The issue of farmers in Italy and the issue of Black people in the United States

Italian workers abroad are mostly peasants who came from small towns in the Italian provinces. To discuss their issues in Prometeo is to make them known and to educate them about the tasks that the communist proletarian revolution calls upon them to fulfill. This discussion is all the more necessary because Centrism has disseminated petty-bourgeois propaganda that has alienated workers from the communist idea rather than attracting them to it. Many workers believe that Centrism and communism are the same thing, and if we widen the circle even further, many workers believe that socialists, anarchists, centrists, and communists are brothers—with slight differences between them, perhaps, but brothers, or at least cousins. A certain number of workers—among the socialists, the anarchists, and even the centrists—are sincerely revolutionary and capable of making the ultimate sacrifice; yet it is not these individuals who matter. What counts is the organization as a whole, the program it adopts, and the practical application of that program.

It is our duty to dispel this confusion from the minds of the workers, and we can do so by discussing every issue of the communist revolution—and doing so thoroughly, in a way that is understandable to workers who lack a certain level of political education. We have the Rome Theses, but how many non-comrades have actually read them?

The newspaper reaches a circle of workers far larger than the circle of scholars who are passionate about studying books.

When I was in the American party, whenever a propagandist came here, I would ask him questions about the party’s positions on this or that issue.

In those discussions regarding the peasant question in Italy and the question of Black people in the United States, I always found myself at odds with the party.

Regarding the issue of the peasants, here is the explanation Mario Alpi gave me: “Our watchword is ‘land to the peasants.’ In the aftermath of the revolution, we will give land to peasants who have none and enlarge the small plots of those who have too little.” At a meeting, they were short of bread. Urging the peasants on, the speaker said: “When Comrade M. was in Italy, because his own little plot was too small, whenever he was reaping, he would always try to extend his scythe into Signor Giuseppe’s field; the same thing has likely happened to some of you.” Well, after the revolution, we will enlarge the peasants’ small plots to the extent that they and their families can cultivate them, and we will leave the landowners the land that they and their families can cultivate themselves, without being able to exploit the labor of others. To this position, I countered that while this policy was revolutionary and necessary in Russia, in Italy it is harmful and counter-revolutionary. In Russia, its implementation was both necessary and revolutionary because the country had been devastated by war and counter-revolution, and the cities were running out of bread. It was necessary to encourage farmers—especially those with the means to cultivate the land—to produce wheat by offering the incentive of profit.

The urban proletariat was small in number compared to the rural population; to wrest this population from the influence of petty-bourgeois and constitutional-bourgeois parties, a policy of land distribution was necessary—especially since there was surplus land available for distribution, and the proletarian government lacked the means to equip collectives.

In Italy, the position of dividing the land among families is counter-revolutionary; for Italy does not possess as much arable land as Russia, and dividing it would mean halting production. Every farmer knows that—to give an example—cultivating ten hectares of land takes fewer time than cultivating them divided into ten separate plots. On large estates, it is possible to use machinery and make improvements that are not feasible on small family plots. In Italy, we have an agricultural proletariat far more advanced than the Russian *muzhiks* were—one that can and must form, together with the factory proletariat, the backbone of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Instilling the idea of ​​land division and personal gain in the minds of these proletarians is a reactionary act. What we must say is that we will not oppose the division of the land should that be their wish, but we must not be the ones to propagate this idea. We must tell agricultural proletarians that wherever they cultivate the land collectively—in cooperatives—the State of the proletarian dictatorship will provide them with every necessary means and make every effort to raise their standard of living.

The proletarian state will make every effort to raise their standard of living, because this is one of the principal tasks of the communist revolution; and their standard of living will serve as an example to draw into cooperation those who have divided up the land while remaining imbued with bourgeois prejudices regarding profit and private property. We must explain to agricultural proletarians how, in the proletarian state, they will be able to enjoy seaside holidays and vacations in cities where they will meet their fellow workers—who will instruct them in the use of machinery and show them firsthand who receives the fruits of their labor (their fellow workers)—thereby fostering a sense of brotherhood and cooperation among them.

Those who might welcome this reactionary policy as a paradise are the small-scale farmers—the future *kulaks*—because, as owners of their own homes, horses, wagons, and all the necessary farming implements, they will find themselves in an advantageous position; meanwhile, those who possess nothing with which to carry out their work will be forced to hire these “comrade” *kulaks* for a fee, and—whether due to a bad harvest or an inability to cover expenses—will eventually be compelled to give up their land and go to work for a master. This happened in Russia; it would happen in Italy too, and before long, the proletarian would be left with nothing but the name. Even without the example of Russia, one could safely predict that a tacit alliance would form between the newly rich and opportunists: the newly rich would invariably elect the faithless and unscrupulous to positions of power, while the “comrade” leaders would foster a policy of “let’s exploit together.”

The situation would be the exact opposite, however, with agricultural proletarians organized into cooperatives, in possession of all the means necessary for cultivation and—most importantly—in possession of arms and the support of the working class. We must also bear in mind the small property owners, so as not to drive them into the hands of reaction. I hope the other comrades will bear this aspect of the matter in mind.

The policy of the American centrist party regarding Black people is the “Black Belt” policy—that is, the freedom for Black people to declare themselves an independent nation after the revolution.

To claim that Black people can achieve independence under a capitalist system is to mock them; to grant it to them after the revolution is to make a concession to the Black petty bourgeoisie that it does not expect. One evening, while debating with the Stalinists, I asked them this question: “If monarchist tendencies develop among Black people, should we grant them the freedom to choose a king for themselves?” The Stalinists replied: “Yes, we must grant that freedom too—the freedom to choose a king.”

I asked the same question to T. De Fazio, the bureaucrat in charge of the Italian federation, and received the same answer. If Lenin were to come back to life, he would certainly say that such people ought to be put in a cage and exhibited like an Australian kangaroo. According to published statistics, there are 18 million Black people in the United States, spread across all states and cities.

In some states, such as Alabama and Kentucky, they are so numerous that in some cities they make up the majority of the population. Some have attained the status of the petty bourgeoisie, but the majority lead lives even more wretched than those of white proletarians, because strong racial prejudice is deliberately maintained.

The dirtiest neighborhoods—those outside the city centers—are where Black people live; this is because, even if a Black person wanted to buy a home with cash in hand, they wouldn’t be sold one in the city center, and if they did find a seller, the “whites” would make life so miserable for them that they would be forced to flee. There are cities that do not allow Black people to reside there at all.

According to *The Modern Encyclopedia*, Black people were brought to the United States as slaves when the country was still a group of English colonies—starting in the early 16th century—and the importation of slaves ceased in 1794. From then until 1868–70, they were held as slaves; after 1870, they became proletarians. The abolition of slavery was not driven by the motives that self-serving propaganda would have us believe—such as President Lincoln’s benevolence or a sense of human justice—but rather by capitalist interests; it was the desire for cheap labor and a larger army of the unemployed that led to the abolition of slavery. President Lincoln was a kind-hearted man, without a doubt, but kind-hearted and nothing more. Plutarch, too, was a kind-hearted man; he censured those of his time who sold or killed their slaves when they grew old, maintaining that just as one had made use of them in their youth, so they ought to be cared for in their old age. But if Plutarch had been asked to abolish slavery, and Lincoln to abolish capitalism, I cannot speak to the goodness of their hearts. Throughout this period—starting in the early 18th century—Black people were subjected not only to slavery but to all manner of abuses, a prime example of which is recounted by Martha Gellhorn in the March issue of *Reader’s Digest* this year. An elderly white woman of about fifty had let out a piece of land to a young Black man of nineteen under a sharecropping arrangement. When harvest time arrived, the old woman, not wanting to give the Black man his share, began to scream and urge the white men to hang him, claiming he had assaulted her. And he recounts how the poor Black man who cried out his innocence was hanged. To preach the politics of the “Black Belt” is to preach the politics of reaction. Centrists believe they are taking a step forward with their politics, while in reality, they are doing nothing but continuing what the bourgeoisie has been doing for centuries. What we must do is fight against prejudice and ensure that Black people are admitted to unions without discrimination, and that unions secure equal rights for Black workers to be hired in factories. Black people are part of the American proletariat, and as such they must be treated and regarded as such; any other policy is reactionary.