Sabino S. Acquaviva, Guerriglia e guerra rivoluzionaria in italia. Ideologia, fatti, prospettive, Rizzoli, Milan 1979

Sabino S. Acquaviva, Guerriglia e guerra rivoluzionaria in italia. Ideologia, fatti, prospettive, Rizzoli, Milan 1979


In this historical period, in this stage of the crisis, the practice of revolutionary violence is the only policy which has a real chance of addressing and resolving the antagonistic contradiction which opposes the metropolitan proletariat to the imperialist bourgeois. In this period, on the initiative of the revolutionary vanguard, the class struggle assumes the form of war. It is precisely this which prevents the enemy from “normalizing the situation”, and has brought a tactical victory for the movement of struggle over the past decade, and the needs, aspirations and hopes which it has generated.

What Habash says is significant:

“The incapacity to destroy the revolution in a given period, is itself a victory for the revolution. Through this truth, the policy of violence is crystallized as a tradition of the masses, accelerating and deepening the process of formation of the party…it intensifies progressively until a resounding victory is brought over the enemy.”

Certainly it is us who want war!

We are also aware that the practice of revolutionary violence, forces the enemy into confrontation, forces them to live and move on the terrain of war: actually we want this to happen, we want to smoke the imperialist counter-revolution out from under the folds of “democratic” society, where it hid in better times!

But that having been said, it is necessary to be clear on one point: it is not us who “created” the counter-revolution. It is the same form which imperialism assumes in its development: it is not aspect but essence. Imperialism is counter-revolution. This fundamental truth is the necessary presupposition of the revolutionary class war emerging in the metropole through the practice of the guerrilla.

Having observed this, one can understand why the imperialist State commits all its forces to the denial of any political significance to proletarian violence. One can see why it tries to annihilate any force which does not exclude the recourse to revolutionary violence from its methods of struggle in the strongest possible terms.

The social order which the imperialist state wants to impose, presupposes the preventative reduction and generalization of the human individual as a “thing” in a society of things, subordinated in all areas to the laws of the capitalist market.

It is a impossible order of suppression of contradictions, purely quantitative development, of immobility, of death!

Like a beautiful film star, at the turn of their years and fortune, the imperialist State wants to block time, stop history, but despite its power, this is simply not possible.

Actually, it is the irony of history that the more the laws of capital are affirmed in all the interstices of social life and become general and absolute, making the “quality of life” intolerable, there are generated new needs for liberation and more radical movements of struggle.

Here is the contradiction which pushes the imperialist bourgeois to defeat, and this explains why it cannot tolerate antagonistic class contradictions and behaviors; why it cannot recognize them except as “criminal deviance”, “terrorism”, “irrational insurgency”, to use an an amusing Ministry definition “manifestations of ideological madness”.

In this framework, the intolerable claim of the imperialist bourgeois goes as follows, in order for opposition to the government to be “political” and thereby legitimate and tolerated, it must not express itself as ongoing antagonism. That is to say, it must agree to take place, completely within the magic circle traced by the law, by its conventions and its codes of “normal” social behavior. The alternative is: crime!

On this basis, even the concept of “political crime”, never denied by liberal democracy, is no longer a space for resistance. It becomes a contradiction in terms: are not the two part comprising this concept absolutely incompatible? As political “acts” are those occurring within the bounds of the laws, agreements, conventions and codes, they cannot possibly assume the form of crime. If this happens, it means they have transgressed and therefore become criminal offenses.

It is all too evident, that if this argument is accepted, it would result in the automatic subordination of the subaltern classes to the perpetual domination of the imperialist bourgeois. But there is no need to fear, because in reality, the limits of this thesis are not historically possible as the capitalist mode of production cannot prevent the development of the productive forces, and therefore the emergence of the contradictions which determine the conditions of the revolutionary confrontation.