The Left Purged and Into Exile

Because of illegality, the Congress of the Italian Communist Party was held later on in 1926 at Lyon in France. The position of the Left was presented, which was rejected by the Moscow-backed (that is Stalin) leadership of Gramsci. The Left had held the majority in 1924, even though it had been removed from the leadership and banned from forming a fraction. To ensure that the Leadership could appear to speak for the ’majority’, and drape themselves in a discredited mantle of democracy, all those sections who were not represented at the Congress (because of Fascist terror, members operating illegally or in prison) were taken to have voted for the leadership – a device Stalin himself probably would have baulked at at that time.

The Fraction in Exile was formed in 1927 at Pantin, near Paris, in France. This was done for two reasons, firstly to continue to exist as an organisation, but also more importantly for the second reason of standing out against the counter-revolutionary events growing apace around the world. To act as a pole for the forces still holding to revolutionary positions, Prometeo recommenced publication in 1928. Prometeo was not only there to organise the forces of the Left; it also campaigned to defend all those who opposed stalinism. The events with regards to Trotsky is dealt with in the following article. It is worth recalling that the defence of Trotsky and his supporters was not merely confined to publications. The leader of American Trotskyism, James P Cannon, stated in his History of American Trotskyism (p. 69), that Italian comrades living in New York were involved in protecting the first public meeting of the American Trotskyists. These comrades were members of what later became known as the New York Federation of the Communist Left. Of course this assistance was provided in a comradely spirit, a defence of people who were then regarded as fellow revolutionaries. We did not foresee at that time the abuse to come from Trotsky’s direction.

Having identified Stalin as representing the forces of the counter-revolution, unlike Trotsky, we were never unprepared for any of the changes in the policies of Moscow. The final defeat of the German workers, with the victory of Hitler, showed the results of Stalin’s actions. Hitler’s Germany was not a threat at that time to Russia, as the Trotskyists maintained, for it opened up the best relations between Moscow and the other capitalist capitals. Soon afterwards, Russia signed an alliance with France and joined the League of Nations, an indication of acceptance into the capitalist world. By studying constantly the evolution of the Russian regime, the final line-up for war came as no surprise. We were not caught out by the Stalin-Hitler Pact, with the division of Poland (which Trotsky defended!), although it split the American Trotskyists into two defencist camps – the Shachtman-Burnham defenders of Liberty (American patriots) and the supporters of Trotsky and Cannon, defenders of Russia.

To the publications in Italian was added Bilan, in French, in 1933. It was an important addition to our international work already being carried out by Prometeo. Bilan was superseded by Octobre in 1938, published as the monthly bulletin of the International Bureau of the Fractions of the Left, which was intended to be produced in German and English. However, the difficulties imposed by the Second World War (particularly illegality) restrained the work being undertaken. The illusions that war would be inevitably followed by a revolutionary wave, as after 1914-8 had to be confronted.

During 1943 party sections were able to resume work again. In Italy the Party was reformed (publishing Prometeo in that year and Battaglia Comunista started in 1945), the Fraction in France was formed producing L’Etincelle (The Spark) for the first year being replaced by L’lntemationaliste, both joining the work which had continued in Belgium. A Conference was held in Paris on 7-9 December 1946 at which the International Communist Left was constituted, which was composed of the Partito Comunista Internazionalista of Italy (the “Italian” section), as well as the French and Belgian Fractions of the Communist Left. They were joined a little while later by the small American Fraction of the Communist Left, which published an International Bulletin later renamed Internationalist.

Recognising that there wasn’t present a revolutionary period in which to work did not lead to complacency. Class struggles did break out during this period. The French Fraction through L’lnternationaliste, was able to exert some influence during the Great Renault Strike of 1948. Opposition was also made against the imperialist war being waged by French forces in Vietnam. The Belgian Fraction was able to intervene during a Dockers’ Strike of that same year.

At the same time as interventions were made in the class struggle, the necessary theoretical work continued throughout. The notion that in Russia there was still something positive from a proletarian point of view was remorselessly combated. Despite the depth of the counter-revolution, the examining of the nature of the period continued to be an important aspect of the work of the organisation.

The Fractions of the International Communist Left was consolidated into the Internationalist Communist Party, formed at a meeting in Italy in 1951, in which national fractions were swept away, and so a single organisation replaced the former International Communist Left. The name International Communist Party was adopted in 1965.

The Battle Against the Destruction of the Party

The Left Fraction was clear from its inception about how it should relate to the other groups who opposed the International’s official line. In the first issue of Prometeo, we read: “No one group yet represents a basis on which to organise all those sound forces dedicated to […] rectifying the party. No one group has taken up satisfactory positions on basic questions such as the ’united front’, ’party and masses’, and ’workers’ and peasants’ government’. This fact is very significant. For some everything was fine up to the 4th World Congress, whilst for others the degeneration didn’t set in until after the 5th Congress, and so on and so forth. The fact of the matter is that these various groups were liquidated by bolshevisation at different times, and each is inclined to think the degeneration started with their own liquidation. Everything would be resolved for them if their was a return to the 4th or 5th Congress. For us the problem is much more complex and is directly connected with the dissenting opinion of comrade Bordiga regarding the process of the constitution of the 3rd International. The course of events has shown comrade Bordiga to have been correct. The Communist International hasn’t succeeded, in practice, in eliminating its own internal opportunism. Opportunist infection within the proletariat is, as ever, disguised behind thundering phrases and only in times of depression, or when the conquest of proletarian power is in the balance, do all its negative aspects become apparent – with disastrous consequences for the proletarian movement. German October, Aventino in Italy, Anglo-Russian Committee, bloc of four classes in China, theory of socialism in one country in Russia.”

On the other hand, despite the fact the theoretical elaboration of the opposition groups was entirely unsatisfactory, or else non-existent, the Fraction could hardly fail to recognise that these groups, for better or for worse, represented an attempt at opposing the counter-revolutionary degeneration and that they had some influence over sound proletarian strata. The Fraction therefore proposed “to carry out, by appropriate methods, a serious work of assimilating these sound layers, guiding them onto left-wing terrain by exposing the inadequacies of their positions.” It certainly didn’t want to adhere to organisational pacts just in order to be able to count more heads.

On June 2 1928 the French group Contre le Courant sent an open letter to all opposition groups extant in France in which it was stated: “the impending prospect of very aggressive bourgeois policies directed against the proletariat imposes ever more important duties and tasks on communists. Given the incapacity and shortcomings of the party, it is the responsibility of the communists of the opposition, reduced to silence inside the party or excluded for having struggled against opportunism and its corrupting influence, to make a more vigorous and coherent effort, adopting new methods of action.”

Having indicated the existence of several opposition groups and how inconvenient it was to be so dispersed, the letter specified that even if an immediate fusion wasn’t feasible, nevertheless one could propose the creation of a “single organ which would be the political and doctrinal organ of the bloc of opposition communists […] the common organ – the letter said – will be to begin with, in a certain measure, a juxtaposition of the various tendencies.” In conclusion, it would issue an invitation to an international conference of the opposition.

The Left replied with a categorical refusal.

Prometeo replied that, according to the thinking of the Left, what was incumbent on revolutionaries was not “adopting new modalities of action” as Contre le Courant suggested, but learning from proletarian experiences and acting in such a way that “the degeneration of the international is resolved through a genuine regeneration of Left revolutionary Marxism, by placing the revolutionary vanguard back at the head of the really resolute combatants […] It is inconceivable that all the events we have lived through can be summed up in a narrow anti-stalinism, and it is certain that on such a basis – anti-stalinism – no guarantees are provided for the reorganisation of the revolutionary movement.”

As regards the second issue, the existence of lots of opposition groups giving rise to the inconvenience of a dispersal of forces, the Fraction specified: “There are many oppositions. It is a misfortune, but there is no other remedy than a comparison of their ideologies […] If many oppositions exist it means there are many ideologies whose substantial differences must be revealed, not glossed over through simple discussion in a common organ. Our watchword is to go deep without allowing ourselves to be driven by a sense of having achieved a result which would in fact represent nothing but another failure.” The Fraction went on to invite the various groups to elaborate a programme of action and to see, then, if it formed the basis for possible meetings.

The Fraction’s reply was in essence a reiteration of the ideas expressed in the 5 points which it had outlined in its letter to Korsch.

An altogether different stance was adopted, on the other hand, towards the Russian Opposition: the only group besides the Italian Left to elaborate systematic directives of action, and one which had never strayed, as far as the central questions were concerned, from the political line defended by Lenin.

Prometeo would express from its very first issue onward the solidarity of the Left with the Russian Opposition. Republishing The Trotsky Question to begin with, it would go on to take up positions in favour of the comrades of the Russian Left and publish Trotsky’s letters and articles.

In issue number 5 of the paper (Sept. 1928) in the report on the Fraction’s congress held in Belgium in July, it was stated: “we moved on to attend to the issue of relations with the other oppositions and the Congress approved the line of absolute intransigence towards all other groups, though bearing in mind the exception made by comrade Bordiga with regard to the Trotsky group which has a Platform that is satisfactory from the point of view of principles.”

Following this the Fraction’s Central Committee would pass a resolution declaring that: “Differences in the political positions of the Left Fraction and the opposition group led by Comrade Trotsky exist despite the Left and Comrade Bordiga supporting the criticisms formulated by this group against the state policy of the Russian Party.” Despite these differences, the Fraction “declares its solidarity with the activity carried out by this group in October 1927 in defence of the principles of the victorious October 1917 proletarian and communist revolution.” Therefore, when Trotsky enquired about the Fraction’s positions, the latter was very pleased to establish links with the Russian Opposition.

In August 1929 a series of documents characterising the positions of the Italian Left was sent to Trotsky. These were accompanied by a long letter which, as well as going into how the fraction abroad had come about, expressed the Italian comrades’ viewpoint both on the nature of the Russian State, and the politics of the International. No attempt though was made to disguise the points of disagreement with the Russian Opposition.

Trotsky’s reply, dated the 25th September 1929, could scarcely have been more encouraging.

Referring to the material he had received from the Italian comrades, Trotsky would write: “These documents, along with a reading of articles and speeches by comrade Bordiga, beyond the fact that I know him personally, permit me, to a certain extent, to assess your main ideas and the level of solidarity that unites us […] The Left Platform (1926) has impressed me greatly. I believe that it is one of the best documents to emerge from the international opposition, and that in many respects it retains its importance to this day. It is a very important thing, above all in France, that the Platform highlights the revolutionary politics of the proletariat, the question of the nature of the party, the essential principles of its strategy and its tactics. Lately we have seen in France how for many well-known revolutionaries the opposition has simply served as a stage in an evolution from Marxism to syndicalism, to trade-unionism, or simply to scepticism. Almost all have hesitated on the issue of the party. You are bound to know about the pamphlet by Loriot, in which the latter proves his total incomprehension of the nature of the party, of its historical function from the point of view of class relations, and where he slips into the theory of trade-unionist passivity which has nothing in common with the ideas of the revolutionary proletariat.”

Moving on to talk about Monatte’s group, Trotsky says “Having arrived at the threshold of Marxism between 1917 and 1923, this group has since made several backward steps to syndicalism, but no longer is it the combative syndicalism of the beginning of the century, which constituted a step forward for the French workers’ movement, rather it is a syndicalism which is retrograde in comparison. It is passive and negative and relapses, more often than not, into simple trade-unionism […] Souvarine, struggling against the bureaucracy and the disloyalty of the Communist International, has similarly arrived at a negation of the political action of the party itself […]These are the reasons why I give so much importance to the solidarity that exists between us on the question of the party, on its historical task, on the continuity of its action, on its necessary struggle to bring its influence to bear on all aspects, whatever they may be, of the workers’ movement.”

On this matter a Bolshevik, that is a revolutionary Marxist, passed through Lenin’s school, can make no concessions. “The 1926 Platform provides excellent answers to a number of other questions […] and thus it declares with absolute clarity, that the so-called “autonomous” peasant parties inevitably fall prey to counter-revolutionary influences. We can boldly declare that in the present epoch there neither can be, nor are, exceptions to this rule. Wherever the peasant class does not march behind the proletariat it marches behind the bourgeoisie against the proletariat […] Your platform underlines with good cause, in connexion with the struggle of the oppressed peoples, the necessity for the communist party’s complete independence. Forgetting this essential rule leads to the most fatal consequences as the criminal experience of the subordination of the Communist Party to the Kuomintang has shown.”

Trotsky concludes his long letter with some remarks about the leader of the Italian centrists: “As concerns the official leadership of the Italian party, I’ve only been able to observe it in the International Executive in the person of Ercoli. Gifted with a pliable mind and a somewhat inflated style, he is best – there is none better – at making solicitors speeches, of a lawyer on a point of order, and, in a general way, he is good at carrying them out. The sterile casuistry of his speeches, ever tending in the end towards the defence of opportunism, is the opposite, and very clearly so, of the muscular, prolific revolutionary thought of Amadeo Bordiga […] Having thus Ercoli-type centrists on one side and ultra-left confusionists on the other, you are called, comrades, to defend under the harsh conditions of the fascist dictatorship the historical interests of the Italian and international proletariat. With all my heart I wish you good luck and success. Yours, Leon Trotsky.” (Constantinople – 25 September 1929)

At about the same time, in France, the La Verité group was formed out of a meeting between a highly heterogeneous set of splinter groups from other organisations, including a fraction of Revolution Proletarienne grouped around Lutte de Classe and elements from Contre le Courant and Bulletin Communiste. The group immediately issued a proposal that an international review of opposition studies be organised. It was practically an identical initiative to the one taken the previous year by Contre le Courant, except this time the initiative was supported by opposition groups in Belgium, Austria, Germany, Poland and the Cannon group in America.

The fact that the initiative had been supported by Trotsky was certainly responsible for this wider support. Needless to say, the proposal was also extended to the Fraction of the Italian Left.

In its reply, published in issue no.23 of Prometeo (15.10.29) the fraction sought above all to clarify certain issues, especially the fact that the publication of an international review, drawn up by representatives of different groups whose areas of agreement and disagreement it was still impossible to gauge, could run the risk of causing still greater confusion and discouragement, something the proletariat could well do without. Far from clearing the way for a regeneration of communism, it might in fact gravely compromise it, and provide opportunism with new points of support. “What is certain – wrote Prometeo – is that the course of the centrist crisis, and the disintegration of the communist parties, has established the objective conditions for the first efforts at international contact between the groups that have taken up the struggle against opportunism and who have kept to the directives which led to the foundation of the Communist International. But, as all too happens, even when the objective conditions exist, the subjective ones, namely the preparation of militants and groups in this case, lag behind. What is apparent to Marxists is that when the objective conditions do arise it is up to proletarian communists to do their duty as much as they can. When it comes to taking an initiative in response to the requirements of a given situation, an extremely important part is played by the method by which one sets about the task, with which one takes the first steps, and which go on to condition the ones after.”

The Fraction insisted that any group had to first of all elaborate a platform which would define its main political contours, and it would be on the strength of this that the proletariat would be called on to give its support to the new organisation.

This way of setting out the problem would be the grounds on which, as we will see later on, the first disagreements and then the split with Trotsky would take place.

Trotsky would take the view that the French experience proved that the line of formulating a precautionary platform led to nihilism or sterile lucubrations. He would maintain that there was a pressing need to attend to the prior condition on which a drawing up of the programme could take place; namely a movement had to be created first.

It may appear strange that Trotsky had written to our fraction emphasising that “the revolutionary politics of the proletariat, the question of the nature of the party, the essential principles of its strategy and tactics” should be brought to the fore, whilst at the same time becoming embroiled in attempts to form spurious organisations lacking in any homogeneity.

The only plausible explanation is that Trotsky had in mind to regroup the various opposition groups and to forge afterwards the required level of homogeneity in the furnace of the class struggle, as was Lenin’s intention at the time of the foundation of the 3rd International.

Leaving aside the reservations that the Italian Left has always expressed about this method, we are nevertheless obliged to say that even if Lenin did make a courageous gamble with history, the outcome of which wasn’t positive, one should remember that at that time we were on the crest of the revolutionary wave; that in Russia the proletariat had taken power; that it was vitally important that the revolution triumph in other countries, and possibly industrialised ones; that it was not to be ruled out that even parties which weren’t 100% Marxist, in a situation of extreme crisis for the bourgeois class, might, with support from the International, lead the proletariat to victory. At the end of the twenties, on the contrary, capitalism had settled down and was moving onto the offensive on an international scale. The working class, even if not entirely cowed, was unable to conduct the struggle to a revolutionary conclusion. Taking power was not on the agenda; the duty of communist revolutionaries was to stand firm on positions of extreme theoretical clarity so as to salvage what was salvageable of the wreck of the 3rd International.

Going back to La Verite’s proposal to link-up the opposition groups, the Fraction expressed the opinion that these contacts were necessary with a view to the revolutionary reorganisation of the proletariat on an international scale, but warned of the possible dangers of hurrying the movement into action without developing the necessary clarity and, in conclusion it said: “In any case our fraction has decided it won’t take part if this method isn’t substituted by that other one which has given far too good a proof in our camp for us not to find in our experience one more reason to insist on our old demand.”

The International Conference of the Oppositions was held in Paris in April 1930 and concluded with the constitution of an International Secretariat composed of Kurt Landau for Germany, Alfred Rosmer for France and Markin (that is Trotsky’s son, Leone Sedov) for Russia.

The invitation to the meeting, misdirected for reasons that were never made clear, but not intentional in any case, was received by the comrades of the Italian Fraction too late to allow them to present a document they had been preparing which clarified their positions to the comrades who managed to attend the meeting. This document (also republished here) analysed in depth several key issues, namely: the situation of the International and the communist parties; the spontaneous response of the proletariat in opposition to the deviations from the principles on which the International had been founded; the events in the international field that pointed to the revival of the capitalist offensive, and this analysis, along with its recognition of the necessity for an international organisation of those forces remaining faithful to revolutionary Marxism, stood as a further caution to the comrades of the various groups not to try and rush into a unitary organisation at the expense of clarity of political and tactical content.

The absence of the Fraction from the conference of the oppositions, despite it being due to a mere mishap, would anger Trotsky greatly and prompt him to send a very curt letter to the comrades of the Prometeo group. He would write, amongst other things, that “in order to adhere to the left international a false ’monolithism’ in the spirit of the stalinist bureaucracy is entirely unnecessary. What is required – Trotsky continued – is a real solidarity on the principal questions of international revolutionary strategy borne out by the experience of recent years. Of particular divergences in tactics, these are completely inevitable, however they mustn’t become an obstacle to strict collaboration within the framework of international organisation.”

Trotsky also accused the comrades of the Fraction of being “ill-defined elements” and asked questions which, frankly, we never would have expected from a Trotsky. He enquired: 1) “Do you admit that communism can have a national character? […] Do you consider yourselves as part of a national movement, or as part of an international movement?” 2) “At present there are three currents of international communism: the centre, right, and left (Leninist) […] Which tendency do you belong to?” 3) “What are your divergences with the left Opposition? Are they of the nature of principle or episodic?” 4) “(If) it is divergences of principle which separate you from the left opposition […] Why don’t you think about creating an international fraction of your tendency?.”

The Fraction’s reply to Trotsky was as clear as it was frank: “Your letter of 22 April 1930 […] is in complete contrast to the reply you made to our open letter […] We haven’t departed in any way from that platform which you judged to be one of the best documents of the international Opposition. What has happened in the meantime? […] In essence you invite us to declare whether or not we are communists. To the first two questions the reply is found in your open letter where you affirm: I don’t doubt that you consider yourselves internationalists’. And that is that […] We also draw your attention to the fact that in October 1929, that is, well before the preliminary conference in Paris, we wrote in issue 21 of Prometeo, that the course of the centrist crisis presents us with the objective conditions for the first efforts on an international scale […] We are not thinking of creating an international fraction of our tendency because we believe we have learnt from Marxism that international proletarian organisation isn’t an artificial agglomeration of groups, or individuals, of all countries around a given group. On the contrary we believe that this organisation must arise as a result of the experience of the proletariat of every country. The fact that some group – in particular the Russian left – may give impetus to this organisation isn’t an idea which worries us at all, what we are concerned about is that this impetus be founded on real proletarian formations which have already made a serious ideological effort.”

There was no hesitation about pointing out that not even the positions of the Russian Left could be accepted en bloc: “with regard to the documents of the Russian Left we have already had occasion to underline our solidarity on matters of principle and our disagreement on tactical matters, namely, that of the united front – the slippery slope towards the workers’ and peasants’ government, the Anglo-Russian Committee, the Kuomintang, the proletarian anti-fascist committees etc.”

Indeed the international Trotskyist Opposition would eventually be washed up on these very shores, and much sooner than expected.

The Fraction would conclude by drawing attention to another very delicate matter which showed how the Left Opposition still clung to that artificial and contrived organisational method which the Comintern had sanctified under the name “bolshevisation”, that manoeuvrism, in other words, which had played such a large part in the degenerative process of the International, and which has never ever been of any help in achieving revolutionary aims.

In the letter sent to Korsch in 1926 it had been explicitly spelled out that we weren’t convinced of the validity of those “flexible” tactics which, through the use of manoeuvres, aimed to push groups further to the right or to the left by way of accusations of opportunism and suchlike. We said that we had never ever based our line of conduct on manoeuvrism and diplomacy; on the contrary, the indispensable thing was “a work which tended towards the elaboration of an international left political ideology, based on the eloquent experiences undergone by the Comintern. Since very little progress has been made in this regard any international initiative will prove difficult” (letter to Korsch, 1926)

The international opposition, unlike the Italian Left, never considered repudiating the former method and went on to make use of it in an increasingly unrestrained way.

The fact that the International Conference had taken place without the directing bodies of the Fraction knowing about it was certainly due to a mistake, but when the International Secretariat, again unknown to the Fraction, entered into relations with a group of ex-functionaries of the Communist Party of Italy, an organisation with no political base indicative of a reaction orientated to the left, this was certainly no mistake.

This group, headed by Leonetti, Ravazzoli and Tresso, had shared in the responsibility for the leadership of the Communist Party of Italy (PCI) up to the “turning point” of 1929. This “veering to the left” was certainly just one of many zig-zags of Comintern policy, and was endorsed by these gentlemen with just as much gusto as they had done the earlier right-wing policies. It was the disastrous turn of events on an international scale, affecting countries everywhere, which had prompted the apparatchiks of Italian centrism to discover the need for the abrupt 180° turn, and wishing to keep the organisational reins in its hands it would switch over to attacking the politics of the right-wing and offload all blame onto Tasca, the latest scapegoat, for a leadership they themselves had been part of.

Only now did this opposition group emerge, not when the entire politics of the party had been based on “anti-fascism”, on “peoples’ revolution” on “workers’ and peasants’ committees”, on protests in the name of “bread and liberty”; all of them formulae which entrust to the proletariat not the task appropriate to it of leading the revolution, but the function of a left-wing of the anti-fascist forces: the counter-revolutionary objective being to preserve the capitalist regime in Italy.

To give an idea of the seriousness of this group it is enough to consider that at the meeting of the Central Committee in March 1930 Leonetti had launched a bitter attack against Pasquini (Silone) whilst, contemporaneously, he had held secret meetings with him in order to get Togliatti into a minority. And when, following the expulsion of the 3, Silone denied having had contacts with Leonetti and co. these would publish in their bulletin the letters which Silone had sent them, implicating him in the intrigue against Togliatti. When, finally, thanks to this delaterious action, Silone was in his turn expelled, the group of 3, wrote proudly of their action that: “If the Opposition (namely themselves – ed.) hadn’t denounced this compromise, Pasquini (Silone – ed.) might have continued to nestle in the ranks of the International.” (Bulletin no.3, 15.6.1931)

However this is only one minor example of how low the N.O.I, the New Italian Opposition, was prepared to stoop.

After the 10th Plenum of the International’s swing to the left, the PCI leadership, by means of Tresso, tried to open a dialogue with the Fraction in the hope of reabsorbing it. Needless to say the Centrists were wasting their time. Having failed in their approach to the “Bordigists”, the centrists hoped to deal directly with Bordiga.

Spriano, in the Storia del PCI reports the following declaration by Amendola: “I approached Bordiga in 1930, on behalf of the party centre, to propose that he be got out of the country legally. The party would have ensured the necessary technical and financial means […] Bordiga, in his customary ’weighty’ language, rejected the offer which I’d transmitted to him.” Having failed in this attempt, Togliatti, at the Central Committee meeting of March 1930, moved that Bordiga be expelled from the party. The expulsion was approved unanimously, that is also by Leonetti and Tresso. One of the counts of indictment for the prosecution was the following: “Amadeo Bordiga has supported, defended and made positions of the Trotskyist opposition his own. He is the exponent of a current which leads this opposition.” Thus the leaders of the N.O.I, would vote that Bordiga be expelled for Trotskyism and immediately after go off to the Trotskyists Rosmer and Naville to make contact with their organisation. These contacts having been made, the 3 would send a political document to Trotsky in which we read: “we can say to you that the reason given for his expulsion (they are talking about Bordiga – ed.) is completely slanderous. It is nothing but a new manifestation of the real political brigandage which reigns within the Italian section of the C.I.”

We feel no need to comment on an attitude which succeeded in disgusting even the fascist police.

An informer, in his report, in referring to the position taken up by the group of 3 on the occasion of Bordiga’s expulsion, would write: they have “an extraordinary gall, if one considers that 10 or 12 weeks ago they voted against Bordiga.” (From Trotsky ed il comunismo italiano by S.Corvisieri).

In the already cited letter to Korsch, the Left had said: “It would be inadmissible, in any case, a solidarity and a communion of political declarations with elements […] that […] until lately have been responsible for leading the party in accordance with the right and centrist tendencies and whose passage to the opposition coincided with the impossibility of keeping the leadership of the party in line with the international centre, and with criticisms made by the international of their work. The latter would be incompatible with defending the new method and new course of international communist work, which is sure to succeed the parliamentary-bureaucratic type manoeuvre.”

And what possibility of working in common with elements of the Leonetti, Ravazzoli, Tresso stamp could there be if not to adopt the system of parliamentary-bureaucratic manoeuvres?

Evidently the International Secretariat (Trotskyist) was not of our opinion; not only would it accept the group of 3 but it wouldn’t even bother to reply to the Fraction’s demand for an explanation. And this could mean only one thing; that it was attempting to create a new opposition to counterpose to the Fraction inside the Italian proletariat, risking a dispersal of those forces that would have otherwise inevitably been orientated towards the left. This manoeuvre was carried out at the same time as the Fraction was being asked to adhere to the left international; adhesion that the Fraction had given refusing however “to participate in the leadership of the Secretariat, until we find ourselves in the presence of a programmatic document and a system of work which guarantees the proletarian movement against the manoeuvring which is contributing to the triumph of opportunism in the C.I.”

However, seeing how matters stood, the Fraction was also impelled to declare that if things went on as they were, not only would it adhere to its refusal to be part of the leadership of the International Secretariat, but it would have to separate from the international opposition altogether so as to be no longer held responsible for its policies and actions.

It became strikingly apparent that the group which went under the name of the Nuova Opposizione Italiana, comprising a small number of booted out ex-leaders of the PCI, were entirely dedicated to a petty politicking which lacked any principles or scruples; besides which the left had established, in no uncertain terms, that any form of solidarity “with elements recently involved in steering the party in a right wing and centrist direction” would be inadmissible.

The Fraction nevertheless did not wish to break immediately with the international opposition. Despite everything it would swallow the bitter pill of having to feign belief in the good faith of these people and would proceed to a wholesale work of clarification and of possible collaboration, up to making the columns of Prometeo available to them.

And in order to avoid seeming as though we might be distorting reality in some way, we note that the following was written regarding the above in No. 3 of the N.O.I. Bulletin (August 15 1931): “the columns of Prometeo were offered to us where various documents which the official press still kept hidden from party comrades might be published; various meetings were organised where, without rebukes and personalising, diverging opinions could be discussed; there was even a proposal of a joint bulletin to deal with problems which the official leadership had prevented from being discussed in the ranks of the party.”

Therefore the Fraction did not oppose the N.O.I, joining the international opposition because it wished to defend its right of primogeniture, much more simply, it did so because it held as indispensable that any adhesion should be evaluated on the basis of past performance and a satisfactory theoretical elaboration. Besides, as far as the 21 points of Moscow were concerned, each country could only have one party adhering to the international organisation. It was these criteria which should be the basis on which to make evaluations and not extemporary declarations of leftism, even if made in good faith.

This was the intransigent premise behind the Fraction’s set of irrenouncable positions, foremost amongst which was its flat rejection of the political methodology of the parliamentary-diplomatic variety.

Issue No. 33 of Prometeo (15.7.1930) lay its cards on the table in order to prevent future equivocations: “In parliamentary politics the rule is trasformismo, a jostling for position between men and parties to succeed in the game of advancing through all the somersaults imposed by fluctuating political situations. Without the least scruple one load of political programmes is deserted for another, and under the banner of the same party, of other political formations, the activity of defending the class that dominates through parliament is enjoined upon. The game of equilibrium requires only malleability on the part of the actor, who will be promoted only insofar as he is capable of substituting to the old positions, new ones, the most suited to the defence of the ’sacred principles’ of the mask of capitalist oppression. In the proletarian camp the rule must be quite the opposite. For here, transformismo is the worst that can befall the movement.”

Even concerning the attitude to take up toward the NOI, “even in this case, the worst service one could do to these militants is precisely to leave them with the conviction that a formal adhesion is all that is required to achieve the hard won clarification, or even its first stages […]As regards our relations […] with these comrades, the solution clearly is to be found by other methods than those used by centrists of all colourations […] imposing the usual formal declarations with which they ’recognise the errors’ and dedicate themselves to the new, acclaimed and allegedly correct way […] One could try and gauge the exact degree of culpability of the new opposition by comparing it with past struggles fought against the left wing, in Italy and elsewhere, but this would be beside the point. It isn’t through formalistic methods that the question is settled, but rather by the political clarification that results from a re-examination of the past as a whole and the explanations one gives for it. If rather than making idiotic statements to humiliate the new oppositionists we instead try to bolster them by making a conscious and fair assessment, there is yet hope that they may, with heads held high, take up their posts in the battle for the proletariat and the revolution […] From the very first moment contacts were established, the Fraction showed it believed that the New Opposition should set about drawing up a document that addressed not only contemporary matters, but past ones also […] We think that the New Opposition should set itself the immediate task of examining why until now it has been dragged into the opportunist camp under the leadership first of the right, and then of political adventurers […] will the New Opposition, through an analysis of the past and of its own past, eventually establish that the causes are precisely those we have to? […] What has been at stake for years, and is still at stake today, is the fate of the proletarian movement in Italy which centrism is preparing – using the snares of social fascism – to consign to capitalism. These being the stakes we must be ready and determined to do today what can’t be postponed, not determined to put off to tomorrow what should have been done today. Our Fraction, with a heightened sense of responsibility, therefore shows the comrades of the New Opposition the way that it has declared itself ready to follow. And as soon as it is possible for comrades of the Fraction to examine their political document, an unprejudiced response will be given, in good faith, with frankness, and with a view to bolstering proletarian energies. But with this aim the fraction will not commit the fateful mistake of squandering these energies or of concealing the sight of reality from the workers who will feel that a step forward has been made only if we can guarantee that we aren’t offering illusory snapshots. Rather we must offer sound measures as militants who know by what path and with what means the exploited will find in the proletariat the guidance and leadership of their struggle to liberate themselves from the slavery of capitalism.”