AnarWiki/markdown/Spezzano_Albanese.md

'''Spezzano Albanese '''is a [small
town](List_of_Libertarian_Socialist_Societies "wikilink") which has
practiced [anarchism](anarchism "wikilink") since
[1992](Timeline_of_Libertarian_Socialism "wikilink").

## History

The **Municipal Federation of the Base** (**Federazione Municipale della
Base**/**FMB**) was an anarchist [community
organizing](Community_Organizing "wikilink") group that began
[agitating](Agitation "wikilink") in 1972. A: The FMB is the result of
an intervention for the past 20 years by the local anarchist group which
began to agitate at the end of 72 beginning 73. The FMB was born during
92. All the activity which we have deployed was always characterised by
a particular attention given to local and territorial problems, without
ever ignoring national and international issues. For example, the death
of Franco, the reconstruction of the CNT in Spain, which brought about a
debate at the national level in Italy, was resumed across different
interventions in Spezzano. In the region of Cosance, where there are
different groups, there was talk of creating a Calabrian federation.
Those were the years of the strong social movements in Italy. We were at
the beginning of the 70s, after the Massacre of the Piazza Fontana.
Here, this was expressed in a strong student and unemployed movement.
There were 2 textile factories which were threatened with closure, so
there was a movement of workers of Inteca, etc. Our group quickly
understood that it couldn't limit itself to an ideological intervention
and it was thought that our principles must be matched with the practice
of the struggle which was self experimenting in these times. The group
was made up of students, unemployed, some building workers and dailies
(?). The only group not represented was perhaps women. Our eternal
problem while there were more and more women in the collectives coming
out of these struggles. From these struggles were organised the first
Committees of the Unemployed, of Workers, which formed the first mass
structures which wanted a national extent/ size. In these structures
there weren't only anarchists. They were completely autonomous from the
specific work of the anarchist group. A dual vision of the organisation
- on one side, the specific groups, on the other, the mass
organisations. This work was carried out until 1977, the years in which
the anarchists of this place served as a rallying point for the whole
Castovillari region. The other Marxist movements, such as Lutta
Continua, which were very strong in this region have completely
disappeared. At a national level in those years we started to talk of
the reconstruction of the USI (Unione Sindacale Italiana - AIT section).
There were 2 ÒcongressesÓ, one in Rome the other in genes, from where
emerged 2 tendencies. Here, we have fought much for anarcho-syndicalism
because the intervention which we make brought about our feeling the
need of a union structure already before the debate took place
nationally. We participated in the national debate and it was reported
that the Italian situation didn't correspond to our manner of reading
reality. Which we brought about with the positions more in accord with
our view. One saw in the national debate a mainly ideological discourse,
of almost personal polemics and one perceived that the USI wasn't born
from the world of work but from the wishes of certain anarchists who
simply changed their name. During this time, in Spezzano, the
anarcho-syndicalist discourse was building itself in the committees of
struggle which engulfed a vast territory and were composed not only of
anarchists, but also of comrades from extra-parliamentary groups, some
from Proletarian Democracy or Marxist formations and the majority were
workers, unemployed, etc. While the birth of a true mass structure was
proposed, at a national level, there was little anarchist presence in
the struggles which were raging in this period (hospital workers,
airport workers, etc) And the USI was born inside the specific movements
incapable of regrouping dissidents from the official unions. This
situation brought about, at the Congress of Genes, the 2 different
positions. On 1 side certain comrades wanted the renaissance of the USI,
on the other were those who prioritised work within the base structures
(e.g. temporary school workers). We did not see ourselves in either of
these motions and on returning to Spezzano it was decided to unify all
the different structures of the territory in one Union Sindacale de Zone
(USZ). The USZ formed in 78, did not adhere to the CAD (Committee of
Direct Action) formed in Bologna after the Genes Congress, nor to the
USI constituted in the Parma Congress in 1979. With the USZ, work was
done for more than 5 years on the problems of the world of work,
unemployment & became interested in the theme of territorial opposition
to the town hall. From this communalist and municipalist current came,
in 1992, the FMB. . I would like it to be understood - the diversified
mass structures, which were doing a specific job, with the USZ, found
unity which translated onto larger territory. It passed from a classical
syndicalist vision to a complex intervention which put together not only
workplace issues but also the other realities present in the communal
territory. It was begun to look at the administrative choices which were
denounced in public interventions for their clientist character and
blackmail, for the choices discriminatory and repressive, surely this
must concern us. There were struggles over health, education & the
question of fraud in the commune. This drove to create a rapport of
struggle with the communal administration which tried to stop our
meetings. Sympathy was growing towards us. There were 200 in the
organisation of which 30 were very active

DN: Which were the left groups working in the same terrain at the same
time?

A: In 76, Luta Continua disappeared. In 77, the Marxist left came back
into parliamentary institutions as Proletarian Democracy. There were
some M-Ls and Workers Autonomy who never had much weight with us. There
werenÕt any groups organised and already in 77 our group was the only
reference in the whole district.

DN: Which party controlled the Town Hall?

A: The mayor was Communist Party, but was worse than a Christian
democrat. Our work consisted also to make understood that political
membership didn't change things deeply. . Power corrupts. There the
libertarian ideology of the USZ could be seen and it was agreed to
propagate this idea, even if it meant hard struggles with the base of
the PC whose leaders worked up against us. There were moments where the
confrontation tended towards being physical. In 92 the magistrate
charged the mayor and a group of councillors . People began to
understand that everything we had been denouncing since the end of the
70s wasn't just affabulations. This made people more interested in our
activities. Before 83, in full conflict with the communal admin, the
mayor often defied us to denounce to the magistrate his dealings knowing
this was against our logic and our praxis. In 83, some of the workers in
the USZ, after a big debate at the personal level, decided to take the
matter before the magistrate. A year later, following the enquiry, a
split occurred in the PC. In 84, to keep his place, the mayor was
obliged to buy a councillor of the MSI (fascists). In 85, during the
electoral period, we realised the opportunity to create an alternative
to this situation. There were strong pressures to present a list )of
candidates) however over the years we developed an abstentionist
practice. . The message got across at the national level but in the
locality the illusion of being able to change things by elections was
tenacious. And in one effect, a civic list was presented in which we
refused to participate. This list, in an indirect manner, had
libertarian aspirations and took back many of the methods which we had
used effectively in the previous years. With time, it changed practice
and objectives in defending the same interests as the previous lists.
While the civic list was being constituted we recognised that a
libertarian response, to explain again the reasons for our abstentionism
at national and local level, a Federation Municipal of Base which wanted
to be an alternative to the power of the town hall. And while the others
made their electoral campaign, we set up a Committee for the FMB in an
attempt to gather together everyone who saw themselves in the discourse
of self - organisation and direct action in opposition to the choice of
abdication of power in favour of the municipal council. . The FMB was as
such an anarchist proposal and quickly heard from a large part of the
population. IN the full electoral campaign, a constitutive assembly of
the FMB was held. The Town Hall was made up of the civic list,
socialists, CDs and the PC in opposition. The mayor was from the civic
list.

DN: What were the relations between the FMB and the communal
administration?

A: The FMB posed an alternative. It was set up on that basis. It has
always wanted to be something other than the power of the Town Hall and
that's why we defined ourselves as an alternative. Relations with the
Town Hall were conflictual. In what concerned the organisation the FMB
took into account all past experience and volunteered a complex
structure. A mass organisation which didn't want to be only about the
bread and butter issues of the workplace, unemployment and the school,
but also political. It had to be the bearer of a project which makes a
glance at what could be a future libertarian society, that is to say a
complex organisation of the society which prefigured the libertarians.
In the FMB were workplace union structures but they gathered the
different social categories in the civic union.

DN: What's the civic union?

A: The workers were not only those who fought for their rights but also
citizens enrolled in a common territorial theme. All the particular
structures had the right to sit in the civic union. This structure
organises in the district services, education and health in opposition
to the choice of the administration and offer a different way of
managing and deciding. When we began to talk about the FMB, we were
afraid of being misunderstood by the libertarian movement, of being
accused of being ÒinterclassistsÓ, of constituting the UIL Committee of
Citizens (UIL is a right wing union) proposed by Benfento. (?Who he)
That was what made us afraid but it was the logical follow-on from our
intervention over the years. It must be stated that our conception of
municipalism is different from that of Bookchin. Communalism is very
varied. In Italy, there have been, historically, proposals in the
communalist tradition. Berneri is one of the greatest agitators in this
tradition and I believe he would have much to say to Bookchin, as he
would to Malatesta, in his later years when he began to talk of
gradualism. It is certain he would not have agreed with Bookchin.

DN: What does Bookchin propose?

A: He proposes that anarchists should become like the other parties,
present themselves for election, to manage power in the town halls.
ÒSince one is anarchist, one could give an impulse to a democracy of
the base and directÓ\> We believe that to enter into the electoral game
is to lose to anarchism its specificity and its values. Anarchists
refuse the delegation of power. They can never create a party. To accept
power and to say that the others are in bad faith and that we would be
better, is to act as if a party of the society, whether you like it or
not, which would be obliged to force non-anarchists towards direct
democracy. We have refused this logic and affirm that all organisations
must come from the base.

DN: How do you define communalism?

A: It is the interest borne at the district. The commune understands
about the world of work, civil life, etc. In intervening at a municipal
level, we become involved in not only the world of work but also the
life of the community. Every time the Spezzano council make a choice,
the Civic Union of the FMB make counter proposals, which aren't
presented to the Council but proposed for discussion in the country to
raise the people's level of consciousness. Whether they like it or not
the Town Hall is obliged to take account of these proposals. For
example, it was proposed that the rates and the land use plans and its
variants should be discussed in a general assembly. It is clear that the
administrators have made choices which we have fought and continue to
fight, but this has served to make understood that it is possible, by
positioning oneself as an alternative, to make alternative proposals &
manage it properly.

DN: We read in Umanita Nova that there was one assembly where 4 mayors
were invited. How did you arrive at that decision and what was brought
to the FMB?

A: We have made a square (?) over 4 communes because we felt that our
experience should go beyond Spezzano. In effect, the FMB is already
known since Spezzano is the main place in the canton and because our
activity and public intervention was not only heard in the country
around but by many passing through. We think that we must make a
qualitative leap to promote the formation of identical structures in the
neighbouring areas where there already exists sympathy for the FMB. IN
areas such as Terranova, Tarsai, etc, research on services and
administrative choices was done. We have been to 4 communes where they
have been given provisional rates and studied them and looked at the
choices involved. It must be said that in this work we have some
facilities because after 20 years of existence not one commune dares
refuse what we ask out of fear of public denunciation. In this study, a
document was produced where we laid out the choices and put counter
proposals at a departmental level. Those proposals which touched
services, health, education and town planning were addressed not just to
Spezzano, but also to Terranova, Tarsia and San Lorenzo. AT the end of
this work we made the assembly where we invited the mayors for them to
see the functioning and critiques of the assembly. The assembly was
positive because it created the condition for this type of intervention
to grow to the whole district. After the summer holidays, it's the type
of intervention we are going to develop. Today, nationally, this type of
intervention is much discussed. The fairs of self-organisation area
mirror of all which in Italy turns to the question of Communalism versus
municipalism or self government (the 2 terms used in Italy -
municipalism a la Bookchin or communalism which we prefer)

DN: Do other experiences of this type exist in Italy? Or others who work
from the same perspective?

A: When we were thinking about the Civic Union we were afraid that many
comrades would misunderstand our step. This led us to little publicise
the FMB. The editors of Umanita Nova we made only a report of the
initiatives leading to the FMB without explaining what they truly were
made up of. We immediately received a quantity of letters which asked
for further explanations. In effect we got the contrary reactions which
we thought we would. This got us to broadcast our step. It was
discovered that other realities agitated on the municipalist problem. We
made contact with a network of small entities which were co-ordinated
from Bologna. From it was born a first congress. At the same time the
Liga Nord were making a discussion of federalism in this manner. On one
side, in Italy, there is a reactionary federalism, racist and
conservative, borne by The Liga, and on the other, in opposition,
libertarian federalism was revalued with its historic ideological roots.
Comrades of Milan, Turin and others had the idea of a fair of self-
organisation to confront all the realities which are active in the
domaine of municipalism, communalism or simply self -organisation, as an
alternative to the logic of domination. At Alessandria, the first fair
of self- organisation happened and many different currents were present.
This fair linked all ages and it became more important as much on a
quantitative level as a qualitative. There were also some publications
(the book of Sandro Vaccaro and mine). I would like to reaffirm that
municipalism wasn't invented by Bookchin. Municipalism is part of the
historic ideological patrimony of the anarchists. Bookchin has taken a
type of this theme and put his things inside it, things which are not
shared by all, including us. We refuse the logic which poses to the
anarchists a candidature which obliges them to manage power and which
could lose them their identity. This type of logic can arise from real
base movements but the anarchists must have to capacity to defend an
alternative project. Otherwise, they risk becoming no better than the
other parties. Those comrades who follow the logic of Bookchin and
present themselves for municipal elections are few and are not taken to
be in the general anarchist movement.

DN: In your book, you speak about the attitudes and language that the
anarchists have taken to the Marxist movement. You consider it
embarrassing and negative, why?

A: I think that the anarchists, historically, have an inferiority
complex towards Marxism (also in the Spanish revolution I believe many
errors were due to this complex). If one takes as an example the concept
of class and class struggle, we still retain the Marxist conception of
the proletariat. In the anarchist movement, the class is not only the
proletariat but all the exploited, dominated, those submitting to power.
One goes on to speak of the exploited, of the dominated, inside of which
we have the proletariat, but not only. When we begin to speak only of
the proletariat, our logic is Marxist. Even our syndicalism, which is
complex and not only supportive (anarcho-syndicalism ), has submitted to
the same logic. The Spanish CNT has at its core a strong conception of
the proletariat even though it realised communalism and self
organisation. It's as if the anarchists want to use the same Marxist
logic, logic in which they will be lost. If the Marxists have, as
perspectives, the question of power, the anarchists must take account of
all the exploited, of all the dominated and create the social structures
which presage that which must be the future libertarian society. Apart
from the Spanish revolution we have not succeeded in that. I think that
just as the Spanish revolution must be discussed in a critical manner to
separate the positive aspects and their limits.

DN: Does the FMB limit itself only to this work of counter-propositions
to the Town Hall or does it seek to create alternatives on the ground?

A: We have created a co-operative, "Arcobaleno" (Rainbow) of house
painters. We have also tried to organise agricultural workers and
services. We want to be capable of creating self-organised work. The big
merit and the goal of self- organisation is to regroup the comrades not
only for political discussions on municipalism but to confront the
practical experiences like the co-operatives. Beyond intervention in
opposition to the institution, one wants to create alternative
structures of production capable of making a glimpse of the reality of a
future society.

DN: Let's be devil's advocate. Are you not afraid that your co-operative
will become like the co-operatives in the north of Italy? These
co-operatives, in their confrontation with the capitalist economy
succeeded in achieving self exploitation, that is to say their insertion
in the logic of the market which has made them lose all alternative
potential.

A: The end of the co-operatives in Italy is as you say but the origin is
a libertarian idea of self - organisation. They must be taken back to
their origins. One could have the same fears concerning federalism: the
US is federalist, Bossi (leader of the Liga Nord) is federalist,
Switzerland is federalist. They have taken many of our words, such as
federalism, self -organisation, etc, but should that stop us using these
words? As for the co-operatives, it is sure there are some dangers
especially when there isn't a strong libertarian presence. We have had
many difficulties when we created the co-operative because it lacks a
mentality and conception of production and working in an alternative
way, in opposition to the capitalist model. Again today, there is this
type of problem and contradictions. One can certainly be mistaken but if
one is profoundly convinced and if the anarchist movement begins to be
interested, in a practical manner, in these things and to be on the
inside, there will be less of a danger of an authoritarian drift. When
we are not present and only allow others the initiative, it is clear
that the co-operatives shall be like Emilia and Romagna.

DN: The co-operative is an economic structure and must be accountable to
the market. It is for this that I spoke to you of self-exploitation. To
survive, where you create an alternative market, an alternative manner
of living capable of blocking the race to consumption, which ends by
denaturing it.

A: It's sure that if the co-operatives are born in an isolated manner,
if they aren't inserted in a global debate which includes different
realities (that is the aim of the self- organisation fair), the danger
of which you speak is very real. We always have it in mind. That's why
we seek to bring together all the realities, all the problems and
contradictions, to seek solutions. You spoke of self- exploitation. It
is certain that it is possible that in a co-operative one wins less and
works more. But all that can change if there are more comrades who have
input and a network of different realities. The important thing is that
you do something without a boss. Decisions are taken altogether. One can
make some concessions seen that which the capitalist system puts
forward, because we are beginning to model an alternative society. In
the anarchist movement there is a division. Certain comrades are for the
supportive struggle, political, conflictual towards power. They think
that the co-operatives, the self-organised groups, must be refused
because they are not manageable within the capitalist system. The others
think that it's necessary only to work in function to creation of
co-operatives or the self-organising moments. For me, both lack
something. They must be brought together, one cannot live in an
antagonist manner. In a system of domination, one must be in conflict
with the power and at the same time one can put forward alternative
structures; these 2 attitudes are part of the same struggle against
domination. On the contrary, many among us live either 100% class
struggle, or a life of retirement in the fortunate isles. In both cases
there is a danger of reintegration.

DN: After a long absence one is struck by the uniformity that the south
has submitted to and by the push to the race of consumption. For 12
years there has existed here a quantity of different cultures and
poverty could easily be distinguished from the rich. Today it seems that
the social fabric might disintegrate.. People live in front of the tv
where the programmes are identical to those of France. In one of the
poorest regions of Italy there is an appearance of impressionable
riches. One would like to know what you evaluate this process and what
is your position towards these new facts.

A: The same situation can be seen which everywhere else is perhaps
amplified by the fact that people identify with the tv models to have
the impression that they can leave their under development. I donÕt
believe that this should be something positive because this hides the
contradictions that we live in. For example, in Spezzano, with time,
many albanese words are replaced by Italian words. It is submitted to
the tyranny of an italianising culture. The anarchists must be sensible
and in this changing situation, not making it a priority of their fight
but to insert it in a wider cultural reflection , to make understood
that a different way of life to that proposed by consumerism and
capitalism does exist. A communalist intervention could take account of
this question, not to retreat but to project towards the future in a
federalist discourse of respect for minority cultures. Our struggle must
be global and culture forms a part of it.

DN: What do you think of Bossi's proposition of secession from Italy?

A: I can say that in the south, this type of debate doesn't exist. In
Sicily, in the last regional elections, there was a tentative
independentist list but it failed. There isn't a strong independentist
movement here and secessionism is badly viewed. There is, on the
contrary, a strong demand for administrative decentralisation. In the
FMB there are also people who see federalism as a means of
decentralisation. For example we are often asked why our taxes must pass
through Rome, and why we can't decide ourselves on their use? Ourselves,
often say that it is the community which ought to decide and not twenty
people and that the logic of paying taxes to Rome which after they are
returned to us in financial form. This discourse elicits much interest.
If there doesn't exist an independentist sentiment, the Liga Nord is
rather rejected than viewed as a project to which to adhere, it exists
when even that demand to be against the state. the State with us is seen
in a contradictory way. It is hated and liked at the same time, liked
for the facilities it gives.

DN: What are your links today with USI?

A: We adhered to USI because we believed that , inside USI, it doesn't
matter any longer what syndicate, one could have a discourse of social
organisation a real project of society. Today, with the split of the
USI, it was decided to stay outside. We think that it's lacking and that
it will be indispensable at the moment, a great debate on
anarcho-syndicalism: its ends and means. For the moment this debate does
not exist. And without it we can't see what will come out of it.

## References

<references />