Maoism in the Developed World

The East German Communists noted in 1977 the existence of at least eight other self-proclaimed Maoist parties in Italy, some of them largely confined to a single city.[302] However, in addition to the groups that succeeded in forming avowedly Maoist parties which were to a greater or lesser degree associated with Maoism as a recognizable international movement, there were other elements in the Italian Far Left in the 1960s and 1970s that expressed considerable sympathy for the Chinese Communists.

These, however, were by no means part of International Maoism in any organizational sense. They were to be found in dissident elements of both the PCI and the Socialist Party.

The most significant of these was II Manifesto group. This was a dissident group within the PCI that arose in the late 1960s, attracting in particular a number of that parry’s intellectuals. Among their other disagreements with the post-Togliatti leadership of the Italian Communist Party was their strong support of the Chinese Great Cultural Revolution.

Livio Maitan, the Italian Trotskyist leader, wrote in 1970 about the pro-Maoism of the II Manifesto group, that the “theses” of the group “declare the universal validity of the conceptions of Mao and the cultural revolution; they consider that a real proletarian democracy exists in China and that the Chinese leadership is manifesting a ‘new Internationalism’ that ‘relies on the coherence and richness of revolutionary initiative in other sectors of the world.’”

Maitan observed of these positions that “All this, among other things, is in contradiction to other parts of the document that expound conceptions differing palpably from the Maoist conceptions, especially regarding the structure of revolutionary society and the conception of the party.”[303]

One of the several splinter groups of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI), the Socialist Party of Proletarian Unity (PSIUP), split from the PSI in the late 1960s. According to Dan Georgakas, writing in the American newspaper Liberated Guardian in 1971, the PSIUP “hoped to offer a radical alternative in the form of a socialist Maoist party.”[304]

In the middle of the 1970s, the II Manifesto group and the PSIUP joined forces to establish the Party of Proletarian Unity (PdUP). According to the French Trotskyist paper Rouge, “Without destruction, there can be no construction/ This quotation from Mao Tse-tung hangs in the place of honor on the wall of the Rome headquarters of the PSIUP, under a full-length portrait of the organization’s patron saint.”[305] The PdUP split apart in 1977, and neither faction really became a part of International Maoism.

The PCI Rapprochement With The Chinese

As we have seen, the Italian Communist Parry opposed Soviet efforts to excommunicate the Chinese party in the 1960s. They continued to oppose this idea, although there were no indications of the PCFs accepting Maoist ideas or policies.

However, in 1980 there occurred a rapprochement between the PCI and the Chinese party, which underscored the fact that the successors to Mao Tse-tung had had little further interest in.

trying to maintain a Maoist party in Italy. This was in the form of an official visit to China by a delegation of the PCI, headed by the then secretary general of the Italian party, Enrico Berlinguer. The Italians had separate audiences with Hua Guo-feng and Deng Xiaoping, and “five rounds of talks with the delegation of the CPC Central Central Committee, led by General Secretary Hu Yao-bang.”

An official Chinese press release on this visit began by noting that “The visit to China of the delegation of the Central Committee of the Italian Communist Party has marked the resumption and a new stage of development of relations between the Chinese and Italian Communist Parties. “ It noted that “Generally speaking, the two Parties, while reserving separate views on some important questions, found common ground on many issues such as opposing war and safeguarding peace.”

The Chinese press release concluded that “Each side expressed its views frankly and in a comradely manner on an equal footing. They agreed that it was only normal for them to have differences on certain issues as their past experiences and present environments differed, and that these differences should not be an obstacle to developing relations between them. They felt that these differences would gradually be removed when further mutual understanding was achieved through future contacts, discussions and exchanges of positions, and through the test of practice in the revolutionary struggle. Neither side would impose its views on the other.”[306]