Lu Kejian: Marx Studies in Italy: An Intellectual History Survey
Past domestic scholarship on Marx studies in Italy has primarily approached the subject from the perspective of Italian Marxism, focusing research on Antonio Gramsci and the Della Volpe School [1]. In recent years, the Second International theorist Antonio Labriola and Italian Workerism (operaismo), represented by Antonio Negri, have also begun to receive attention. This article adopts the perspective of "Marxology" [2] to conduct an investigation into the history of ideas, focusing on the translation and publication of Marx's works in Italy, the interpretations of Marx's texts by Italian scholars and thinkers, and the interactions and legacies within Italian Marx research.
I. The Publication, Translation, and Distribution of the Works of Marx and Engels in Italy
The earliest works of Marx and Engels to appear in the Italian language were a letter Marx wrote to the editor of L'Alba at the end of May 1848. Originally written in Italian, it was published in L'Alba on June 29, 1848. The editorial note preceding the letter stated: "We publish the following letter from Cologne to demonstrate the sentiments of noble Germans toward Italians; they ardently desire the establishment of friendly relations between the Italian and German peoples, who have been incited by European despots to mutual slaughter." The reply from the editorial department of L'Alba, signed by Pietro Alinari, is cited in Engels’s article "Germany's Foreign Policy."
Subsequently, the works appearing directly in Italian were mainly those by Engels. The earliest was "Mazzini’s Utterances Against the International," written by Friedrich Engels on July 28, 1871. Originally in Italian, it was carried in the Florentine magazine Libero Pensiero (Issue 9, August 31, 1871), the Gazzettino Rosa (No. 255, September 13, 1871, in part), and many other Italian newspapers. Later publications included: Engels’s "Statement by the General Council to the Editorial Offices of Several Italian Newspapers Regarding Certain Articles by Mazzini on the International" (originally in Italian, published in Il Popolo No. 144, December 12, 1871; Gazzettino Rosa No. 345, December 12, 1871; and Roma del Popolo No. 43, December 21, 1871); Engels’s "Letter to the Editorial Board of the Gazzettino Rosa" (originally in Italian, published in Gazzettino Rosa No. 50, February 20, 1872); Engels’s "Letters from London—I" (originally in Italian, published in Il Popolo No. 48, April 24, 1872); Marx’s letter to the editorial board of the Gazzettino Rosa, "More on Stefanoni and the International" (originally in Italian, published in Gazzettino Rosa No. 148, May 28, 1872, and Libero Pensiero, August 1, 1872); Engels’s "The Hague Congress" (originally in Italian, published in Il Popolo No. 106, October 5, 1872); Engels’s "Letters from London—II" (originally in Italian, published in Il Popolo No. 107, October 8, 1872); Engels’s "To the Association of Workers and Peasants of Lower Lombardy (Lodi Section of the International)" (originally in Italian, published in Il Popolo No. 117, November 17, 1872); Engels’s "Letters from London—III" (originally in Italian, published in Il Popolo No. 117, November 17, 1872); Engels’s "Letters from London—IV" (originally in Italian, published in Il Popolo No. 122, December 14, 1872); Engels’s "On Authority" (originally in Italian, published in the collection Almanacco Repubblicano per l'anno 1874, December 1873); Marx’s "Political Indifferentism" (originally in Italian, published in Almanacco Repubblicano per l'anno 1874, December 1873); Engels’s "Letter to Enrico Bignami on the German Elections of 1877" (originally in Italian, published in Il Plebeo No. 7, February 26, 1877); Engels’s "British Peasants Demand Participation in the Domestic Political Struggle" (originally in Italian, published in Il Plebeo No. 18, June 8, 1877); Engels’s "The British Agricultural Labourers' Union and the Rural Collectivist Movement" (originally in Italian, published in Il Plebeo No. 19, June 18, 1877); Engels’s "Domestic Workers' Movement in Germany, France, the United States, and Russia" (originally in Italian, published in Il Plebeo No. 3, January 22, 1878); Engels’s "The German Anti-Socialist Law—The Situation in Russia" (originally in Italian, published in Il Plebeo No. 12, March 30, 1879); Engels’s "Reply to the Honorable Giovanni Bovio" (published in Critica Sociale No. 4, February 16, 1892); Engels’s "Letter to Pasquale Martignetti" (published in the Benevento newspaper Mefistofele, April 29, 1892); Engels’s "Letter to Giuseppe Canepa" (published in L'Era Nuova, Genoa, Issue 1, March 4, 1894); Engels’s "The Future Italian Revolution and the Socialist Party" (originally in French, translated into Italian and published in Critica Sociale No. 3, February 1, 1894); Engels’s "To the Third Congress of the Italian Socialist Workers’ Party" (originally in French, translated into Italian and published in the weekly Lotta di Classe No. 38, September 22–23, 1894); and Engels’s "International Socialism and Italian Socialism (Letter to the Editorial Board of Critica Sociale)" (originally in French, translated into Italian and published in Critica Sociale No. 21, November 1, 1894).
As with Marx studies in other non-German-speaking countries, Italian Marx research began with the dissemination (translation and publication) of the works of Marx and Engels. The complete Italian translation of the Inaugural Address and the Provisional Rules of the International Workingmen's Association (IWA) by Marx, published in 1865, truly initiated the early dissemination of Marx (and Marxism) in Italy. Below are the conditions of the Italian editions of the works of Marx and Engels (listed by publication date, first editions only):
In November and December 1871, Carlo Cafiero’s translation of Marx’s The Civil War in France was published in the Agrigento (Girgenti) newspaper L'Uguaglianza.
In 1879, Carlo Cafiero’s pamphlet Il Capitale di Carlo Marx (Milan: E. Bignami e C. editori, 1879) was published. This was a popular compendium of the first volume of Capital.
In 1883, Pasquale Martignetti’s Italian translation of Engels’s Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (Benevento: Stabilimento tipografico F. De Gennaro, 1883) was published.
In 1885, Martignetti’s translation of Engels’s The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State was published by Stabilimento tipografico F. De Gennaro (Benevento, 1885).
In 1886, Marx’s Class Struggle (extracted from The Poverty of Philosophy) appeared in the Rivista Italiana del Socialismo (Imola-Lugo: Series 1, No. 2, December 1886), pp. 37–40.
In 1883, an Italian translation of Volume 1 of Marx’s Capital was published (Turin: Unione tipografico-editrice, 1886). This was an anonymous translation based on the French edition of Volume 1.
In 1888–1889, Engels’s "Protection and Free Trade: Preface to Karl Marx’s Pamphlet 'Speech on the Question of Free Trade'" was published in Cuore e Critica (Savona: Series 2, No. 15, December 1888, and Series 3, No. 1, January 1889).
In 1889, Marx and Engels’s The Communist Manifesto was carried in L'Eco del Popolo (Cremona: Series 1), Nos. 35–44, appearing in installments from August 30/31 to November 3/4.
In 1890, Marx and Engels’s "Demands of the Communist Party in Germany" appeared in Cuore e Critica (Savona: Series 4, No. 21/22, December 1890).
In 1891, Martignetti’s translation of Engels’s "1891 Introduction to Karl Marx’s Wage Labour and Capital" was published in Critica Sociale (Milan, No. 10, July 10, 1891) and in Il Socialista (No. 44, July 22, 1891).
In 1891, Pietro Gori’s translation of The Communist Manifesto was published (99-page pamphlet, Milan: F. Fantuzzi editore-tipografo, 1891).
In 1892, Martignetti’s translation of Engels’s "Socialism in Germany" appeared in the second and third issues of Critica Sociale (January 16 and February 1). The first two parts were translated from French; the editors titled the first part "The Inevitable Victory of German Socialism" and the second "The Socialist Party and Peace in Germany." On April 1, 1892, the seventh issue of the journal reprinted the concluding remarks (translated from German with minor omissions) under the title "The Famine in Russia, Its Causes and Significance." In the same year, an Italian pamphlet of the work translated by Martignetti was published.
In 1892, Martignetti’s translation of the preface to the 1892 English edition of Engels’s The Condition of the Working-Class in England appeared in Critica Sociale (No. 2, April 16, 1892).
In 1893, Martignetti’s translation of "To the Working Classes of Great Britain" was carried in Critica Sociale (No. 3, April 1, 1893).
In 1893, Martignetti’s translation of Engels’s "History of the English Working-Class" (extracted from the introduction to The Condition of the Working-Class in England) appeared in Critica Sociale (No. 3, June 16, 1893).
In 1893, Marx’s Wage Labour and Capital was published in installments in Lotta di Classe (Milan: Series 2, 1893, various dates between April and July); and published by Critica Sociale (1893), including Engels’s 1877 biography "Karl Marx."
In 1893, Pompeo Bettini’s translation of The Communist Manifesto was published by Critica Sociale (46-page pamphlet, 1893), which included the prefaces to the 1872 German edition, 1882 Russian edition, 1883 German edition, 1890 German edition, and the 1893 Italian edition.
1894...
In 1894, Marx's "Speech on the Question of Free Trade" was published under the title "Free Trade and Socialism" in Critica Sociale (Social Critique), 1894, Issue 4, April 1 (p. 99) and April 16 (p. 122). In 1895, Engels's "Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy" appeared in Critica Sociale, 1895, Issue 5, on August 16, September 1, September 16, and October 1. This was subsequently released as a standalone volume (84 pages) by the Critica Sociale editorial department. In 1895, Marx's The Poverty of Philosophy: Answer to the "Philosophy of Poverty" by M. Proudhon was published by Libreria Treves di P. Virano in Bologna. In 1895, Martignetti's translation of Engels's Preface to Volume III of Capital was published in the Naples journal Rassegna (Review), 1895, Series 1, Nos. 1–2, pp. 72–100. In 1895, Engels's "Introduction to Karl Marx’s The Class Struggles in France, 1848–1850" was published in abridged form in Critica Sociale, 1895, Issue 9, based on the text from the journal Die Neue Zeit. In 1895, Martignetti’s translation of Engels's "Supplement to Capital, Volume III" appeared in Critica Sociale, 1895, Issue 5, on November 1, November 16, December 1, and December 16. In 1896, C. Tanzi’s translation of Marx’s The Class Struggles in France was published by the Critica Sociale editorial department (139 pages, including Engels's 1895 Introduction). In 1896, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte was published in Rome by Presso l'amministrazione dell'Asino (119 pages, including Marx's 1869 Preface to the Second Edition and Engels's 1885 Preface to the Third German Edition). In 1896, Engels's "The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man" (extracted from the then-unpublished Dialectics of Nature) appeared in Critica Sociale, 1896, Issue 6, August 16. In 1899, V. Piva's translation of Marx's "Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood" (1842) [3] was published by L. Mongini in Rome (79 pages). In 1899, E. Ciccotti's translation of Marx's "Letters from the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, Introduction to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, and On the Jewish Question" was published by L. Mongini in Rome (62 pages). In 1899, Ciccotti's translation of two of Engels's essays from the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher was published by L. Mongini (51 pages). In 1899, Piva's translation of Engels's The Condition of the Working Class in England was published by L. Mongini. In 1899, Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" was included in Gentile's The Philosophy of Marx, published by Spoerri in Pisa, pp. 58–61. In 1899, Engels's Revolution and Counter-Revolution or Germany in 1848 was published by L. Mongini, including a preface by Croce (pp. III–XI). In 1899, Labriola’s translation of Marx’s A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy was published by L. Mongini (138 pages, including the Preface). In 1899, Ciccotti's translation of Engels's "The Role of Force in History" [4] was published by L. Mongini (53 pages). In 1901, Marx's The Poverty of Philosophy: Answer to the "Philosophy of Poverty" by M. Proudhon was published by Libreria Treves di P. Virano in Bologna (1895) and by L. Mongini in Rome (1901 edition). In 1901, S. Puritz's translation of Engels's Anti-Dühring (based on the third German edition of 1894, including Engels’s prefaces to the three editions and Bernstein’s introduction) was published by R. Sandron in Milan-Palermo. In 1902, Ciccotti’s translation of Engels’s Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy (including Engels’s 1888 preface to the standalone edition) was published by L. Mongini. In 1909, Marx and Engels's The Holy Family, or Critique of Critical Criticism: Against Bruno Bauer and Company was published by L. Mongini. In 1943, Volume I of Marx's Selected Works in Two Volumes was published in Moscow by the Foreign Languages Publishing House. In 1944, Volume I of Marx's Selected Works in Two Volumes was again published in Moscow by the Foreign Languages Publishing House. In 1946, Volume II of Capital was published by Casa editrice A. Corticelli in Milan. In 1947, Marx and Engels's The German Ideology was published by the Italian Editorial Academy (Istituto Editoriale Italiano) in Milan. In 1947, Marx's Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right (excerpts from sections 298–307) and the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 (excerpts) were included in Della Volpe's translation Marx and the Modern Representative State, published by U.p.e.b. in Bologna. In 1947, excerpts of Marx's Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 appeared as an appendix to D. Cantimori's Notes for a Course on the Philosophy of History (Pisa, 1947). In 1949, Marx's Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, translated by N. Bobbio, was published by G. Einaudi in Turin. In 1950, Della Volpe's translation of the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right (sections 261–313) was published by Edizioni Rinascita in Rome (319 pages). In 1954, G. Brunetti’s translation of "Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations" (extracted from Marx's Grundrisse) appeared in Critica Economica (Economic Critique), 1954, Issue 2 (April), pp. 33–57. In 1954, Colletti's translation of Marx's "Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy" appeared in Critica Economica, 1954, Issue 3 (June), pp. 31–49 (with the translation on pages 42–49 and Colletti’s introductory essay on pages 31–42). In 1956, Volume III of Capital was published by Edizioni Rinascita in Rome. In 1964, Renato Solmi's translation of the "Fragment on Machines" from Marx's Grundrisse was published in the fourth issue of the journal Quaderni Rossi (Red Notebooks). In 1968 and 1970, Enzo Grillo's translation of the Grundrisse was published by La Nuova Italia.
The Italian edition of the Collected Works of Marx and Engels (based on the German Marx-Engels-Werke), published by Editori Riuniti starting in 1972, was suspended in 1990. Of the 50 planned volumes, 18 remained unpublished. In the latter half of the 1990s, the Institute of Capitalism Studies (ISC) in Genoa took over the publishing project. Founded on February 9, 1982, the Institute signed a contract with Lotta Comunista publishing house to edit and publish the supplementary volumes of the Italian Collected Works. They recruited editors and translators proficient in Marxist theory, German, and English, appointing Dr. Paolo Dalvit to oversee the work. The editorial principle was to publish the Italian edition based on the German and English Collected Works, with reference to the second edition of the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA2). In recent years, the ISC, in cooperation with Lotta Comunista, has edited and published the following works by Marx and Engels: in 2006, the Italian correspondence volume of Marx and Engels from 1874 to 1879, based on volumes 19, 33, 34, and 39 of the German edition and volume 45 of the English edition; in 2008, the Italian correspondence volume from 1880 to March 1883, based on volumes 34, 35, and 39 of the German edition, volume 46 of the English edition, and MEGA2 Section I, Volume 25; in 2009, the Italian correspondence volume for Engels from April 1883 to the end of 1887, based on volumes 21 and 36 of the German edition and volumes 47 and 48 of the English edition. These three volumes constitute volumes 45, 46, and 47 of the original plan by Editori Riuniti. In 2011, the Italian volume of works by Marx and Engels from February 1854 to February 1855 was published, based on volumes 10 and 11 of the German edition, volume 13 of the English edition, and MEGA2 Section I, volumes 13 and 14; this volume corresponds to volume 13 of the original Editori Riuniti plan. In the coming years, the ISC will continue its collaboration with Lotta Comunista to edit and publish: Engels's writings from 1884 to 1889; Engels's writings from 1890 to 1895; and Marx and Engels's writings from 1857 to 1861. These three volumes reflect volumes 27, 28, and 18 of the original plan.
II. Stages in the Interpretation of Marx's Thought in Italy
In the 19th century, Neapolitan Neo-Hegelianism [5] exerted great influence. It initially rose during the Italian Risorgimento (unification movement) in the 1850s and 1860s, before receding over the following two decades to give way to Positivism (a current accompanying industrialization and scientific progress). The early dissemination of Marxism in Italy was intertwined with Positivism. In Italy, the Positivist Achille Loria was the "official" representative of Marxist popularization. However, at the turn of the century, Neo-Hegelianism experienced a resurgence and subsequently came to dominate...
20th-century Italian culture. Thus, positivism can be called an interlude in the Italian cultural tradition. The transition from positivism to Hegelianism constitutes the first stage of Italian research into the interpretation of Marx.
Compared to other Western countries, Hegelianism exerted a sustained and profound influence in Italy. Representative figures of Italian Neo-Hegelianism include De Sanctis, the Spaventa brothers and their student Donato Jaja, Labriola, and Gramsci. In Italy, Hegelianism was not merely an academic movement among professors; it became an element of civic life during the Risorgimento [6]. Hegelianism became the philosophy of the Italian unification movement and set the tone for Italian academic life in the 20th century. Hegelianism even became an Italian secular religion used to counter the Holy See. Italy directly translated Hegelianism into an explosive political agenda. In 1850, Gianbattista Passerini translated Hegel's Philosophy of History into Italian, which was published in Switzerland the following year. The first Italian translation of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right appeared in 1848. Subsequently, De Sanctis and Bertrando Spaventa attempted to translate Hegel's Science of Logic and parts of the Phenomenology of Spirit into Italian. Spaventa reconstructed a philosophical lineage connecting Bruno and Tommaso Campanella to Descartes and Spinoza, while linking Vico to Hegel. Thus, the introduction of Hegelianism was seen by Spaventa as a necessity for the rebirth of the Italian philosophical tradition. However, Spaventa effectively "Italianized" Hegelian thought. Spaventa's Hegelianism was a critical Hegelianism, which struggled in many respects against conservative (orthodox) Hegelianism. Later, Giovanni Gentile edited and published the Complete Works of Spaventa, which caused Hegel’s obscure philosophical terminology to become standard academic discourse in Italy during the first half of the 20th century.
After Spaventa's death, Labriola adopted a harsh polemical stance toward the then-popular positivism and, through his involvement in political activities, eventually moved toward Marxism. Labriola's life was an intertwining of philosophy and politics. Within Labriola's thought, Hegelianism and Herbartianism coexisted. From Herbart, Labriola borrowed psychological, ethical, and pedagogical elements, which allowed him to avoid the empty universalism of orthodox (Right) Hegelianism and provide universalism with socio-historical content. Consequently, "social psychology" was transformed into "class consciousness." The critique of the ethical state [7] was key to Labriola’s move toward Marxism. In his 1904 eulogy for Labriola, Croce stated: "He once told me that he had arrived at socialism through a critique of the concept of the state. When the ethical state—imagined by the German (Hegelian) popularizers—finally turned out to be a utopia, and when the antagonism between the interests of different classes appeared to him as the sole harsh reality, he found himself in the embrace of Marxism." In a sense, Labriola’s trajectory—approaching and embracing Hegelianism, then critiquing Hegel, and finally arriving at Marxism—is very similar to the trajectory of Marx's own intellectual development and evolution. The internal logic in both cases was the combination of philosophy and politics, and the starting point for political activity was the political reality of the time (Marx faced a backward Germany, while Labriola faced a backward Italy).
In 1888, Labriola began to read the works of Marx and Engels with great enthusiasm and started corresponding with Engels. However, the works of Marx and Engels available at that time were very limited, and Italian translations were even scarcer. According to Labriola's own account, he had read Marx's The Poverty of Philosophy (French edition), The Holy Family, the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, and Marx's Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. By 1902, when reviewing the Posthumous Works of Marx, Engels, and Lassalle edited and published by Mehring, Labriola stated that, with the exception of Marx’s Doctoral Dissertation, he was familiar with all the other works in that collection.
Like Marx, although Labriola was actively involved in political activities (including co-founding the Italian socialist party with Turati), his primary interest and influence were manifest in the realm of theory (particularly in his unique interpretation of Marx's thought). To this end, Labriola placed great emphasis on collecting the texts of Marx's works and studying them diligently. Several of these works were very difficult to obtain at the time (some were not even in library collections); Labriola went to great lengths to acquire The Holy Family and The Poverty of Philosophy. To obtain The Poverty of Philosophy from Sorel, Labriola even sought assistance from Engels. According to a letter from Labriola to Engels dated February 21, 1891, he only had one copy of A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy in Rome at the time. Precisely because of this, Labriola was able to produce his own unique interpretation of historical materialism, distinct from those of other theorists of the Second International. Labriola's 1896 essay on historical materialism was primarily based on Marx's texts such as The Poverty of Philosophy, The Class Struggles in France, The Eighteenth Brumaire, and The Civil War in France; the co-authored The Holy Family and The Communist Manifesto; as well as Engels's Anti-Dühring, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man (extracted from the yet-to-be-published Dialectics of Nature), and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Although Labriola stated in a letter to Croce before his death that he had broken with Hegelian idealism, he had merely tilted toward the aspect of "process (becoming)" within the tension between the "system" and "process" of Hegelian philosophy. Precisely for this reason, in his letters to Engels, Labriola used the "genetic method" [8] of historical materialism to replace the "dialectical method" mentioned by Engels in Anti-Dühring. It can be said that Labriola was the progenitor of "Hegelian Marxism" (i.e., interpreting Marx's thought through the lens of Hegelian philosophy). Labriola was able to do this thanks to the Hegelian tradition that had already been integrated into Italian culture.
Labriola's letters (to Sorel) laid the foundation for Italian Marxist theory and formed an Italian Marxist tradition in the 20th century (distinct from both the Marxism of the Second International and the Soviet Marxist-Leninist tradition). Labriola's letters further developed the new interpretation of the materialist conception of history found in his essays, explicitly proposing that historical materialism is a "philosophy of praxis" and a "philosophy of life." This set him apart from the theorists of the Second International who viewed historical materialism as a positivist science. Even Lenin viewed historical materialism as sociology or a scientific hypothesis. Lenin followed Plekhanov in believing that Marx had a philosophy (a point on which Plekhanov and Lenin differed from other Second International theorists and agreed with Labriola), but Plekhanov and Lenin viewed dialectical materialism, rather than historical materialism, as Marx's philosophy. In terms of providing a "philosophical" interpretation of Marx's thought, Labriola and Plekhanov were both pioneers, but Labriola was the first to interpret historical materialism itself as philosophy.
Benedetto Croce performed pioneering work in the overall interpretation of Marx's thought. Between 1895 and 1900, Croce wrote a series of essays researching Marxism, which were later organized and collected in Historical Materialism and the Economics of Karl Marx. Regrettably, Croce's interpretation of Marx's thought has long been overlooked.
Distinct from Labriola, Croce accepted the Second International's orthodox Marxist interpretation of historical materialism and linked it with Capital—or rather, he interpreted Capital as historical materialism, treating it as the scientific element in Marx's thought. Croce further viewed Marx's socialism as an ethical element. Croce believed it was impossible to provide a scientific justification for socialism based on historical materialism; as Hume said, one cannot derive an "ought" from an "is." Clearly, Croce was targeting Engels's assertion that Marx's two great scientific discoveries transformed socialism from utopia into science. In Croce’s work, we already find the seeds of the view that Marx and Engels were inconsistent (or in opposition) or that there were inherent contradictions in Marx's thought. This became a standard topic in 20th-century Western Marxology [9]. For example, Maximilien Rubel particularly emphasized the utopian elements in Marx’s thought and described Engels as the founder of "Marxism."
Unlike the economist Böhm-Bawerk, who criticized the scientific validity of Marx's economics directly from an economic perspective, the philosopher Croce, though also criticizing Marx's labor theory of value, primarily "historical-materialized" Marx's political economy (viewing it as a general economic science) and directed his fire at historical materialism. In terms of the positioning of historical materialism, Croce did not view it as philosophy but as science—albeit a false science.
Croce's interpretation of Marx's thought exhibits an internal tension between science and ethics. This interpretation is distinct from the scientistic interpretations of Marx's thought by the Second International and later by Althusser, as well as from the humanist interpretations that became the mainstream of 20th-century Western Marxism. Croce's interpretation even influenced Bernstein's supplementation of Marxism with ethics (based on Neo-Kantianism) and became the theoretical starting point for Bernstein's revisionism. Overall, Croce acknowledged the ethical value of socialism (socialism gives history meaning, which was the main reason Croce was attracted to Marx's thought between 1895 and 1900) but denied the scientificity of historical materialism (and Marx's political economy). Elevating the ethical elements in Marx's thought while downgrading the scientific elements later became a mainstream trend in 20th-century Western Marxism. Furthermore, Croce held a fiercely critical attitude toward the philosophy of history, whereas both Labriola and Gramsci viewed historical materialism as Marx's philosophy of history. Looking back, Croce's critique of historical materialism was actually based on a misreading (taking the Second International’s orthodox interpretation for Marx’s own materialist conception of history). Although Croce approached Marx under the influence of Labriola, he did not truly understand or grasp the new interpretation of historical materialism that Labriola had developed in contrast to the Second International theorists. Precisely because of this, Croce confidently believed that after his critique, Marx's thought was dead; yet Marx's thought continued to burst with vitality in 20th-century Italy (establishing an Italian Marxist tradition through Labriola and Gramsci). On this point, we may mock Croce's dogmatism and rashness, but this should not prevent us from highly valuing his originality in grasping the dual dimensions of scientificity and ethics in Marx's thought.
Gramsci's Marxism was a reform and development of Hegelianism, but with Bolshevism as the form of its realization. The foundation of Gramsci’s philosophy of praxis was ultimately based on the conviction that humanity was on the threshold of a new era of human nature, and that Leninism was the form through which this new era would be realized. The young Gramsci believed that Marx had not been immune to the "siren song" of positivism. This was because the 19th century was an era of great scientific development, and positivism became very popular, becoming the mainstream trend of thought by the end of the century. Most theorists of the Second International also understood Marx based on positivism.
After World War II, the Italian Neo-Positivist Marxist school (the Della Volpe school) marked a revival of the positivist perspective in the interpretation of Marx. However, after the 1970s, even Lucio Colletti, a mainstay of the Della Volpe school, returned to embracing Hegelianism. Oscillating between positivism and Hegelianism became a characteristic of 19th-century...
...the main keynote of Italian Marx research since the end of the century.
Entering the 21st century, following the resumption of the publication of the MEGA2, Italy—along with other countries in the world (particularly in Europe)—welcomed a "Marx Renaissance." In Italy, Marx research has always been closely linked to the workers' movement and working-class political parties (from the Social Democrats to the Italian Communist Party); Marx research in the sense of "Marxology" [10] was never the mainstream. However, the "Marx Renaissance" following the end of the Cold War has been more academic in nature. A vast number of publications related to Marx research have been released, and Marxian philology associated with MEGA2 has begun to receive attention. Nevertheless, Marx research remains primarily a spontaneous activity of university scholars based on academic interest; the Italian Communist Party (especially the party leadership) has remained indifferent toward this wave of the "Marx Renaissance."
3. Interaction and Inheritance in Italian Marx Research
First is the intellectual interaction between Italy and other countries (particularly France). Italian Hegelianism was introduced via France (even though Hegelianism did not achieve great success in 19th-century France). In 1826, Hegel visited Paris at the invitation of the French philosopher Victor Cousin. Cousin attempted to introduce Hegel to France, but was not very successful. On the contrary, Cousin's efforts to introduce Hegel to the Italian academic community were a great success (as Italy was under the influence of French culture at the time). Domenico Mazzoni learned of Hegel through Cousin and traveled to Berlin at the end of 1835 to understand the new developments of the Hegelian movement, subsequently becoming a Hegelian.
Italy took the lead in the dialogue and fusion of Marxism and Hegelianism, producing the tradition of Italian Hegelian Marxism pioneered by Labriola. Italian Hegelian Marxism, together with the Hegelian Marxism that subsequently emerged in the German-speaking world (represented by Lukács), jointly influenced the "Academic Marxism" in France characterized by Hegelian Marxism (represented by Lefebvre and Cornu). In his 1939 book Dialectical Materialism, Lefebvre mentioned Lukács's History and Class Consciousness. "For Lukács and Gramsci, Labriola’s 'In Memory of the Communist Manifesto' (1895) and the posthumous 'Letters to Engels' (1927) both exerted a powerful theoretical effect."
Second, the interpretation and study of Marx's thought by Italian thinkers has been permeated by interactions between Marxism and the currents of positivism, anarchism, syndicalism, and Hegelianism. In other words, the interpreters first accepted the prevailing political and philosophical trends of the time and viewed Marx through the "colored spectacles" of these popular trends when approaching Marxism. This conforms to the interpretive law of "legitimate prejudice" [11] in hermeneutics. Italian Marx interpretation and research is inevitably the product of a "fusion of horizons" between the text's interpreter and its author (Marx); there is no such thing as a uniquely legitimate or scientific interpretive conclusion.
Third is the interaction between various schools of thought within Italy. At the end of the 19th century, Italian culture was dominated by positivism. The representative figures of Italian positivism were Achille Loria (1857–1943), Enrico Ferri (1856–1929), and Turati. Critiquing the Italian positivist trend was the starting point for Labriola's new interpretation of Marx's historical materialism.
Labriola was the teacher of Giovanni Gentile and Benedetto Croce. Although both Gentile and Croce had a "Marxist period"—Gentile even drew the conclusion of Marx's "philosophy of praxis" [12] based on Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach (using his own translation of the text) and wrote The Philosophy of Marx: A Critical Study (1899)—both were generally critical of Marx's theory. In 1896, encouraged by Labriola, Croce published his first article on historical materialism, "On the Materialist Conception of History" (Sulla concezione materialistica della storia). It was precisely after reading this article that Gentile began corresponding with Croce, and the following year published the critical article "A Critique of Historical Materialism" (Una critica del materialismo storico). Thereafter, the two published a series of related articles, which were collected and published respectively as The Philosophy of Marx: A Critical Study (Gentile, 1899) and Historical Materialism and the Economics of Karl Marx (Croce, 1900). Gentile's "Actualism" (philosophy of action) caught the attention of the then-young Antonio Gramsci, who believed it was quite illuminating for the Italian socialist movement. As late as 1917, Gramsci still considered himself a "Crocian"; it was only in the Prison Notebooks that he subjected Croce to relentless critique.
This interaction involved not only mutual criticism among thinkers but also successive intellectual inheritance. In the lineage of mentorship from Labriola to Croce, Gentile, and Gramsci, the role of Bertrando Spaventa was long neglected. Spaventa was Labriola's teacher, and Spaventa's views were already very close to Marxism. Labriola merely derived Marxist conclusions logically from Spaventa’s arguments. Through Croce, Gramsci inherited Spaventa’s philosophical legacy; Gramsci mentioned Spaventa only a few times in the Prison Notebooks. Because the Italian Communist Party viewed Gramsci as the representative of the Sinicization—or rather, localization—of Marxism-Leninism in Italy, while Croce gave Hegelianism a liberal interpretation and Gentile gave it a fascist one, the connection between Gramsci and Spaventa was obscured. In fact, the trajectories of Gramsci’s and Spaventa’s intellectual development are very similar.
Spaventa was familiar with Lorenz von Stein's Socialism and Communism in Contemporary France and even attempted to translate it into Italian. According to the author of the book Italian Marxism, if Karl Löwith in From Hegel to Nietzsche saw Stein as standing halfway between Hegel and Marx, then Stein can also be seen as standing halfway between Hegel and Spaventa. Stein viewed the French Revolution as the politicized practice of Hegelianism, which is precisely what attracted Spaventa. Spaventa even viewed the proletariat as the new revolutionary class and developed a theory of cultural hegemony, emphasizing the revolutionary role of intellectuals in creating a new "Ethical State" (this new Ethical State would systematically educate citizens to form a new humanistic spirit). Spaventa also criticized Utopian Socialism for lacking the mediation necessary for its realization. Like Hegel, Spaventa criticized social contract theory, believing that social contract theory based on abstract individualism inevitably lead to Jacobin terror. Spaventa opposed liberalism and defended the function of the state in educating the masses through interventionism.
Another neglected intellectual inheritance in Italy is the revival of Gramscian operaismo [13] (workerism) by Antonio Negri’s operaismo. Like Gramsci, although Negri is now known to the world as a theorist, he is an activist at heart. Gramsci once had a period of active involvement in the workers' movement in his hometown, which was described as exploring an "operaismo" revolutionary path with Italian characteristics. This exploration by Gramsci came to an end due to objective reality and the intervention of the Comintern, yet it remains an important component of Italianized Marxism. Since the 1960s, a group of young Marxists represented by Negri took up the banner of operaismo once again, gaining theoretical grounding through their interpretation of Marx's Grundrisse (particularly the "Fragment on Machines"). Negri’s Marx Beyond Marx was compiled from materials from nine seminars he gave at the École Normale Supérieure in Paris in 1978 at the invitation of Louis Althusser.
General Assessment
Italian Marx research has consistently led [is ahead of] that of France. During the Second International period, France had Lafargue and Jaurès, while Italy had Labriola and Croce. The academic influence of Labriola and Croce was incomparable to that of Lafargue and Jaurès. After World War I, Italy had Gramsci and Hegelian Marxism, whereas a Hegelian "craze" did not emerge in France until the 1930s, producing an academic Marxist like Lefebvre, who was similar to Gramsci. After World War II, a school of "Scientistic Marxism" represented by Galvano Della Volpe appeared in Italy before the school of "Scientistic Marxism" represented by Althusser appeared in France. After the 1970s, Della Volpe’s student Lucio Colletti approached Hegel once again, signaling a revival of Hegelian thought in Italy. Meanwhile, the debut of post-structuralist (deconstructionist) Marxism marked the end of "Scientistic Marxism" in France.
On the other hand, because Italy’s philosophical tradition is not as deep or long-standing as that of France, Italian Marx research lacks the nourishment and interaction of indigenous original philosophy. Although Italian Marx research has been relatively leading since the late 19th century, this has not changed Italy's relatively peripheral status in the landscape of Continental Marx research (relative to Germany and France)—at least in terms of general perception. Whereas Italy interpreted Marx more from a Hegelian (or anti-Hegelian) perspective, both Germany and France possessed an existentialist (as well as phenomenological) perspective on interpreting Marx.