THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL AND PARLIAMENT

Il Soviet, April 11, 1920

The circular of the E.C. of the Communist International signed by Zinoviev and published in Comunismo Nos. 8 and 9 compels us to return once again to the vexed question of parliamentarianism. On it the circular in its first words thus expresses, “The present stage of the revolutionary movement has placed on the agenda, in the most bitter form, among other questions, that of parliamentarianism.”

Let these words count as an answer for those who say that we have made it a kind of nightmare, that we alone give it undue importance, while it is a matter of tactics and not of program, and therefore of secondary character.

We have already said several times that for us questions of tactics are of the greatest value, because they indicate the action that parties should take; these discuss questions of program precisely in order to derive tactical directives from them, otherwise instead of being political parties they would be congregations of dreamers.

Between the social democrats and the communists what divides them is not the distant goal they both want to achieve, but precisely the tactics, and the division is so deep that in Germany and elsewhere no little blood has run between the two parties. Nobody can argue that this is secondary and of little importance.

We agree in admitting that the question of parliamentarianism should be separated into two issues. On the first, that is, on the necessity of overthrowing parliamentarianism in order to give all power to the Soviets, there should be no disagreement among the parties (and therefore among their members), adherents of the Third International, because this constitutes the cornerstone, the backbone of its program. We say should because this duty is shirked by the P.S.I., of which a notable section blatantly supports the opposite concept and another no less notable one has not realized at all the profound antithesis there is between parliamentarianism and Sovietist power. Perhaps because of the knowledge of this equivocal hybridity that exists in our Party the comrades of the Third International, while addressing other parties, do not deal with the Italian one. Do they wait for it to come out of the equivocation? And they can go whistle for it waiting!

As for the second question, that “bourgeois parliaments may be exploited for the purpose of the unfolding of class struggle,” it does not seem to us accurate, according to what the circular states, that it bears no relation to the first question.

If it is recognized that there is a profound antithesis between the parliamentary and soviet conceptions, it must also be recognized that it is necessary to spiritually prepare the masses to realize this antithesis, to familiarize themselves with the idea of the necessity of overthrowing the bourgeois parliamentary regime and establishing soviets. Parties supporting this program can effectively carry out their propaganda on the sole condition that they do not absolutely devalue it by action, accepting themselves to participate in the function of parliaments. This is especially so in countries where such participation has been enhanced by the long custom and credit given to these bodies by precisely those parties that would like to advocate an opposite concept in this regard today.

These parties have persistently educated the masses to give supreme importance to parliaments, preaching that all state power belongs to them and that, if only one succeeds in winning a majority, one is the absolute master of power.

All the more reason why an election campaign with an anti-parliamentary content cannot be waged together under the same banner, in the name and with the discipline of the same party, by those who, at least in words, call for the overthrow “from within” of the bourgeois parliament and those who continue to view it from the standpoint of social democracy.

The examples Zinoviev gives in support of his argument are not convincing. To say that the Russian Bolsheviks participated in the constituent elections to sweep it away 24 hours later is not to prove that bourgeois parliamentarianism was exploited to the advantage of the revolution. Evidently the Bolsheviks participated in the elections because at that time they did not feel they had sufficient strength to prevent the constituent elections, otherwise this they would have done. As soon as they became aware that they were strong enough, they decided on action. This strength they could not acquire by virtue of their participation in the struggle, nor could they acquire at least the consciousness of it, because the election results were not, and fortunately so, favorable to them. Perhaps, if this had been the case, the constituent assembly would not have been torn down.

To demonstrate the futility of the constituent and any parliament, or rather, to demonstrate the usefulness of bringing them down, we accept that it may benefit to intervene in electoral struggles, but only in the negative sense, that is, without candidates. Only in this way can the demonstration of anti-parliamentarianism have real efficacy with the masses, because it is concordant in theory and practice, not contradictory as that which can be made by that renewed siren, the would-be anti-parliamentarian parlamentarian.

So, too, it is of no use remembering that the Bolsheviks participated in the Tsarist Duma before the war, in a profoundly different historical condition, when the possibility of the coming overthrow of the bourgeois regime was not even a dream; nor is it accurate to say that the quality of parliamentarianism benefited Liebknecht’s revolutionary work during the war, when this quality only forced him into an initial forced vote in favor of military credits. Alongside him and with him, not a few other martyrs faced the same struggle, all of which took place outside parliament, where they were not even allowed to speak.

The argument of the relative immunity that parliamentary privilege can give to someone who can enjoy it cannot appear in the mind of someone who feels in himself the deep faith to devote himself to the cause of revolution, which requires unlimited spirit of sacrifice.

On the other hand, when the parliamentarian really does revolutionary and dangerous work, he loses his guarantee, as Liebknecht himself proved, as did the deputies of the Czarist Duma or the Bulgarian parliament, etc. As for the landmines which Communist MPs lay against the enemy while in his camp, and which are their votes, speeches, bills, agendas, perhaps shouts, punches and the like, there is no need to fear: with them, at most, one blows up … a ministry.

The E.C. of the Third International, believing that the anti-parliamentarians are syndicalists and anarchists, takes care to include these in the Communist Party in order to raise to a certain extent those from the socialist parties who are more disposed to parliamentary action than to illegal action, to which they tend more than the others. Therefore, while it insists on declaring that the real solution is outside parliament, in the street, it advises the former on parliamentary action and all on unity, lest we weaken revolutionary forces which it shows that after all it considers more effective and decisive than the latter.

Without repeating once again how different our anti- parliamentarianism is from that of the syndicalists and anarchists, we conclude that we believe, in perfect agreement with the E.C. of the Third International, that the question of parliamentarianism must be defined as a general norm. If, however, the E.C. believes it has solved it with its circular, we maintain that we cannot accept its resolution, which solves nothing, but leaves things as they are with all their harmful consequences. The question must be posed at the next congress of the Third International, so that everywhere the parties adhering to it adopt and practice its resolutions in a disciplined manner.

There will be no shortage at the congress of those who will make known all the reasons which we advise, in our opinion, the Third International to adopt in relation to parliamentarianism the abstentionist tactics which we advocate.