On the question of parliamentarianism

Il Soviet, April 25, 1920

The article we publish here, translated from ‘Kommunismus’, the organ of the 3rd International for south-eastern Europe, is a very valuable contribution to the question of parliamentarianism and corresponds to a great extent to our views.

We reproduce it in the certainty of pleasing our readers, who will not fail to appreciate the importance of these very important writings in the discussion of this vital subject, which – like this one – make it clear how much Italian electoral maximalism is at fault with the international communist doctrines and organs.

I.

It is now generally agreed that the question of parliamentarianism is not a question of principle, but only a question of tactics. Although this thesis is undoubtedly correct, it nevertheless has many obscure points. Quite apart from the fact that it is enunciated almost exclusively by those who are in practice for parliamentarianism – so that adherence to it almost always means adherence to parliamentarianism – little is said when it is said that a question is not a question of principle but only a question of tactics. Especially since, in the absence of a true theory (of knowledge) of socialism, the relationship of a tactical question to principles is quite obscure.

Without wishing to deal even briefly with this problem here, the following must nevertheless be considered certain. Tactics means the practical implementation of established principles. Tactics is thus the link between the final goal and the immediate reality. It is thus determined on the one hand by the firmly established principles and aims of Communism, and on the other by the constantly changing historical reality. When speaking of the great pliability of communist tactics (at least in relation to what this should be), for the exact understanding of this concept it must not be forgotten that the pliability of communist tactics is a direct consequence of the rigidity of communist principles. It is only because the immutable communist principles are destined to vitally and fruitfully transform the ever-changing reality that they can retain such pliability. Every ‘realist policy’, every action that is not guided by principles, becomes rigid and schematic the more it is deemed original by unprincipled men (e.g. German imperialist policy), because the immanent in the changeable, the driving force in the complexity of facts, are things that ‘realist policy’ cannot fix. If political action is not guided by a theory capable of fruitfully influencing events and becoming fruitful for them, in its place comes custom, copying, routine, unfit to adapt to the needs of the moment.

Precisely because of this cohesion with theory and principles, communist tactics differ from any bourgeois or social-democratic petty-bourgeois ‘realist politics’. If, therefore, for the communist party a problem is posed as a tactical problem, the question must be asked: 1. to which principles the problem in question is linked! – 2  in accordance with this principle, in what historical situation can this tactic be employed! – 3. again in accordance with the principles, what nature should the tactic be! 4. how one must consider the connection of a single tactical question with other particular tactical questions – again in connection with questions of principle!

II.

In order to define parliamentarianism more precisely as a tactical problem of communism, one must always start on the one hand from the principle of the class struggle, and on the other hand from the concrete analysis of the present and real state of the material and ideological power relations of the classes in struggle. This gives rise to two decisive questions: 1. when, in general terms, can parliamentarianism be considered as a weapon, as a tactical means of the proletariat! – 2° how is this weapon to be used in the interest of the proletarian class struggle!

The class struggle of the proletariat denies bourgeois society by its very nature. This in no way means indifferentism towards the state, rightly mocked by Marx, but on the contrary, that a form of struggle must be adopted in which the proletariat does not get its hands tied by the forms and means that bourgeois society has moulded for its own ends, that is, a form of struggle in which the initiative is fundamentally on the side of the proletariat. It must not be forgotten, however, that this form of proletarian struggle can only rarely be developed in all its purity, mainly because the proletariat, although as a result of its historical-philosophical mission is in perpetual struggle against the very existence of bourgeois society, nevertheless in actual historical situations it often finds itself reduced to the defensive against the bourgeoisie. The idea of the proletarian class struggle is in itself a great offensive against capitalism, and history makes this offensive appear as a necessity for the proletariat. The tactical position, in which the proletariat finds itself from time to time, can therefore be defined in the simplest way according to whether it is offensive or defensive in character. From what has been said so far, the consequence flows spontaneously that in a defensive situation tactical means must be used, which by their very nature are in contradiction with the idea of the proletarian class struggle. Therefore the use of such means, which is inevitable, is always combined with the danger that they may damage the purpose for which they are used, the class struggle of the proletariat.

Parliament, the characteristic instrument of the bourgeoisie, can therefore only be a defensive weapon of the proletariat. This undoubtedly answers the question of when it should be used: at a stage in the class struggle when, due to both external relations of force and internal ideological immaturity, it is not possible for the proletariat to fight the bourgeoisie with its own specific means of attack. Acceptance of parliamentary activity therefore means for every communist party the consciousness and confession that revolution cannot be thought of in the short term. The proletariat, forced onto the defensive, can then use the parliamentary forum for agitation and propaganda; it can use the possibilities, ensured by bourgeois freedom for members of parliament, as a substitute for the other forms of manifestation that have been suppressed; parliamentary struggles with the bourgeoisie can serve to gather the forces to prepare for the real struggle against the bourgeoisie. It is easy to understand that such a phase may at present be of relatively long duration, but this does not alter the fact that for a communist party parliamentary activity can never be anything other than a preparation for the real struggle, not the struggle itself.