Index |
The French and Italian Communist Parties: Comrades and Culture
Cyrille Guiat, The French and Italian Communist Parties: Comrades and Culture, London and Portland, Or: Frank Cass Publishers, 2003; ppxix + 209. ISBN 0-7146-5332-2.
This well-researched study analyses cultural policy in two communist-run municipalities in Ivry-sur-Seine and Reggio Emilia, between the 1960s and 1980s, and attempts to use this focused comparison to shed light upon the broader contrast that is often drawn in the literature between the French (PCF) and Italian (PCI) communist parties. Essentially, the hypothesis tested by Guiat centres upon the contention that the PCF in this period remained an orthodox marxist-leninist party, sectarian in its attitudes to potential allies, and pro-Soviet in outlook. On the other hand, the PCI is often depicted as moderate and heterodox, a party that had consciously rejected the bolshevik model, and was embarked upon a 'strategy veering towards Western-style democracy and reformism.' (pxvii)
Borrowing a striking metaphor from Marc Lazar's Maisons rouges (1992), a comparative study of the two communist parties/movements, which has clearly had a strong influence upon Guiat's approach to the subject, the author proceeds by investigating these 'two satellites, which having been launched simultaneously, started to follow increasingly divergent trajectories.' (ibid) Adapted from a doctoral thesis, the book includes a useful, though not always uncontroversial, survey of the existing literature on the post-war development of the PCF and PCI, before moving on to justify the methodological choices pursued. Then, two chapters deal with the case-studies in depth, before Guiat concludes, provocatively, that the crucial explanation for the divergent trajectories were what he calls international or teleological factors, as opposed to the respective parties' national or societal implantation. Specifically, he argues that paradoxically, 'it seems that the PCI was only able to prioritise its national, societal dimension primarily because of international factors such as the geopolitics of the Soviet Union' (p173), and the key international role played by PCI leader, Palmiro Togliatti, during the Comintern period (up until 1943) and beyond, which is contrasted to the relative lack of autonomy enjoyed by the PCF, and its leader during the same era, Maurice Thorez.
In his introduction, and his comprehensive review of the literature, Guiat makes the claim that much of the existing material comparing these parties suffers from the fact that they are 'distorted by political motives.' (pxvii). Guiat hopes that his micro-political case-studies will offer an antidote to this ideological poison, a weakness that infected studies of west European communism, particularly during the Cold War. However, although an author's ideological stance is undoubtedly significant, and ought to be transparent, it is not clear whether Guiat's implicit claim to neutrality or objectivity can really stand up. While he is, rightly, quick to point out that 'the historical production of communist historians was closely monitored [by the party leadership], at least until the 1970s' (p4), his claim that 'history was used for reasons of political expediency', and that 'to PCF leaders history was not an independent endeavour' (ibid), requires, in my view, some balancing discussion of anti-communist, as opposed to merely non-communist or scholarly, literature. According to Guiat, there was some evolution in the approach of communist historians and sympathisers from the Eurocommunist era onwards, which permitted a historiography of the PCF and PCI that moved beyond the 'official histories', and challenged the boundaries of leadership censorship and ideological orthodoxy. This relative relaxation was still deeply problematic for Guiat, because authors like Georges Lavau and Jacques Fauvet continued to see the PCF as 'first and foremost a French political party interacting with its national environment.' (p9). Guiat is forceful in his critique of these authors, and their focus upon the 'national-societal' dimension of the study of west European communism, arguing that 'by focusing on the implantation of the PCF, its strategy, its electorate, its membership or its municipalities, they systematically underestimate the international dimension…[which was] central to every aspect of its existence.' (p11, emphasis added). Later on, Guiat appears to row back somewhat from this claim, endorsing Tony Judt's 'methodological plea to find a balance between the "interior" (domestic) and "exterior" (international) histories of these parties' (p16). One potential reason for the perception that much of the literature underplays or even ignores the international dimension, concerns the fact that a good deal of this analysis was published during the explosion of interest in the west European communist parties during the Eurocommunist era (approximately the decade from the early 1970s until the early 1980s). This was precisely the period when national and societal dimensions of these parties' activities were brought to the fore.
In his discussion of the work of Annie Kriegel, Guiat clearly sympathises with her judgment that the PCF 'is irrevocably foreign, an import or a "transplant"' (p17), and with Stéphane Courtois' claim that the French communists 'acted at the end of the Second World War as a mere tool in the Soviet geopolitical game.' (p18; emphasis added) Further on, Guiat argues that this 'strong emphasis on the international dimension of French communism did not amount to total neglect of its national/societal face.' (p21) There are a couple of relevant points to make here: first, in practice, to suggest that the international or teleological dimension of western communist parties' activity was paramount is certainly possible, but surely what is required for a genuine historical understanding of the development of these parties is a methodology that integrates these two dimensions, rather than portraying them as necessarily dichotomous; second, the Kriegelian view begs the following question: did the majority, or even a large minority, of ordinary members of west European communist parties have knowledge and understanding of their parties' secret international role as agents of the Soviet Union? If we assume that these members were duped by the party leaderships, sometimes over the course of political lifetimes, they nevertheless acted, and were treated by some within their national and local societies, as if they themselves and the parties to which they belonged were fully engaged in the political life of those societies. This activity had real consequences, helping to mould the development of these political systems, and in this sense the west European communist experience and history cannot be properly understood as inauthentic or not really genuine, which is one implication of Kriegel's formulation. As an aside, it is surely relevant that Kriegel was herself, like François Furet, an ex-member of the PCF, something that Guiat neglects to mention.
The international dimension of these parties' experience is often rendered here as merely faithful compliance by the PCF and (to a lesser extent) the PCI to the directives of the Comintern or Stalin or the Soviet geopolitical interest, but Guiat's own argument regarding the role of Togliatti in the Comintern and afterwards, and his capacity to 'understand and negotiate with Stalin' (p170), suggests that this power relationship, while certainly asymmetrical, may be more complex than the two-dimensional model allows. Is Togliatti primarily to be understood as an actor for the 'centre', helping to impose 'homogeneity, cohesion and unity on all communist parties' (as Courtois and Lazar put it, cited by Guiat, p22), or as leader of a national communist movement, seeking to influence and adapt the practice of communist ideology at both national and international levels? In the end, this debate has been a long-standing one in communist historiography, and Guiat cannot be expected to resolve it. His focused comparative methodology and his detailed case-studies are original and significant contributions to our understanding of the PCF and PCI in the post-war period, even if they don't necessarily make his broader perspective concerning rival interpretations of communist history absolutely compelling.
Stephen Hopkins
Department of Politics, University of Leicester
This review will also appear in a future issue of Perspectives on European Politics and Society.
