"...If you were blind, you would not have committed any sin, but since you say: We see, your sin remains".
Answer to Giussani’s letter of June 1997

Mr Giussani, at the end of his long letter in reply to my criticism against him in the article "The algebraic Marxism", published in January 1997 in the first issue of "Quaderni di Operai Contro", challenges me to a verbal duel for the serious insult I would have made him taking part in the public conference at the Calusca for the presentation of the previously mentioned issue of "Quaderni di Operai Contro". My crime would have been the violation of "what it has always been considered an implicit rule in holding conferences and public discussions, according to which one can hold conference as he sees fit against opinions, ways of thinking, theories, tendencies, but not against individuals."
On the contrary, our conference would have been addressed against some individuals, such as Giussani, nominated by name and surname on leaflets advertising the meeting. Nothing could be more false! Those leaflets Giussani refers to, reported the theme of the conference: "Workers with Marx", along with the title page of "Quaderni di Operai Contro", where one can read the titles of the articles appearing in the first issue and the economists who are object of our criticisms.
By no means we could have held a conference against individuals, for the simple reason that we are not interested in criticisms against individuals, criticisms about personal things, not at all ! We intended, within a more general reasoning about the relation between the factory workers and Marx, to criticize the most significant nowadays expressions of that sort of Marxism which is separated from factory workers. Therefore, we attacked these economists on the basis of their particular theoretical positions.
"The implicit rule", which Giussani appeals vigorously to, is completely meaningless for us. It is in force within a certain community which is hostile to us: the academic community, the community of the constituted knowledge. It expresses nothing but the reigning silence in this environment, where every debate and contrast have to be kept in definite limits and borders to avoid compromising or prejudicing too much the reciprocal interests.
Giussani can, if he wants to, say I am impolite, but it is obvious that the defence his petty self-interests can not be of any interest for us: our aim is to found, through Marxism, the scientific possibility for factory workers to lead their own movement toward their liberation.
However, having said that, the challenge which Giussani proposed me still remains. In this regard I could legitimately ask my opponent to fulfil some preliminary conditions, otherwise I should deny with indignation his provocation.
A.	Firstly, I could ask him why not choose the more public, less restrictive and more reasoned written polemic. I had better say immediately that, although legitimate, I will not push for this request because I understand Giussani’s difficulty to address once again these questions in writing, after that in the "Quaderni di Operai Contro", exactly referring to his writings and quoting them, I have demonstrated irrevocably the lack of foundation and eclecticism of his positions. I understand that he can only rely on his arrogance and his eloquence, also because if things will be wrong, the damages would be limited to a restricted audience. 
B.	I could ask him that before any debate, Giussani makes clear
(a)	in which way and where I have mystified his positions, since all my considerations are supported by quotations or direct references to the sources;
(b)	what are and where are the personal insults for which he complains, defining me "impolite".
C.	I could ask him, as a condition for a correct debate, to clarify in what way our “quotation war", which he strongly deplores, took place. By answering this question, I could explain how Giussani has beforehand tried to quote Marx to contest my positions, and how afterwards, when, on the basis of the same quotations badly recalled by himself, I have demonstrated the lack of foundation of his use of Marx’s sentences, he has shifted his ground asserting that he is by no means interested in quotations and thoughts of the "great man", while Vitale cannot do but repeat by heart Marx’s positions, without an his own "independent" position.
D.	I could legitimately require as condition for the debate that Mr Giussani quotes, once and for all, where I would have said explicitly, as he always states, that exchanges and not production create values. Actually, I never assert such a falsity but, on the contrary, I deny it. For this reason I could ask Giussani to apologize formally for his provocative way of leading our debate up to now.
E.	I could ask Mr Giussani, holder in Italy of the true scientific method, the meaning of his syllogism according to which saying that the amounts of value in commodities is not quantitatively determinable before and independently from exchanges, is logically equivalent to say that exchanges and exchange rates among different commodities can not be explained on the basis of values but on the contrary exchanges do determine the magnitude of value of commodities.
F.	I could legitimately ask, in the form of donation to the journal "Operai Contro", the payment of travel expenses to Milan. I would be sure that this would not violate his professional ethic, since from a long time Giussani has been used to be payed for giving lectures about Marxism, some of them given at Calusca (maybe this is the cause of so much resentment, the fear to have lost his market?) 
The list of requests could be made longer by dealing with some other issues mentioned in the Giussanni’s letter. I could for instance ask (just mentioning one issue here, the reader can find a complete criticism of all these aspects in the "incriminate" writing "The algebraic Marxism") why he believes to demonstrate the tendency to fall of the profit rate by asserting that the use-value of the fixed capital grows faster than labour productivity, which, in fact, amounts to assert that higher value of use corresponds to higher value ?
I could ask all that, and it would be legitimate too, but I will not because of two main reasons.
The former, much less important, is that I know Giussani could not accept none of the above conditions and therefore find the excuse to avoid an uncomfortable debate which takes place after his positions have already been theoretically liquidated by the publication of "Quaderni".
The latter is a more general one. I think that the war between workers’ Marxism and bourgeois Marxism is to be fought in all the occasions offered by such a strong (as regards institutional, financial and editorial means) adversary. I am very content with the fact that one of those criticized economists, who distinguishes himself from fearful silence of others by haughtiness, arrogance and presumption comes outdoors, though with all the limits I pointed out. Welcome, therefore, to the public debate at Calusca !
I declare myself to be available since now to this meeting, which should take place on any weekend agreed by the adversaries in advance. Moreover I agree the discussion will be about all issues Giussani intend to propose.
After I have left the challenger the choice of arms, myself the challenged, I do require an unique condition namely that the debate has to start from the central subject of all this polemic: WHAT IS THE RELATION BETWEEN Marx's THEORY OF VALUE AND FACTORY WORKERS’ UPRISING AND WHAT IS THE RELATION, BETWEEN GIUSSANI’s POSITION OF A "MARXIST ECONOMIC SCIENCE" AND SUCH AN UPRISING.
Andrea Vitale 

For further information, please contact us at:
http:// www.savonaonline.it/aslo/
e-mail: pp10023@cybernet.it