 Risorgimento, 92, 105 Rome, 100, 281 Piazza Fontana massacre (1969), 109 School of Modern and Contemporary History (Rome), 93 Socialist Party of Italy (PSI), 48–49, 52, 75, 96, 99, 106

J James, C.L.R., 182 Jasper, James, 151 Jaures, Jean, 79 Jonas, Hans, 245 Juchler, Ingo, 261 Jungk, Robert, 199 K Kaldor, Mary, 166, 171–72, 177 Kallscheuer, Otto, 252 Kautsky, Karl, 3, 249 Kennan Corollary, 261 Keynes, John Maynard, 250 Khrushchev, Nikita, 126, 132, 240, 290 Klandermans, Bert, 148 Klönne, Arno, 194, 199, 202, 204, 207, 211–12 Koenen, Gerd, 226, 278 Koenen, Wilhelm, 39–40 Kolb, Eberhard, 127, 135 Korean War (1950–1953), 167 Korsch, Karl, 130, 222 Kriegel, Annie, 69 Kriesi, Hanspeter, 148 Kroll, Thomas, 19, 261–62 Kuczynski, Jürgen, 39 Kunzelmann, Dieter, 276–78 L Labrousse, Ernest, 70 Lanaro, Silvio, 107 Langhans, Rainer, 277 La Pira, Giorgio, 294–95 Laval, Pierre, 55 Lefebvre, Henri, 238 Lefebvre, Georges, 70, 76–78 Le Goff, Jacques, 103 Lenin, Wladimir Iljitsch, 66, 70, 72, 80, 120, 145, 226, 230, 232, 249, 261, 290

Index

Leninism; Leninist, 3, 11, 119–20, 133, 229 Lenz, Reimar, 270 Lewis, Arthur, 40 Lewitscharoff, Sybille, 230 Liebknecht, Karl, 132 Lübke, Heinrich, 275 Lukacs, Georg, 3, 130, 222 Luther, Martin, 227 Luxemburg, Rosa, 116, 119, 123, 132, 249, 261, 290 M MacMillan, Harold, 37, 168 Magri, Lucio, 303 Majakowskij, Vladimir, 226 Manacorda, Gastone, 69, 96, 100 Manichaeism, 262, 282 Mao Zedong, 137, 226, 230, 264, 282, 306 Maoism; Maoist, 132–33, 229, 258, 292, 298 Marcuse, Herbert, 246 Maritain, Jacques, 301 Markov, Walter, 75, 77, 81 Marx, Karl, 2, 6, 66, 70, 73, 79–80, 147, 170, 173, 180, 218, 220–26, 228, 230–32, 306 Das Kapital, 93, 230 Marxism; Marxist academic, 71 anti-Marxism, 2 and Christianity, 19, 297 crisis of, 237, 248–49, 251–52 critique of, 6 Eastern; orthodox, 4, 15, 23, 34, 55, 80, 129, 131, 133, 169, 183, 228, 252, 282 and feminism, 20 as governmental ideology, 1 historian. See under historian

  317

historiography. See under historiography and history, 13–15, 18, 23, 66–67, 116, 172 history of. See under history historical culture, 4, 11, 13–15, 18, 38, 44–45, 48–56, 68, 82, 117, 119, 129, 135–37, 188, 201–202, 210–11, 282 and identity, 17 intellectual, 3, 7, 22, 50 memorial culture, 131 as methodology, 89, 92, 95, 142, 224 multiple, 2, 5, 12 neo-Marxism, 4, 15–16, 18, 109, 129, 142, 151–52, 210, 212, 265 political culture, 37, 45, 53, 56, 58, 261 post-Marxism, 14, 142 scholarship, 16, 43, 93–94, 145, 152, 220 theory, 217–22, 224, 227–32 and transnationalism, 20–22 Western; unorthodox, 2–4, 9, 21, 23, 171, 179, 182–83, 250 Marxism-Leninism; Marxism-Leninist, 3–4, 11, 66–67, 70, 80, 119, 126, 129–30, 132, 137, 149, 169, 230, 298 Masi, Pino, 258–60, 280 Mathiez, Albert, 79 Mattei, Enrico, 292–94 Maturi, Walter, 93, 105 Mayer, Margit, 151 Mayer, Rupert, 295 Mazzolari, Primo, 295 McCarthy, John D., 148 McGuire, Barry, 259 Mediterranean, 293–94 Meinhof, Ulrike, 238, 275

318  Index memory culture, 38–39, 43, 47, 56 Menshevism; Menshevik, 132 Merton, Robert K., 157 Meusel, Alfred, 39 Michel, Henri, 103 Michels, Robert, 147 Middle East, 265, 293–94, 305 Milani, Lorenzo, 295 Mills, Charles Wright, 146 Mitterrand, Francois, 55 Mommsen, Hans, 135 Morandi, Carlo, 93–94 Morin, Edgar, 238 Moro, Aldo, 50, 294–95 Morris, Aldon, 148 Morris, William, 169, 172–73, 182 Mounier, Emmanuel, 301 Muller, Edward, 148 Müller, Richard, 117, 120–21, 125–27, 130, 133, 135 Mussolini, Benito, 46–47, 49, 51, 53, 107

246–53, 257, 259, 261–62, 265, 267, 271, 279–80, 282, 296, 302, 304, 306. See also Old Left Niemöller, Martin, 199 Nirumand, Bahman, 266, 270, 273–75 Norden, Albert, 41 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 18, 36, 164, 168, 171, 176 Norway; Norwegian, 9, 57

N Nassehi, Armin, 219 Nasser, Gamal Abdel, 241, 290 National Socialism, 15, 18, 34, 37, 41, 43–45, 51, 98, 118, 121–22, 129, 131, 200, 205, 243–44, 269, 295, 297 neo-Nazism, 51 Natta, Alessandro, 101 Negri, Antonio, 133 Nehru, Jawaharlal, 166 Neidhardt, Friedhelm, 10 Netherlands; Dutch, 8, 37, 42–43, 57 International Institute for Social History (Amsterdam), 98 New Left, 9, 16–17, 19, 115, 117, 126, 128–30, 133–36, 152, 163– 65, 168–70, 174, 176, 236–44,

P Palestine, 279, 292 Palmer, Bryan, 165 Panvini, Guido, 281–82 Paris Treaty, 191 Parri, Ferruccio, 102, 105–106 Pauling, Linus, 244 Pavone, Claudio, 52, 104 Peet, John, 40, 42 Persia; Persian, 275 Peruta, Franco Della, 99 Petain, Philippe, 54–55 Pettenkofer, Andreas, 262–63 Pirelli, Giovanni, 291 Pivato, Stefano, 258 Piven, Frances Fox, 148 Poland; Polish, 34, 57, 101, 171, 181, 203, 240, 260

O Oberländer, Theodor, 41 Oertzen, Peter von, 127, 135 Ohnesorg, Benno, 210, 275 Old Left, 128–29, 250, 259, 261, 265, 267, 272. See also New Left Opel, Fritz, 127 Opp, Karl-Dieter, 148 Owen, William, 40

Index

Solidarnosc, 181–82 Pontecorvo, Gillo, 278, 291 Pope John XXIII, 295, 299, 301 Pope Paul VI, 295, 299–300 Poperen, Jean, 80 Popper, Karl, 143 Portugal; Portuguese, 9, 171, 273, 295, 299 Positivismusstreit, 141 postwar years, 33, 35, 57, 74, 109, 197, 268 Prague Spring. See under Czechoslovakia Procacci, Giuliano, 74 Proll, Thorwald, 278 Q Quakers, 194 Quazza, Guido, 105–106, 108 R Rabehl, Bernd, 221, 224 Ragionieri, Ernesto, 96, 108 Rapacki Plan, 203 Reberioux, Madeleine, 69 Reformation, 301 Reich, Wilhelm, 130, 222 Retzlaw, Karl, 130 Rex, John, 168 Rodano, Franco, 297 Rossellini, Carlo, 94 Rossellini, Roberto, 47, 94 Roth, Karl-Heinz, 15, 133–34 Roth, Roland, 151 Rothschild, Emma, 180 Roux, Jacques, 77 Rude, George, 75, 77, 81 Rürup, Reinhard, 135 Rüsen, Jörn, 144, 188 Russel, Bertrand, 244 Russia; Russian, 117, 119, 123, 125

  319

Bolshevik Revolution (1917), 1–2, 71–72, 117, 119, 123, 132, 226, 290 See also Soviet Union S Sagan, Francois, 242 Saitta, Armando, 75–77 Salvatore, Gaston, 271, 273–74 Salvatorelli, Luigi, 107 Samuel, Raphael, 166 Sanctis, Gaetano De, 92 Santarelli, Enzo, 94, 108 Sartre, Jean Paul, 244–45, 291, 304 Saville, John, 164, 168, 172, 238 Schloendorff, Volker, 267 Schneider, Peter, 224, 277 Schreiner, Albert, 123–24, 126 Schumann, Michael, 268 Schuschnigg, Kurt, 45 Second World War (1939–1945), 8, 12–13, 23, 34, 37–38, 49, 52–53, 55, 65, 67–68, 89, 103, 180, 192, 197, 200, 205, 238–39, 241, 290, 293 Allied powers, 43–44 Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), 19, 281, 295, 297, 301–302 Sereni, Emilio, 74, 100 Sewell, William H., 262 Shaw, Martin, 165 Sloan, Phil F., 259 Slobodian, Quinn, 266 Soboul, Albert, 69–70, 75–82 social democracy, 2–3, 6–7, 122, 127, 129, 135 socialism; socialist, 2, 6, 9, 13, 18, 33–34, 41, 43, 54, 57, 92, 98, 128, 136, 149, 172, 174, 201, 235–36, 239, 249, 253, 264, 303 in relation to Communism, 35–36, 45, 48, 99, 118

320  Index in relation to Marxism, 3, 6 movement. See under social movement reformist, 100 state, 116 socialist humanism, 17, 165, 173–74, 177–79, 181–83 social movement anti-auhoritarian movement, 205, 226, 228–29, 232 anti-capitalist movement, 9, 23 anti-fascist movement, 12–13, 22 anti-globalization movement, 10 anti-imperialist movement, 2, 19, 22–23 anti-psychiatry movement, 23 communist movement, 11, 22, 65, 67–69, 82, 291 council movement, 15, 116–17, 120–22, 125–27, 134–36, 240 definition of, 10–11 Easter March movement, 187–89, 193–97, 199–204, 206–212, 242, 244 environmental movement, 10, 12–13, 23 feminist movement, 13, 19 labor movement, 6, 15, 22, 54, 65, 91, 117, 121, 129, 136–37, 147, 199, 201, 223, 225 liberation movement, 19, 263, 267, 270, 280, 295 Movimento del’77, 50 new social movements, 9, 16, 155 Occupy, 10 peace movement, 7, 9–10, 12–13, 16–18, 22–23, 147, 163–65, 167, 172, 174, 176–77, 180, 182–83, 187 peasant movement, 96 protest movement, 2, 4–11, 13, 22–23, 36, 128, 219, 257–58, 264–65, 275, 304–305

reading movement, 236 sans-culottes movement, 76–80 socialist movement, 90, 99, 174, 221, 236, 290 student movement (1968), 9, 13, 15–17, 109, 115–16, 128, 132–33, 205, 211–12, 217–18, 223, 225–26, 228, 232, 239, 242, 251, 265, 270, 277, 292, 301, 305 third world movement, 10, 16, 18–19, 225 trade union movement, 8, 19 unemployed movement, 23 women’s movement, 7, 10, 12, 19, 23, 147 workers’ movement, 20, 45, 222, 226–27, 260, 290, 305 working-class movement, 98–99, 102, 106, 109 social movement studies, 16, 20–21, 154, 159 and politically engaged scholarship, 142, 147–48, 151, 154, 158 Söhnlein, Horst, 278 Sombart, Werner, 141 South Africa, 269 Soviet Union (USSR); Soviet, 1–3, 7, 22, 35–37, 39, 48, 54–55, 57, 66, 72, 100, 122, 125, 127, 132, 167, 169, 173, 180–82, 191, 240, 251, 263–64, 290, 293–94, 298, 305–306 Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), 65–66, 68, 70–71, 101, 240, 298, 305 history of, 71 Moscow, 108, 296 See also Russia Spain; Spanish, 6, 9, 12, 20, 260, 273 Communist Party of Spain, 56 Spandler, Helen, 156–57 Sperber, Manes, 272

Index

Spriano, Paolo, 96 Stalin, Josef, 70, 80, 82, 119, 126–27, 132, 230 History of the Communist Party, 100, 123 Stalinism; Stalinist, 3, 11, 13, 66, 68, 70, 97, 124, 132, 166, 173, 177, 179, 264 Stalinization, 34, 119 de-Stalinization, 126, 133, 136, 164, 167 Stein, Lorenz von, 147 Stolle, Helga, 194, 196 Storace, Francesco, 53 Suez Crisis (1956), 38, 164, 168, 240 Sweden; Swedish, 8 Sweezy, Paul, 73–74, 79, 304 T Tarrow, Sidney, 11 Taylor, Charles, 238 Taylor, Dick, 165 Teilard de Chardin, Pierre, 301 Tempel, Hans-Konrad, 194, 196, 208, 210 Thatcher, Margaret, 171 Third Reich. See under Germany Third World, 209, 225, 241–44, 261, 266, 273, 275, 280–81, 290, 294–96, 298–300, 302–305 Third Worldism, 18–19, 289–92, 300 Thompson, Dorothy, 164, 166–68, 171 Thompson, Edward P., 17–18, 43, 135, 145, 238, 243 The Making of the English Working Class, 169 Thompson, Frank, 166 Thorez, Maurice, 54, 66, 70 Tillich, Paul, 277

  321

Tocqueville, Alexis de, 72 Togliatti, Palmiro, 71, 74, 100–101, 108, 297 Torres, Camilo, 281 Touraine, Alain, 157 Trentin, Bruno, 303 Trotskyism, 80, 230, 292 Tschombe, Moise, 276 Turoldo, David Maria, 295 U Ulbricht, Walter, 126 United Nations (UN), 294 United States of America (USA); American, 13, 170, 172–73, 177, 179–81, 190, 208, 259–60, 275–77, 280, 293–94, 296–97, 304–306 V Vack, Klaus, 199, 201–202, 208, 211–12, 266 Vietnam; Vietnamese, 260, 265, 276–77, 279, 281, 297, 299, 304, 306 Vietnam War (1955–1975), 187, 208, 211, 242, 259, 261, 268, 278, 296, 305 Volpe, Gioacchino, 92–94 W Weber, Max, 141 Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, 135 Werder, Lutz von, 227 Werturteilsstreit, 141 Willard, Claude, 70 Wilson, Harold, 170 Winslow, Cal, 167, 174–75

322  Index Wolf, Frieder Otto, 252 Wolfrum, Edgar, 197 working class, 1, 4, 66, 70, 73–74, 95, 99, 121, 126, 129, 133–35, 137, 167, 172, 174–75, 194, 207, 227, 303–304, 306 Worsley, Peter, 168

Y Yugoslavia; Yugoslav, 167 Z Zhdanovism, 97, 101 Zionism, 260