[WS:] I think you got that one backwards, James. Gramsci used the concept of 'war of position" after the factory strikes (Biennio Rosso) fizzled out and subsided, so there was nothing "militant" to "compromise." More importantly, Gramsci who was for the South understood very well that any industrial action in the South was impossible at that moment, so they had to "organize" the South first. So Gramsci's view seem to be grounded in realism of the situation - a direct action that went nowhere, and half of the country out of reach.
As to the influence of the Soviets over the Italian CP - again it is more nuanced than that. Gramsci certainly was inclined to follow the Comintern line, but others (e.g. Bordiga) did not.
But in any case, what purpose is being served by bashing the Italian CO as stooges of the bourgeoisie? As you know, the hindsight is always 20/20, it is easy to pick past fuckups and denounce them as such or worse, but a far more interesting story would be to actually uncover the actual thinking of the involved parties that led to these fuckups in the first place.
Wojtek
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:16 AM, James Heartfield
<Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> With ‘enemies’ like these, who needs friends?
>
> Again and again, the official Italian Communist party helped to prop up
> Italy’s ruling class, saving it from its potential gravediggers.
> A review of The Tailor of Ulm: A Possible History of Communism, by Lucio
> Magri by James Heartfield
>
>
> http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/reviewofbooks_article/12019/
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- Wojtek http://wsokol.blogspot.com/