The first attempt to expel Savelli was made through the executive of the party local where he held membership. As a member of the executive, Savelli put up an energetic defense, maintaining his right to publish a magazine as an instrument for discussion within the Italian working-class movement. The majority of the local's leadership rejected the proposal to expel Savelli and limited itself to asking him to make a © declaration of loyalty to the party.
Subsequently, after weightier intervention by the federal leadership, the local executive met again and decided by a majority vote to refer the matter to the local’ s general assembly.
An unusually well-attended assembly met to discuss the case, proving that free discussions inside the PCI are not as harmful to the organization as the leadership makes out. (The local in question has a poor record in attendance and activities, never succeeding in getting the members out. )
After a discussion that lasted until very late at night, the local decided by a majority vote to reject the’ proposal to expel Savelli; they merely suspended him for three months.
The Rome federation bureaucrats, of course, had counted on more. A hasty maneuver was cooked up to retrieve the situation. In a very irregular procedure that violated. the party statutes, the Control Commission of the Rome federation took up the case and decided to expel Savelli.
The decision was sent to Unita, the daily paper of the Italian Communist party, but the editors appeared to think that the item did not redound to the party's credit
and they put it only in the Rome news page which is not circulated nationally but only in the province of Rome.
The Control Commission then made another move, sending a short statement to Unita attacking La Sinistra as a publication seeking to disrupt the party. They demanded that this be published on a page having national circulation. The editors complied. ,
This statement was in contradiction with the position of the Federal Committee (the political leadership of the Rome federation). That body after a discussion lasting two days decided that it is incompatible for a member of the Italian Communist party to hold a position as publisher, editor or circulator of La Sinistra. A proposal to also include anyone who submitted articles was rejected. But the Control Commission decided to include this category, too, in the ban. ,
The decision of the Rome Control Commission proved unpopular in left Communist circles. There was also a reaction in the PSIUP [the Italian Socialist Party of Proletarian Unity, the left socialist group which split from Nenni's party]. The editor of Mondo Nuovo iNew World], the PSIUP weekly, deplored the measure taken against Savelli. In addition, a critical position was taken by Problemi del Socialismo [Problems of Socialism], the magazine edited by Lelio Basso, the chairman of the PSIUP Central Committee and member of the War Crimes Tribunal initiated by Bertrand Russell.
~ Meanwhile La Sinistra is following up the success of its first issue. The second number was as interesting as the first. It contained an interview with Isaac Deutscher on the “cultural revolution" in China, articles on Vietnam, on workers struggles and trade-union problems. The signed articles include Savelli, Libertini (a member of the Political Bureau of the PSIUP), Tagliazucchi (a PSIUP militant, member of the Editorial Board of Problemi del Socialismo), Gorla (a well-known and influential Communist militant of Milan), Piersanti (the national secretary of the Union of Doctors of the General Confederation of Labor and a member of the Communist party). Some articles are signed with three stars, indicating contributors who thought it best not to reveal their identity in view of what happened to Savelli.
The third issue was published after Savelli's expulsion. The contents show that his ouster had little effect on left Communist militants, who are continuing to write articles for the magazine. Two Communist leaders of Florence and a well-known militant in Turin are among the Communist party members who contributed.
At the same time the attempt to read La Sinistra out of the working-class movement proved to be a failure. Libertini and three members of the Communist party wrote letters criticizing the statement of the Control Commission. Foa, a member of the national leadership of the PSIUP and a member of the National Secretariat of the General Confederation of Labor, wrote an article for the magazine.
For more than two months the national leadership of the PCI tried to ignore La Sinistra. Aside from the small items submitted by the Rome Control Commission, the official Communist press avoided taking a stand on the magazine and its political line. At the beginning of January, Rinascita, the official weekly magazine of the PCI, took the plunge, honoring La Sinistra in a conspicuous way.
In the January 6 issue, the editor of Rinascita, G.C.Paietta, who is one of the top leaders of the PCI, wrote an article expressing his estimate of La Sinistra. Instead of the expected sharp attack, however, such as the Rome federation had launched, Paietta took a rather mild tone.
He said that the PCI is not against discussing with publications like La Sinistra. "We are not against a dialogue, polemics and even a clash with anyone who claims to be a socialist in any way if these are part of an effort to find ways and means of meeting and working together. In this issue we offer evidence of this, if further evidence is required, in the article by Comrade Achille Occhetto dealing with what Foa wrote in the monthly magazine in question.* Of course, the preliminary question could be asked (one which in no way refers to Comrade Foa, who is also one of the appreciated collaborators in our magazine) concerning the legitimacy of the relations of such people with the working-class movement and socialism; the question could also be raised about just when and at what border line, criticism and differences pass into-open attack so that whoever resorts to them becomes an enemy. Having read, discussed and thought over the legitimate differences, we are prepared to offer our appreciation. This involves discussing the
*The reference is to an article in the January 6 Rinascita by Occhetto (former national secretary of the Communist youth) in reply to an article by Foa in the third issue of La Sinistra.
various positions, always utilizing arguments based on reasoned grounds."
After stating this, Paietta justifies the action taken by the Rome federation, arguing that in a situation in which the party press is in financial straits, it is not permissible for a member of the PCI to use his own money to publish a magazine outside the control of the.party.
In a postscript to his article, Paietta replies to Basso's defense of Savelli. Basso's main argument was that through such methods as those used against Savelli, the PCI could not hope. to encourage the building of a united party of the Italian working class. Somewhat embarrassed at being trapped in the unity line advanced by the PCI, Paietta declares that as long as a united party has not been constructed, the PCI claims the right to apply its own statutes to its internal life. : ;
WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL GROUP VISITS CAMBODIA ~
Five members ,of the War Crimes Tribunal initiated by Bertrand Russell arrived in Pnompenh, Cambodia, January. 12. They were scheduled to stay ten days collecting evidence for the hearings of the tribunal. The five were Ralph Schoenman, the American secretary to Bertrand Russell; Dr. Gustave Tolentino of. Toronto; Carol Brightman of New York; _ Abraham Bejar of France; and. Lawrence Daly of Scotland. ns
It was reported that upon arriving in Paris from London en route to Hanoi, Ralph Schoenman was detained overnight by the French authorities. They held him at the hotel at Orly Airport. No official explanation was given and he was permitted to proceed by Air France the next morning. ; : ,
The U.S. State Department has been seeking in various ways to block the War Crimes Tribunal and if possible prevent it from holding hearings. One of its recent steps was to invalidate Schoenman's passport.
In contrast, the government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, declaring that it has nothing to hide from world public opinion, has done its utmost to facilitate the fact-finding work of the tribunal. .
TRISH FARMERS