Last year there were massive mobilizations in the streets, with many students. The protests in support of the Global Sumud Flotilla also swept through the Italian universities. From Catania, our comrades of the Partito Comunista dei Laboratori (PCL), Italian section of the ISL, who took part in the actions, spoke with Giulia, student of philosophy and with M. C., socio-education worker at the Valdocco Cooperative, both from Turin. The interview invites us to take a closer look and to think how we can be stronger next time as we continue to support the Flotilla.

Interview by PCL comrades

Giulia

After the occupations of 2023, how was the mobilization for Palestine relaunched in Turin?

Giulia: After the end of the occupation of the humanities faculties of the University of Turin (Palazzo Nuovo), the initiatives for Palestine became much more dispersed. Who gave a breath of fresh air to the movement was the humanitarian expedition of the Global Sumud Flotilla. Solidarity with the Flotilla involved not only the dock workers (who mobilized since its departure in all the Italian ports), but also and above all the students, in particular the university students. Many organizations tried to prepare a new unitary mobilization to create a “ground crew” in support of the mission. However, in Turin the organizational assemblies did not succeed in generating a movement that went beyond the walls of the university. The autumn reproduced dynamics very similar to the previous year’s mobilizations. Although the importance of their presence in a struggle that “interested everyone” was recognized, no attempt was ever made to extend the mobilization to the workers with targeted actions: distribution of leaflets, pickets or assemblies in front of factories.

In spite of the fact that Turin is an important industrial center in Italy and in recent years has received many investments in the war sector, student activation in that area has always been of little use in creating a united front with revolutionary slogans. The autonomous current, the majority, went back to focusing on the academic boycott without seeking a real convergence with the workers, only occasionally inviting factory delegates to some university meetings. The second university force by number, Cambiare Rotta-Self-Organized University Collective, boycotted the assemblies of the Student Intifada and preferred to organize on its own a new encampment in the faculty of political sciences. The youth organizations of Potere al Popolo-Rete dei Comunisti followed sectarian indications at the national level of the Unione Sindacale di Base, with which they held some meetings closed to other political and trade union organizations of the city.

The big demonstration in Turin on the occasion of the general strike of September 22 (in response to the blockade of the Flotilla) was not the product of an organized work of the student vanguard, nor did it involve key industrial sectors in the complicity with the genocide in Palestine, such as the Leonardo factories. Participation was limited to grassroots unions, students and knowledge workers. Something similar happened on October 3, although in that case the adhesion of the Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro (CGIL) broadened the call.

What do you think produced the absence of unity of action among students?

Giulia: Actually, the student presence in mobilizations and strikes was very strong, and the days of September 22 and October 3 show their protagonism. But the participation of the different currents in the organization evidenced generalized division and disorganization: the unitary assemblies did not analyze the movement or define strategies, there were no debates or exchange of opinions. The meetings were limited to planning the next demonstration, poster-raising or event. The political and strategic horizon was completely absent from the collective debate. Each organization discussed its tactics separately, while common meetings served only to inform others about their own initiatives.

To this was added a strongly antidemocratic assembly practice, which gradually alienated the minorities from the “official” assembly, hegemonized by autonomy. Instead of voting, the “synthesis” of opinions was used, trying to reconcile all the proposals without addressing their contradictions. The result was that uncomfortable proposals were simply ignored. This generated discouragement: the lack of debate and analysis alienated less politicized or unorganized students. The lack of real involvement led to the progressive dismantling of the Intifada assembly, also in the face of the almost total absence of results in three years of mobilization.

Has the student movement definitely regressed?

Giulia: Not at all. In the last few months, the students have been at the forefront of all the progressive movements in the country: from strikes in support of the Flotilla to March 8, to mobilizations against the imperialist war in Iran and in support of the Kurdish people. Beyond the dispersion of forces due to the lack of a unitary political project (as could have been a democratic assembly of all the students of Turin or even a national anti-imperialist coordination), each organization contributed to generate moments of great popular participation.

However, without a common direction, mass movements tend to follow cycles marked by the situation in Palestine and the conditions of the local proletariat. In addition, there is the risk of governmental reprisals in phases of retreat. While in the boom times direct actions were carried out without consequences, then came fines and arrests when the protection of the masses diminished. However, the building of a unitary anti-capitalist movement cannot be subordinated to these oscillations. It is necessary to overcome sectarian and opportunist tendencies and build a common struggle that strikes at those who sustain genocide and imperialist aggression, especially in their profits. This implies blocking production and trade, working for a prolonged unitary strike and promoting an inter-union front that also includes the CGIL. In short: workers and students throughout the country, unite!

We continue our conversation with M. C.

In your work environment, what is the general position regarding the war in Palestine and how was the participation in the mobilizations?

M.C.: I work as a socio-educator in a well-known cooperative in Turin. My sector is the health sector, although diverse. The socio-educators are closer to the teaching field, which was the most mobilized. On the other hand, among the socio-health operators (the “workers” in the health sector) there was less participation. Even so, the general feeling is one of rejection of violence in Palestine, albeit often in a vague way. The challenge is to make people understand that collective action can change things, that external wars affect internal rights and wages, and that there is no need to fear reprisals if we act together. There is still a lot of fear, the result of individualism and passivity.

Are you a member of a union? What was your relationship with strikes like?

M.C.: Yes, of the Confederazione Unitaria di Base (CUB). It was active in the “Turin for Gaza” movement and tried to bring the debate to the workplace. It was a process just begun, which was made difficult after episodes of violence in the protests, misunderstood by many workers influenced by the media. However, this “ideological” work is key to broaden the base. The mass protects: when there were many of us, protests could not be criminalized. Now, with less participation, the government responds with repression.

What arguments were used to call the strike?

M.C.: An attempt was made to explain the relationship between economics and politics: military spending implies cuts in health care, job insecurity and benefits for the few. They also appealed to the desire for the State to recover privatized services. But the campaign was just beginning when the context changed.

How was the relationship with other unions?

M.C.: With the Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro (CGIL) there were tensions: its leadership avoided such political mobilizations, but pressure from the rank and file pushed it to participate. It even joined protests called by rank-and-file unions, something unusual.

Is there a chance for the movement to resurface?

M.C.: Yes, nothing that has been done is lost; it has raised awareness and questions.

What should the movement do in the future?

M.C.: It must bring its spaces to workplaces, especially industrial ones. Sectors such as the arms industry are strategic. It is necessary to generalize struggles such as that of the dockers and overcome the predominantly student character of the movement. It is key to abandon sectarianism and work towards a broad base. Everything must revolve around one concept: the mass. The more workers participate, the more the correlation of forces will change. Workers have the power to block the economic resources of the powerful.