Carcere di Regina Coeli, Roma, Italian Republic

The aged “godfather” of Italian communism, Amadeo Bordiga, was not faring well in prison. His health had rapidly deteriorated after his arrest in 1952, and repeated requests for medical discharged were rejected time and time again by authorities. Fierce debate between a bed-bound Amadeo Bordiga and the virulent Onorato Damen resulted in a forthcoming of inspired theory in prison, much of which was smuggled out by supporters of the Communist Left in Italy and published discretely. Damen and Bordiga, in fact, managed to reconcile many of their differences in prison, and a minorly resurgent International Communist Party formed around the Bordiga Circle. But the old man was not long for this world and all of his supporters knew it. They feared that an ignominious death in prison would silence any sort of a movement of the Communist Left in Italy, and that merely writing from prison and publishing in party newspapers was, to quote Bordiga, “a futile, Gramscian approach.”

It was on the back of this uptick in Bordigist popularity and grave illness of the leader of the Circle, that a group of aspiring lawyers in the PCI with Left sympathies planned to lodge another appeal for Bordiga’s release. Their chief evidence was linking Amadeo Bordiga to an article written in 1951 in Battaglia Comunista in which he explicitly named and disagreed with many of the organizers of the 1952 Milan uprisings which he was accused of supporting (and on which grounds he and his circle were arrested in that year). Many Bordiga sympathizers (and his opponents in the PCI who did not want to be associated with him) were quick to point out in 1952 that there was no evidence that Bordiga supported the uprisings or had any hand in organizing them. The government, in 1952, did not hear any of these pleas for clemency, instead insisting that eyewitnesses had placed Bordiga speaking concurrently with the violence and outright endorsing the entire revolutionary platform of 1952.

The autonomist movement in particular sought to distance itself from Bordiga, and had spent nearly a decade campaigning that the Uprising of 1952 had nothing to do with “the archaic despotism of a raving old man.” Denouncing the cult of personality that formed around Bordiga, the late Palmiro Togliatti still advocated for his release from prison, seemingly angry that the elder Marxist had been bequeathed with so much responsibility for the movement of 1952 when in reality he had no hand in any of it. While the arrest and prison publications had elevated Bordiga and spread his message, both his allies and communist opponents agreed that his release from prison was paramount (though each argued this for their own reasons).

At first, a judge seemed to regard the “Battaglia article” amicably, noting in his decision that “the evidence does indicate severe ideological differences between the accused and those who carried out insurrection against our republic in 1952.” He continued that, “although the accused has made no secret of his anti-democratic desire to topple this republic, it is clear that the actions which he was accused of supporting in the year of his arrest were not the way in which the accused wished for his so-called revolution to take place.” Before the release could be formalized, however, the state appealed the judge’s decision, and a higher court judge reevaluated the evidence, seemingly engaging in blatantly unconstitutional practices to overrule the previous judge’s ruling.

The second judge essentially acknowledged the Battaglia article but ruled that as Bordiga had previously advocated for the abolition of the republic, he explicitly endorsed the 1952 actions. Bordiga’s lawyers asked if this then meant that the Italian partisans endorsed Mussolini’s blackshirts as both advocated for uprising against the status quo government. The judge held both lawyers in contempt. They retorted with further evidence that Bordiga and the International Communist Party did not agree with the 1952 uprising and internal documents which showed anxiety within their ranks over the uprising. This did some damage to Bordiga’s reputation in Italy, especially as the specifics of these internal documents were not revealed to the press. Ultimately, the judge upheld the court’s initial 1952 ruling that Bordiga was guilty of orchestrating 1952 and increased his sentence by an additional 10 years. There was a great furor over this decision. The PCI immediately released a statement standing behind Bordiga. PSI also denounced the sentencing, though in less emphatic terms than the PCI. Most notably, two CD ministers of parliament called the decision “abhorrent” and “a spit in the face of Italian democracy.” The judge’s decision was celebrated by the Social Movement.

Tragedy struck in 1967. A two sentence press release left the doors of the prison in a small envelope, signed by the warden, with no pomp or circumstance. An officer in the prison walked the envelope to the closest Radiotelevisione italiana where he handed it to the secretary at the front desk without saying anything. He then returned to the prison and phoned the gendarmes. The sentences read as follows:

“At 05:50 on the morning of 18 Februray 1967, Inmate 589001, Amadeo Bordiga, passed away, aged 78. The cause of death was cardiac arrest exacerbated by severe gout.”

What Bordiga’s death will entail for the communist movement in Italy leaves much to be speculated. 1968 looms on the horizon, and tensions are reaching a fever pitch. The judge’s decision to extend Bordiga’s sentence was on everyone’s lips for much of 1965 and 1966, with accusations that MSI had corrupted the judiciary running rampant. The FDP and reengage PSI even found solidarity over the defense of Bordiga after the 1966 decision. Many analysts speculate that Bordiga’s death will play an important role as Italy looks to the 1970s.