1946: Italian women were finally granted the right to vote. The eightieth anniversary was marked by celebrations and a wide range of reenactments commemorating this near-revolution, which finally accorded women the same rights (more or less…) as male citizens.

In a publication of the Chamber of Deputies, we read these words:

“On February 1, 1945, while the war was still ongoing, the first measure extending the right to vote to women was adopted: this was a first step recognizing the “right to elect” for Italian women. […] The next step toward securing the “right to be elected” was recognized in the decree of January 1946, in preparation for the local elections held in the spring and subsequently in the autumn of that same year. As for the elections for the Constituent Assembly, a decree issued in March 1946 supplemented and integrated the existing regulations by granting the right to stand for election at the age of 25. It is an important first sign, yet the parties contesting the upcoming election for the Constituent Assembly are still fielding a rather limited number of female candidates. On June 2, 1946, Italians were called upon to choose between monarchy and republic and to elect their representatives to the Constituent Assembly. There are 226 female candidates in total: 68 on the Partito Comunista lists; 29 on the Democrazia Cristiana lists; 16 on the Partito Socialista lists; 14 on the Partito d’Azione lists; 8 on the Unione Democratica Nazionale lists; 7 on the Fronte per l’Uomo Qualunque lists; and 84 on other lists. Of the 556 elected deputies, 21 were women: 9 Comunists, 9 Christian Democrats, 2 Socialists, and 1 from the Fronte per l’Uomo Qualunque. Despite their diverse backgrounds in terms of age, culture, and political experience, these first elected women succeeded in voicing the legitimate aspirations of Italian women for emancipation during the drafting of the Constitution […] The 21 female deputies elected to the Constituent Assembly played an active role in drafting the text of the Constitution. A significant indication of this commitment can be found in the proposed amendments to the draft Constitution that they signed. Particular attention is paid to various aspects of equal opportunities; this theme is the focus of amendments to Article 48 of the draft bill (Article 51 of the final text), concerning equal access for both sexes to public office and elected positions, which have been signed by female deputies from various political groups. Despite belonging to widely divergent political forces, the women of the Constituent Assembly managed to find common ground and ways to join forces, ensuring equal rights and equal opportunities for Italian men and women in the new Constitution of democratic Italy, which entered into force on January 1, 1948.”

Aside from the purely symbolic nature of the “mothers of the constitution” group (21 out of a total of 556, or less than 4%), it takes a lot of nerve to claim that they were able to “guarantee Italian men and women equality of rights and equal opportunities.”

Granting women the vote could have been an almost revolutionary act had the bill introduced by Deputy Salvatore Morelli back in 1875 been passed, a bill bearing the title: “Abolition of domestic slavery through the legal reinstatement of women, granting women civil and political rights.” Yet, the democratic liberal parliament never even bothered to bring the bill up for discussion.

When women were granted the vote in 1945/46, the move stemmed from a concept that was anything but progressive, indeed, one might well call it conservative. The monarchy banked on the female vote to secure victory in the institutional referendum, while the reactionary Italian bourgeoisie saw it as a means of salvation from the threat of social-communism. Indeed, the slogan «In the secrecy of the polling booth, God sees you, but Stalin does not!», along with the notices posted on church doors threatening excommunication for anyone who voted Communist, was aimed primarily at the female electorate.

But aside from these considerations, the fact that the right to vote and stand for election granted to women did not even remotely represent equality of rights between the two genders can be demonstrated by the continued existence, for decades, of laws that shamefully discriminated against and humiliated women.

We wrote in issue No. 81 of our magazine Comunismo:

«The Constitution carried over the worst outrages of the Rocco Code: Article 559, regarding the imprisonment of an “adulterous wife” for up to two years (it took two Constitutional Court rulings, No. 126 of December 19, 1968, and No. 147 of December 3, 1969, to declare this article unconstitutional); Article 587, concerning the “crime of honor,” which reduced the penalty for killing a wife, daughter, or sister “in the act of discovering her illicit carnal relationship”; and Article 544, under which a “reparatory marriage” extinguished the penalty for rape, a simple way to acquire a lifelong slave through the act of rape. The latter two were repealed in 1982 by Law 442 of 1981, thirty-three years after the Constitution came into force.» But, as the saying goes, one cannot expect to have everything all at once. The vote granted to women and the appointment of 21 “founding mothers”—now *those* were achievements to be considered “historic”!

We can discern the Communist position on women’s suffrage, or rather, on voting in general, from an article in the Communist Party of Italy’s daily newspaper; the piece dismisses the bourgeois concept of universal suffrage in favor of the opposing concept of class-based voting, and we present an extensive excerpt here.

“Women and the Right to Vote”

“The ladies who had a world map posted on the walls of Milan, highlighting the countries where women’s suffrage is the law of the land, quite naturally had the insight to place a large question mark within the geographical boundaries of Soviet Russia. The baronesses of the Italian suffragist committee evidently want an answer. Well, their Russian female friends have no right to vote in the Communist Republic. Participation in political life cannot be granted except to those who work, whether physically or intellectually, and who perform productive work. Political rights are challenged for the old parasites, grand dukes, barons, or major capitalists who have been dispossessed, or for their not-always-gracious womenfolk. Let them lament the situation and persist in their efforts within Latin countries to secure the right to vote; yet, as it happens, the struggle to win all the rights already enjoyed by men, and to raise women to that same level of dignity, has always been waged by subversive parties, [missing line] whereas constitutional parties have consistently denied women the vote, even while their speakers, whenever elections were called, have voiced a feigned sympathy for women’s political issues. It is possible that the new Chamber might discuss and approve the bill inherited from previous legislatures; we do not believe so. In any case, we could not accept the principle of extending the vote to all women. For the same reasons that make us opposed to extending the right to vote to men who live off the labor of others. All the baronesses of the suffragist committees should be excluded from any political rights. It is false that those who live within the same State thereby possess the same rights. The life and wealth of a people are the fruit of labor. If a state is strong, it owes its strength to the industriousness of the working classes, without whom life is not possible. Wherever universal employment can be achieved, universal suffrage (truly such) can be applied.”

“In Communist Russia, this goal is gradually being reached; yet universal suffrage does not yet exist, because vestiges of bourgeois rule still remain, given that a revolution is not concluded in twenty-four hours. Those who point out with foolish irony that communism has not yet been fully realized in Russia fail to grasp the laws of Marxist gradualism, and arguing with them is a waste of time. The women entitled to participate in political and administrative elections include the female worker, the peasant woman, the office worker, the housewife, and the woman whom Turati in a phrase that was both blunt and profoundly true, called the «wage-earner of love.» 

«Let the ladies of the women’s committees for universal suffrage take no offense. Without a trace of irony, and without the slightest intention of disrespecting their integrity, we must demonstrate why they do not possess the same social rights as working-class women and prostitutes. […]» (Il Comunista, May 19, 1921)

The US-Iran agreement, which, at least for the time being, eases the crisis in the Middle East, has brought the war in Ukraine back to the forefront of discussions among G7 leaders at the mid-June summit in Evian. With Zelensky in attendance, support for Ukraine was reaffirmed, and the possibility of reimposing sanctions on Russian oil was assessed. The optimistic outlook regarding the durability of the agreements with Iran, would allow Middle Eastern oil to flow through the Strait of Hormuz, which would thus make it possible to resume targeting Russia.

The war follows the same script that took hold during the Trump presidency: while there is public talk of negotiating with Moscow to halt the conflict—with Trump declaring at the G7 that «Russia must make a deal»—the fighting continues on. The costs have been offloaded onto the Europeans, and Ukrainians serve as cannon fodder, all while Americans profit from arms sales for Ukraine and position themselves to carve up the Ukrainian spoils alongside the Russians once the need to end the conflict arises.

There are no fatherlands to be liberated from imperialist aggression—contrary to the narrative of Kyiv’s supporters—nor are there anti-fascist struggles, as claimed by pro-Russian campists; the war in Ukraine is an imperialist conflict over the partitioning and control of territories and resources, for the defining of spheres of influence.

After all, involvement in the war in Ukraine, now dragging on for over four years, entails high costs, and only a division of the spoils of war can guarantee a profitable economic return for the brigands involved.

The Figures on Support for Ukraine

According to data from the Kiel Institute, which has been tracking and updating statistics on support for Ukraine since February 2022, the United States has provided €115 billion in aid to the country. This assistance has been primarily military in nature, amounting to nearly €65 billion. The US ranks first among Ukraine’s supporters in the delivery of missile launch systems (HIMARS), howitzers worth nearly a billion euros, and infantry fighting vehicles (Bradleys); however, it ranks second to Germany in air defense systems and fifth in the supply of tanks—an area where Poland’s contribution is by far the largest, and where the US also trails the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany.

American support however, came to a halt with the arrival of Trump. Between January and February 2025, less than half a billion in aid was recorded, before dropping to zero in the following months.

As a result, the data for 2025 shows a 99% collapse in US aid, offset in large part by increased allocations from European countries. Despite the absence of American support, these contributions limited the decline in total military aid to just 13%, and financial and humanitarian aid to only 5%, relative to the annual average for the 2022–2024 period. However, this required a significant increase from Europe: a full 67% rise in military aid and a 59% increase in financial and humanitarian aid compared to the 2022–2024 averages.

The European Union is the primary provider of financial and humanitarian aid, with its share rising from 50% in 2022 to nearly 90% in 2025, a shift that entails a redistribution among member states based on their share of GDP. The €90 billion loan agreed upon within the EU framework is part of this context.

Military aid, on the other hand, depends on the commitment of individual European countries, demonstrating a clear divide between Northern and Western European states, who have provided fully 95% of military aid, and those in Southern and Eastern Europe, where such aid has actually diminished.

Data for 2025 clearly show that the cost of the war has been shifted entirely by the Americans onto the shoulders of the Europeans. Moreover, the United States is also profiting from military contracts paid for by Europeans to supply weapons to Ukraine, specifically through the so-called PURL, a NATO-adopted mechanism under which Ukraine’s supporters purchased arms from the US totaling €3.7 billion in 2025.

Data from the first few months of 2026 confirm the American withdrawal and show a high level of military support for Ukraine from European countries. On average, between January and April 2026, European states allocated approximately €2 billion per month in military aid—lower than the 2025 average of €2.4 billion, but significantly higher than levels seen between 2022 and 2024. Between March and April 2026 alone, Germany allocated €4.2 billion in military aid, primarily for air defense and drones.

The first few months of 2026 are characterized by an increase in military aid related to drones, which rose from 400 million euros in 2022 to 1 billion euros in 2024 and 1.2 billion euros in 2025, reaching approximately 1.6 billion euros in the first quarter of 2026 alone.

Overall, Europeans have invested nearly 215 billion in the war in Ukraine so far!

Germany, in particular, is among the imperialist powers that have openly taken a warmongering turn. The war in Ukraine has led to a shift in the attitude of German imperialism. From the very beginning, we identified one of the characteristics of the imperialist war in Ukraine as being a war against Europe and, in particular, against Germany, which has suffered the severing of its energy ties with Russia—from which its industry had drawn its strength. With the skyrocketing rise in energy prices, German industry has fallen into crisis. Consequently, the German bourgeoisie’s way out is the conversion of its industry toward war production — essentially, tanks instead of cars.

Germany’s rearmament is also accompanied by a revision of its military strategy, which identifies Russia as the main threat. The goal is to develop the largest army in Europe, aiming to increase the current strength of 185,000 to at least 460,000 by 2035—comprising 260,000 active-duty soldiers and 200,000 reservists—making a new shift in the current volunteer-based military service system inevitable, moving toward the introduction of mandatory military service.

German imperialism, however, needs time to fine-tune its war machine, so it keeps the war in Ukraine going through substantial funding to Kyiv—to the point that Germany is now the world’s leading provider of aid to Ukraine.

These figures, taken from bourgeois statistics, clearly illustrate—from a communist and revolutionary perspective—the imperialist nature of the war, with European and American bandits, spending hundreds of billions, having no qualms about fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian—with the difference that while American imperialism is already profiting from military contracts and Europe’s energy dependence—as Europe is forced to buy expensive American gas—and can agree to strike a deal with Russia to divide up what remains of Ukraine, the Europeans are forced to see the fight against Russia through to the end in order to recoup the “investment” of their support for Ukraine.

Russia’s War

The billions from Western bourgeoisies that flooded into Ukraine to support its war effort were not the only weapon used against Russia; alongside the war on the ground, an economic war was waged—one consisting of sanctions—that was intended to bring the Russian economy to its knees. Although weakened, the Russian economy has not collapsed, having found buyers for its energy resources in the East—China, above all. In this way, the bond has been strengthened between Russia and China, and given that Russia’s ability to continue the war in Ukraine is closely tied to its hydrocarbon exports, it is precisely because of its energy ties with China that it can continue the war. China has, in fact, supported Russia’s war effort.

In the West, politicians and hacks, in their anti-Russian crusade, go out of their way to produce analyses designed to emphasize how the war in Ukraine has made Moscow dependent on Beijing. In fact, both sides derive mutual benefits from their relationship: on the one hand, China is now Russia’s main trading partner, accounting for about 35% of its foreign trade, and serving as a market for the hydrocarbons that previously flowed westward; on the other hand, China obtains energy at discounted prices, reducing its dependence on riskier supply sources, as recent events in the Middle East have demonstrated.

These two imperialist brigands are driven to march together against the imperialist powers of the West, not because of the bogus theories of those who dream of “multipolar worlds,” but because they need each other—first and foremost from an economic standpoint, and secondarily due to the course of the global imperialist struggle, with Russia engaged in a war on its western front and China surrounded by hostile powers aligned with American imperialism to the east. But these are precisely imperialist bandits, willing to make deals among themselves to confront their common enemies, yet each still thinking only of their own share of the spoils. The recent meeting between Putin and Xi in China is proof of this. More than twenty economic agreements were signed in May, but the one regarding the “Power of Siberia 2” gas pipeline is missing from the list, with China stalling and haggling over gas supply prices.

In addition to its economic difficulties, Russia must also contend with challenges related to the progress of its military operations. The widespread use of drones on the front lines prevents the concentration of troops and equipment, making the Russian advance extremely slow, difficult, and bloody. But, albeit slowly, the Russian army continues to advance in the Donbas, where the urban battle for Kostyantynivka is turning in its favor.

What continues, then, is that war of attrition that requires large numbers of cannon fodder on both sides of the front.

Ukraine, however, is also using drones to launch deep strikes into Russian territory—now extending more than 1,000 kilometers—and is successfully targeting economically significant objectives, such as industrial and energy facilities. Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory are thus causing damage both to the military-industrial complex—thereby undermining Russia’s war effort—and to its economy, by inflicting damage on the energy sector. The success of these attacks is driven by the involvement of NATO countries, with European nations now directly participating in drone production at European industrial facilities—which are, for the time being, safe from Russian attacks—where the drones used by Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory are manufactured.

Essential to these deep-strike operations is the logistical and cyber support that the intelligence agencies of European nations now provide unreservedly to the Ukrainian military—support without which these precise and deadly strikes could not possibly take place. It is clear that Russia is at war—first and foremost with the European powers, rather than with Ukraine.

The widespread use of drones and missiles is the European bourgeoisie’s solution for derailing any potential agreements and keeping the war going, while avoiding direct involvement in the conflict. But this situation is now being tolerated less and less in Moscow and is leading to disagreements over what is seen as the current Russian political leadership’s overly lenient stance. There is open talk of “red lines” having been crossed, calls for direct attacks against European countries, and even the use of nuclear weapons.

Every imperialist power has its “hawks.” At the moment, the major imperialist powers are still primarily focused on preparing as best they can for a major war—by bolstering their military capabilities, seizing strategic chokepoints, and gaining control over energy flows. But the path is set; the old order no longer reflects the balance of power between mature and emerging imperialist powers, leading to a global struggle that is marching toward the inevitable outbreak of a general war—the only way capitalism, having reached its imperialist phase, can bring about a new division of the world market.

Our Internationalism

Faced with the ongoing wars and the prospect of their escalation into a general war, the world proletariat—in order to avoid ending up as cannon fodder in imperialist wars—must reject all bourgeois leadership and control, while at the same time, and above all, exposing those “slogans” coming from falsely proletarian and communist organizations which, regardless of the level of consciousness of those who put them forward, end up aligning the proletariat with its own bourgeoisie, serving as a formidable tool for suppressing any attempt at political independence by the proletariat vis-à-vis the enemy class.

All the “slogans” regarding the war in Ukraine—other than those calling for fraternization at the front and the transformation of the war between states into a war between classes—fit perfectly within a framework of national defense, whose sole purpose is to subjugate the proletariat to the will of its own bourgeoisie, dragging them into a war to defend purely capitalist interests.

Slogans such as “defending Ukraine against Russian imperialist aggression” or “fighting fascism in Kyiv”—touted by fake communist organizations—may appear to be contradictory, but from the standpoint of revolutionary Marxism, they are cut from the same opportunist cloth. This is bourgeois politics being introduced into the proletarian camp; it is the enemy of the communist revolution and, therefore, a pillar of capitalist rule.

Today’s true internationalists have nothing to add or revise regarding the struggles of over a century ago, when—during the First World War—while the Social Democratic leaders had betrayed the working class by siding with their own bourgeoisie, the internationalists of that time cried out, “The enemy is in our own house!” A clear example of what the position of internationalists must be regarding war—and, in particular, regarding slogans such as the “defense of the fatherland,” a tool always present in the toolbox of the opportunist who sides with his own bourgeoisie—can be found in Lenin’s “The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky”:

“An imperialist war does not cease to be imperialist when charlatans or phrase-mongers or petty-bourgeois philistines put forward sentimental “slogans”, but only when the class which is conducting the imperialist war, and is bound to it by millions of economic threads (and even ropes), is really overthrown and is replaced at the helm of state by the really revolutionary class, the proletariat. There is no other way of getting out of an imperialist war, as also out of an imperialist predatory peace.”

The criminal and bloodthirsty designs of Israeli capitalism to drive out all Palestinians still settled in the territories of interest to it have been meticulously planned and are being progressively implemented by the government clique led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, ably assisted in this hellish scheme by National Security Minister Ben-Gvir.

The most devastating blow to this plan came as a retaliatory response to the massive “surprise” attack orchestrated by Hamas on October 7, 2023, an event regarding which one must be precise and blunt, which resulted in the deaths and hostage-taking of hundreds upon hundreds of Israeli civilians and military personnel. The notion that the events of October 2023 caught the Israeli government and state by surprise is as absurd as the idea of ​​flying donkeys.

This fact has been glossed over with the usual reticence by the entire information apparatus, regardless of political affiliation, something both obvious and natural, given the absolute wall of lies and complicit silence erected by the press and all other dissemination systems of the bourgeois world in the wake of that desperate and militarily senseless act.

It is certainly implausible that an intelligence system as powerful and organized as Israel’s knew nothing about an armed attack being prepared beyond a border it had erected itself, and which was undoubtedly under the tight, pervasive surveillance of who knows how many spies recruited from among the Palestinians themselves.

Indeed, some time later, following an Israeli retaliatory operation launched with great ferocity, there was a partial admission from much of the European and non-European press: it emerged that the military movements leading up to the desperate attack were well known and documented. However, this vast amount of information, lacking a «definitive» date, as even Israeli intelligence sources reported, was not given adequate consideration; despite being reliable, it was disregarded while awaiting further evidence.

In short, a level of carelessness that allowed for the massacre of so many young Israelis, and this speaks to the seriousness of state public information mechanisms. Some truth has emerged, yet just enough to conceal the probable, far graver truth.

Faced with this evidence, voiced quietly and through gritted teeth by the international press, one might suspect that the casus belli was deliberately manufactured to put an end, once and for all, to the “festering sore” of Gaza.

Regarding Hamas, too, the global press could not help but construct a suitable smokescreen of half-truths and omitted facts, solely to denounce its terrorist nature (which is certainly real), without, however, explaining the historical process that led to the organization’s emergence, development, and funding.

Hamas is the political-military movement that won the elections held in the Gaza Strip, a territory home to two million Palestinians that it continues to administer, control, and financially support to this day. It is one of the most densely populated areas in the world, with roughly four thousand people per square kilometer; in reality, however, it is an open-air concentration camp.

Elections that Israel was careful not to denounce or sabotage. In reality, this is an organization that was helped to grow and achieve dominance by Israel itself, cynically used against the previous Palestinian organization, the PLO, and other minority non-secular factions.

In its 1988 charter, Hamas stated that Palestine is an Islamic homeland that could never be ceded to non-Muslims and that waging a “holy war” to wrest control of Palestine from Israel was a religious duty for Palestinian Muslims.

Dozens of countries, including Israel, the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom, have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization, although some, for various reasons, refer only to its military wing.

Under the pretext of definitively rooting out Hamas terrorists and all the organizations controlling the Gaza Strip, Israeli capitalism immediately declared total war on the group, launched heavy bombardments on Gaza, and ordered a «total siege» of the Strip, cutting off supplies of electricity, fuel, food, and water.

These bombardments were, and still are, aimed at destroying the vast network of underground tunnels dug beneath that territory; according to some Israeli estimates, there are around a thousand of them, extending for some one hundred kilometers.

The first rudimentary tunnels beneath the Strip were dug in the late 1980s, when Israeli armed forces were militarily occupying the territory; excavation continued even after 2005, when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered the withdrawal of the occupying army, creating the false impression of a “liberation” of the territory into a “free” Palestinian enclave.

The following year, Hamas won the elections, and in 2006 work began on expanding and modernizing the dense network, known as the «Gaza Metro», through which everything essential to carrying out Hamas’s plans moves in both directions: personnel, materials, weaponry, and supplies of all kinds.

In 2014, the Israeli army once again invaded the enclave with the stated aim of destroying the tunnel network, resulting in the deaths of several thousand Palestinians, including Hamas militants, but mostly ordinary civilians.

Despite repeated Israeli bombardments and acts of sabotage by Egypt, which feared, and still fears, both reprisals from the Tel Aviv government and a massive exodus of desperate Palestinians into its territory, the network has consistently been rebuilt, even though the Israelis have attempted to halt its expansion by constructing their own underground wall, stretching 65 kilometers and reaching depths of tens of meters.

While the chancelleries of the “civilized” world barely conceal their satisfaction with the “dirty work” carried out by Bibi Netanyahu in his attempt to destroy this massive network of “Islamic terrorists,” television networks and newspapers dwell on documenting the destruction of whatever remains standing after years of bombardment and painful deprivations endured by the people of Gaza. They have nowhere to go, as no “civilized” country is willing to take them in, and they are forced to constantly move between areas already devastated by airstrikes while the Israeli army proceeds to “clear” the designated territory, an operation that, according to local health authorities, has resulted in over 65,000 deaths during this latest phase.

While public outrage over the October 7th massacre was intense, albeit disputed by the contentious history surrounding the founding and expansion of the State of Israel, the indignation is far stronger and more widespread regarding the slaughter that has dragged on for years against the desperate people of Gaza, who rely entirely and exclusively on «humanitarian» aid from a select group of authorized international agencies. Over time, religious and charitable institutions have been excluded due to accusations, or even mere suspicions, of collusion with terrorist organizations. In effect, the Gaza Strip is completely cut off from any outside initiatives.

It is equally natural that, within the vast and turbulent sea of ​​indignation, various currents and attempts persist to alleviate such suffering, aiming to provide essential humanitarian aid to the desperate people of the Strip and, above all, to keep the global conscience awake to a massacre calculated and planned to resolve, once and for all, the troublesome and dangerous “Palestinian question.”

Among these attempts, the adventurous expedition of the Global Sumud Flotilla (GSF) has recently been publicized and widely documented; according to the Difesa Online website:

It is an international, non-governmental coalition of over 50 civilian vessels, with participants from 44 countries, formed in the summer of 2025. The term sumud (Arabic for “steadfast resistance” or “perseverance”) evokes the tenacious will to resist in the face of adversity. The flotilla’s stated goal is to challenge the naval blockade imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip, a siege in place for 18 years, in order to deliver urgent humanitarian aid to Palestinians and establish a grassroots, civil society-led humanitarian corridor. This initiative represents the largest maritime solidarity mission to Gaza ever organized, bringing together hundreds of activists, doctors, legal experts, parliamentarians, and volunteers united by the motto: “The siege and the genocide must end.”

A little further on they explain to us that

“The peaceful action of this civilian flotilla aims to ensure that Gaza is not forgotten. The Flotilla thus embodies a form of grassroots diplomacy: pressure exerted by global public opinion and civil society to urge Israel and the international community to address the humanitarian emergency. Indeed, according to independent observers and United Nations rapporteurs, this initiative arose from the international community’s failure to end the illegal blockade of Gaza, highlighting how the Flotilla fills a void left by traditional diplomatic inaction.” 

s

In other words: step aside, you inept and well-paid officials of every rank and level, whether from the West or the diverse Arab world, for now, we are taking over!

Naturally, the question of why this has persisted for so many years, despite the numerous proclamations and promises of assistance from all parties involved, is never raised or addressed.

From our journal *Comunismo* (No. 12/1983), specifically the article “Marxist Lesson on State Formation and Social Struggles in the Middle East”, we read the following in Point 2 of the appendix, “Key Points on the Middle East Question”:

“While the birth of the State of Israel met imperialism’s need to establish a solid bridgehead, it also acted as a decisive factor in disrupting the region’s political equilibrium and backward economic structure. The Israeli bourgeoisie, rich in capital, technical expertise, and highly skilled labor, acted not in obedience to some alleged “Zionist doctrine,” but rather to the iron laws of capitalism. It was a young capitalism that underwent the characteristic cycle well known to the Marxist school: the forced expropriation of poor peasants, with the complicity of the Arab landowning classes; aggression toward neighboring backward states and the conquest of new, strategically and economically important territories; and the emergence of a modern industry alongside the formation of a mass of pure proletarians.”

The Israeli bourgeoisie has pursued this project cold-bloodedly, without hesitation and heedless of any external objections, confirming that a “capitalism with a human face” neither exists nor can exist, much to the chagrin of all the pious, well-meaning souls across the globe.

Since 2008, some vessels from the Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) have managed to breach the naval blockade of Gaza, and two of them, belonging to the Free Gaza Movement, founded in 2006, succeeded in reaching Gaza. In the following years, another five vessels managed to breach the blockade and dock at the Strip.

Since 2010, dozens of vessels have attempted to reach Gaza but have all been intercepted by the Israeli Navy.

The most dramatic incident occurred on May 31, 2010, when the Mavi Marmara, a 93-meter Turkish passenger ship serving as the flagship of the Freedom Flotilla (comprising six vessels of various sizes and carrying a total of 600 activists attempting to breach the naval blockade), was boarded by Israeli special forces arriving via helicopter and fast boats, while located 200 km northeast of Gaza and 64 km off the coast.

Following the violent clash between special forces and activists armed with improvised weapons, eight Turkish citizens and one Turkish-American were killed and sixty people were wounded, while ten Israelis sustained injuries.

The incident sparked a severe clash between Turkey and Israel, followed by a deterioration in diplomatic relations. Reconciliation between the parties took place in 2016, when Israel paid $20 million in compensation to the victims’ families.

We certainly do not intend to get drawn into the numerous legal debates surrounding the “San Remo Manual”, finalized in 1994 by a group of experts in maritime law and humanitarian legislation, which concerns the alignment of international laws applicable to maritime operations in areas of armed conflict involving humanitarian convoys.

The debate regarding the application of Paragraph 60E, which mandates halting navigation for inspections, versus the subsequent Paragraph 47C concerning humanitarian convoys is utterly hypocritical. This applies not only at sea but everywhere, in situations where international law is pitted against the rights of those wielding the most powerful weaponry.

In June and July 2025, there were two further attempts to reach Gaza to deliver aid by sea, but both were blocked by the Israeli navy. Israeli National Security Minister Ben-Gvir promptly presented a plan to neutralize any future arrival attempts by activists labeled as terrorists. As a deterrent, he decreed that all arrested “terrorists” would be taken to the notorious Israeli maximum-security prisons of Ketziot and Damon and subjected to a harsh, uncompromising regime.

Following the grim experience of the Mavi Marmara, the flotilla organizers distributed a handbook to participants in last September’s expedition, advising them on how to conduct themselves in the event, deemed certain, of being boarded and facing any kind of confrontation with Israeli forces; as one organizer put it: “We fear for our safety, but we summon our courage. The Palestinian people teach us how.” A legal team was also made available to assist activists should they be detained.

Also ignored were suggestions from various European foreign ministries, including Italy’s, to activists proposing that the permitted aid cargo be handed over to authorized Israeli and international organizations, which would then deliver it by land to various distribution centers. It is worth noting that the list of prohibited goods includes cement, which Israel claims would almost certainly be used by Hamas to rebuild damaged tunnels.

It has been wryly noted that these shipments do little to serve the humanitarian cause, appearing instead to be a deliberate, politicized provocation. Indeed, the approximately two tons of aid declared by the GSF for the 2025 shipment represent a negligible amount in terms of the material aid needed by the people of Gaza, equivalent to less than one-tenth of a single humanitarian truckload. Under normal circumstances, 300 aid trucks enter Gaza daily via the Egyptian border post.

Indeed, according to the American aid organization GHF, since May 27 it has provided an average of 2.7 million meals per day, amounting to approximately 845 tons daily, quantities completely unattainable by a flotilla of small vessels (12 to 16 meters long) manned by volunteers ill-prepared for a voyage of that duration and lacking adequate technical and logistical support; indeed, some of these vessels were forced to turn back or failed to depart from intermediate ports.

Those who have delved into the complex cost-benefit analysis have encountered this uncertain result, published online, which we summarize here.

When totaling the items on the operation’s list, the cost of the 50 vessels (including larger support craft suitable for that type of voyage) at approximately 5 million euros, fuel for the long Mediterranean crossing estimated at around 10 million euros, onboard provisions, port services, and the extensive list of other expedition necessities, the final figure approaches 25–30 million euros. Any vessels that did not sink were seized and dismantled; those still in good condition were refitted and given to local fishermen.

The organizers gave due attention to, and effectively handled, complex legal issues which we will not discuss here regarding ownership and vessel operators, as well as the critical matter of national flags for the larger vessels, diplomatic reprisals threatened by Israel, and maritime insurance for a voyage characterized by the various companies as involving «extremely high-risk factors.”

The complex bureaucratic machinery required for the operation to function demonstrates that the challenge posed by the Flotilla played out not only on the open sea or off the coast of Gaza, but also through an intense, grueling legal and insurance process, carried out primarily in departure ports such as Istanbul, Athens, and Palermo months before the vessels set sail, that relied heavily on the pro bono efforts of activists.

Faced with activities of such magnitude and significance, one must not be deterred by these issues and figures, the funding for which is believed to come from a constellation of diverse NGOs worldwide, including some from Qatar, the United Kingdom, and Malaysia, with a predominance of Turkish organizations. It is worth recalling that the Mavi Marmara was owned by the Turkish NGO Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH).

The substantial funds required to organize all these activities also come from various types of donations:  Crowdfunding global, Grandi Donatori, international Islamic philanthropic foundations, and Palestinian communities abroad, groups the Israeli government accuses of having ties to Hamas terrorism. In Italy, for instance, Banca Etica has launched a crowdfunding initiative for Gaza.

All this points to a large, far-reaching organization enjoying the support of a substantial number of participants and supporters worldwide.

The GSF’s voyage came to an abrupt halt on October 1, 2025, in international waters off the coast of Gaza, when the vessels were subjected to a series of armed boarding operations by Israeli forces, lasting until October 3, that ultimately resulted in the capture of all the activists, none of whom had offered any resistance. They were subsequently transported to Israel, where they were subjected to all manner of abuse and violent beatings. Later distributed among various prisons and eventually deported, they returned in small groups and recounted the violent treatment they had endured. Some of those who suffered the most severe beatings were welcomed and hailed as heroes, displaying their injuries like medals.

In the spring of this year, a new GSF expedition was launched, with an initial group of boats departing from Barcelona on April 15 for Sicily; there, they were joined by other vessels bound for Gaza, bringing the total to 58 boats carrying food, medicines, solar-powered ovens, and school supplies. Additional vessels from Greece and Turkey were also scheduled to join this convoy.

This convoy was first attacked on April 29, 2026, by Israeli special forces in international waters off the coast of Crete, where 20 boats from the convoy were intercepted and 400 activists were arrested. The boats were diverted to the Israeli port of Ashdod. A second group of 23 boats that had set sail from Turkey was stopped between May 18 and 19 in international waters off the coast of Cyprus, following the same script that had already been tested in previous missions.

The unsuccessful outcome of the maritime expedition to Gaza did not prevent the departure from Tunisia, in May 2026, of a land-based humanitarian relief mission, the Global Sumud Convoy, headed for Gaza via Libya and Egypt, comprising a convoy of trucks and buses and 200 activists. This convoy was blocked by General Haftar’s militias while awaiting transit permission through Cyrenaica. Eleven of the activists were arrested and transferred to special detention facilities, where they began a hunger and thirst strike to protest the appalling conditions to which they were subjected. As of this writing, their pre-trial detention has been extended for a second time, until June 12. Some of the expelled foreign activists were subsequently beaten by the police in their home countries upon their return.

The potential scenarios ahead are uncertain, given that the Israeli government has no intention of easing tensions in the Strip, let alone reaching an agreement with the GSF, which is backed by an extensive international network providing all necessary support and shows no signs of stopping.

To date, there have been no casualties during the boardings, and according to accounts from those who have returned, rubber bullets were fired at both the men and the vessels. This highlights that Israel is adopting a hard line, though not an extreme one. At the moment, a compromise, allowing only a few vessels to reach Gaza to deliver aid, does not appear feasible. Given the dire situation facing the people of Gaza, such a solution would be entirely futile and merely symbolic; in essence, it would represent a defeat for both sides.

The harshest and most implausible solution would remain on the table: actual naval support from the warships of other states, with unimaginable consequences.

But this is, in fact, entirely unfeasible, because no state has the slightest interest in providing substantial military aid to the desperate people of the Strip, let alone defending the “flotillas” against assaults by the Israeli Navy. Even in waters designated as “international.”

All the world’s bourgeois states are essentially indifferent to the Palestinians, whether in Gaza, where an outright genocide is taking place, or in the West Bank, which is being invaded by ground troops supporting the “settlers” of “Greater Israel.”

The sordid lie of two states destined to coexist on a tiny patch of territory, as championed in the UN’s perennial lamentations, is fading as the Israeli Armed Forces press their advance, having even invaded Lebanon to expand Israel’s security buffer, all while the international community fails to lift a finger, limiting itself to generic condemnations of the invasion.

All the more reason why the absurd notion of a sort of ‘federation’ has vanished, a federation between a State coldly and ruthlessly pursuing an imperialist agenda , albeit a “local” one, fueled and aided primarily by the United States and countless global arms manufacturers, and a desperate mass of people seeking a form of redemption and a distant hope for a future through terrorism.

Taking stock of these “adventures” means highlighting, with a sense of bitterness, their futility. Without diminishing the courage of the many participants in this pointless voyage, young people who, driven by idealism, concluded that “doing something, anything at all, is better than standing by and watching” and thus engaged in a personally dangerous undertaking, it must be stated with firm determination that this petty-bourgeois ideology leads nowhere; at best, it achieves nothing, and at worst, it results in personal tragedies.

Young proletarians must not let themselves be beguiled by the call of those adventurous sirens; for only through an intense and widespread class struggle, under the leadership of the revolutionary communist party, can the problems of capitalist exploitation, which here has taken this form and produced the genocide in Gaza, be resolved. We must simply reaffirm, with strength and passion, that only revolution can offer hope to the tormented proletariat of Palestine.

A few printed volumes produced by the party over the past few decades are still available. These texts, given the topics they cover, are and will always remain relevant.

THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN THE TRADITION OF THE LEFT

In addition to documenting the party’s history—which led to the reformulation and presentation of its postwar theses—this text, drawing on the powerful teachings of the masters of Marxism, serves as a compendium of the theory of the proletarian party, which is revolutionary in both its nature and its actions.

The 270-page volume is on sale for €10, plus shipping.

THE COURSE OF GLOBAL CAPITALISM IN HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE AND IN MARX’S DOCTRINE, 1750–1990

This volume reproduces the transcripts of the reports delivered at party meetings, from the 1956 meeting in Cosenza to the January 1958 meeting in Florence, as they appeared in *Programma Comunista*, from issue 19 of 1956 to issue 7 of 1959, under the title “Corso.” This current reprint also includes all other reports on topics related to the world economy published during those years, in particular: “World Steel Production Over the Last Four Years,” in *Programma Comunista* No. 21 of 1956; “Economic Structure and Historical Course of Capitalist Society,” in *Programma* Nos. 3 and 4 of 1957; “America 1956—Economic Review” in issue 5 of the same year, supplemented by “A Few More U.S. Figures” from issue 6; “Trajectory and Catastrophe of the Capitalist Form in the Classical Monolithic Construction of Marxism,” in issues 19 and 20 of 1957. The extensive statistical documentation in the original reports has not only been verified and reorganized based on subsequent publications from official sources, but the data series have also been extended to include the most recent data available. Added to the 23 tables in the text are 49 new statistics which, drawing on the most comprehensive information currently available, further confirm the Marxist line of argument.

The book, which is over 600 pages long, is on sale for €20, plus shipping.

THE MARXIST THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE

The topic is addressed from six fundamental perspectives:

I – The Communist Party and Its Doctrine;

II – Communist Society;

III – Knowledge of the Human Species, which make up Volume 1, and:

IV – Critique of Religions; V – Critique of Science and Technology;

VI – The Charlatan-like Conquest of Space, which are included in Volume 2.

The 6 Parts comprise 115 documents chronicling the Party’s history from its reestablishment immediately after World War II to the present (some documents were drafted much earlier, although their final versions date from that period). The Preface to the work is centered on a series of quotations that trace back to the birth of our Doctrine—and thus to the birth of the Party—in 1848.

The work, in two volumes totaling 850 pages, is on sale for €30, plus shipping costs

Party publications are also available in English, French, and Spanish. Please contact us to find out what is available in each language.

Nei giorni di sabato 30 e domenica 31 maggio si è tenuta la nostra quadrimestrale Riunione Generale, la n. 155 dalla scissione del novembre 1973. Si è trattato di una riunione di particolare importanza, perché vi hanno partecipato per la prima volta come compagni effettivi numerosi giovani di diversi paesi e continenti, oltre a un discreto numero di simpatizzanti molto dedicati.

I lavori si sono svolti secondo l’usuale metodo di partito, con la differenza che, a causa della partecipazione online di compagni di diversi continenti, gli orari sono stati aggiustati per consentire al maggior numero di compagni di partecipare senza troppo disagio.

Nel corso della prima riunione del sabato i compagni responsabili di attività collettive hanno riferito sull’andamento di queste; quindi i compagni, dopo la relazione generale del Centro, sono stati informati sulle caratteristiche del rinnovato sito web, sull’andamento dei contatti con i social media, sull’attività del gruppo di lettura, sugli studi in corso e su studi proposti, e sulla situazione finanziaria dell’organizzazione.

Nella seconda parte della giornata sono stati presentati il lavoro sulla questione militare e parte dello studio sul Sindacato Ferrovieri Italiani (SFI) negli anni ’20 del secolo passato.

Nel corso della prima parte della riunione di domenica sono stati presentati tre interessantissimi lavori sulla storia del movimento operaio, ognuno centrato su un particolare periodo, e in un diverso paese: Stati Uniti, Francia, Russia. Nella seconda parte della giornata è stato esposto il consueto lavoro sull’andamento dell’economia del capitalismo mondiale, e infine è stato concluso il lavoro sullo SFI. Tutti questi rapporti riferiscono sull’andamento di studi che da molti anni proseguono, e che il partito continua a svolgere come suo compito primario; periodicamente vengono poi pubblicati sulla nostra stampa. Il livello dei rapporti è stato come al solito notevole.

Su questo numero de Il Partito Comunista inizia la pubblicazione dei riassunti.

Storia del movimento sindacale francese. Quarta parte

Nelle precedenti relazioni abbiamo descritto le diverse forme di organizzazione economica del movimento sindacale europeo tra la fine del XIX e l’inizio del XX secolo. Abbiamo poi affrontato le caratteristiche del movimento operaio francese l’alleanza rivoluzionaria tra borghesia e proletariato fino al febbraio 1848, l’importanza della piccola borghesia come terreno dell’anarchismo, il capitalismo finanziario parassitario, l’imperialismo francese e la conquista delle colonie come fonte di corruzione per una parte del proletariato). Abbiamo illustrato la nascita dei sindacati operai prima del 1871, l’ascesa economica francese accompagnata da quella del movimento sindacale operaio e del movimento socialista dopo la Comune di Parigi.

Nel 1884, dopo il riconoscimento legale, il movimento sindacale si sviluppò rapidamente. Le diverse correnti che emersero furono innanzitutto quella di Proudhon, padre dell’anarchismo, combattuto da Marx, a cui si ispirerà il sindacalismo rivoluzionario di Pelloutier. Il sindacalismo rivoluzionario, di cui Sorel fu il principale teorico, segnerà fino al 1905 il sindacalismo francese.

Nel 1886 venne fondata una Federazione nazionale delle camere sindacali (FNS) che riuniva i sindacati di mestiere; essa fu dapprima dominata dai riformisti, poi dal Partito Operaio Francese (POF), nato su basi marxiste nel 1880.

Già a partire dagli anni Novanta dell’Ottocento, il movimento sindacale francese divenne terreno fertile per l’anarchismo sotto forma di sindacalismo rivoluzionario. Il Paese conobbe uno sviluppo capitalista più lento rispetto alla Gran Bretagna e alla Germania; così, nel 1900, i nove decimi delle imprese francesi contavano meno di dieci operai, con una massa di artigiani, creando quindi un terreno fertile per la piccola borghesia e l’anarchismo. Il sindacalismo rivoluzionario esaltava l’azione diretta e lo sciopero generale, lo scontro con la borghesia, ma rifiutava l’azione parlamentare e politica. Il padre del sindacalismo rivoluzionario fu Pelloutier, che ispirò la formazione delle Borse del Lavoro (Bourse du travail) già nel 1887, al tempo stesso un’ufficio per trovare lavoro, ma soprattutto un posto per tutte le associazioni sindacali e di mutuo soccorso per i lavoratori, raggruppanti i lavoratori su base territoriale e non più per mestiere. Le borse si unirono nel 1892 in una Federazione delle borse del lavoro (FNB) dominata dai sindacalisti rivoluzionari.

Il movimento socialista si sviluppò secondo diverse correnti. Quella marxista con Jules Guesde e Paul Lafargue, genero di Marx, che nel 1880 fondarono il Partito Operaio Francese (POF), influente nelle grandi industrie, come quella tessile del nord e quella siderurgica del centro. Le altre correnti erano quella riformista detta dei «possibilisti», a cui in seguito apparterrà Jaurès, e quella dei cosiddetti «rivoluzionari» che propugnavano l’insurrezione con il partito blanquista di Edouard Vaillant e il partito di Allemane. Il Partito Operaio, rivendicando l’autorità del partito sul sindacato, doveva rompere con il movimento sindacale dominato dal sindacalismo rivoluzionario. La crisi dell’affare Dreyfus (1894-1906), che divise la Francia, fece virare il partito operaio verso l’opportunismo e il parlamentarismo già dal 1898, unendosi ai riformisti per «salvare la patria» da un improbabile colpo di Stato monarchico!

**********

La nascita della CGT sindacalista rivoluzionaria nel 1895 e la debolezza del Partito Operaio

La supremazia del sindacalismo rivoluzionario sul POF (1888-1895)

Sotto l’influenza degli anarco-sindacalisti, il terzo congresso della FNS, Federazione nazionale dei sindacati e dei gruppi corporativi operai di Francia, tenutosi a Bordeaux nell’ottobre 1888, riprese la questione dello sciopero generale e concluse: «Solo lo sciopero generale, cioè la cessazione completa di ogni lavoro, o la Rivoluzione possono condurre i lavoratori verso la loro emancipazione». Questo congresso concluse inoltre, contro il parere dei guesdisti, sulla necessità di separarsi nettamente dal movimento politico e di organizzare solidamente le camere sindacali, l’«unica grande armata delle rivendicazioni sociali»! L’emancipazione dei lavoratori doveva essere opera dei lavoratori stessi! I guesdisti segnavano un passo indietro.

Guesde rappresentò il POF il 14 luglio 1889 al congresso internazionale di Parigi, da cui nacque la II Internazionale o Internazionale Operaia, di cui fu una delle figure di spicco; nel 1890 fu membro del comitato organizzativo del 1° maggio 1890 e membro della delegazione incaricata di presentare le rivendicazioni dei lavoratori alla presidenza della Camera. Il 14 novembre 1890 partecipò al congresso della socialdemocrazia tedesca a Halle e si attirò aspri attacchi da parte della stampa nazionalista francese per aver gridato: «Viva la Germania operaia»!

Nel febbraio 1892, al congresso di Saint-Étienne delle Borse del Lavoro (allora 14 in Francia), su iniziativa della Borse di Parigi e di Pelloutier, si costituì una Federazione nazionale delle borse del lavoro di Francia e delle colonie (FNB) con l’obiettivo di distinguersi dalla tendenza del partito operaio guesdista che, proprio come le sezioni tedesca e belga dell’Internazionale socialista, intendeva controllare i sindacati ed era favorevole all’azione in parlamento. Pelloutier dovette rinunciare a parte delle sue teorie anarchiche per favorire la centralizzazione delle forze operaie, sognando una rivoluzione senza dittatura, senza Stato e senza centralizzazione! Accanto agli anarchici c’erano socialisti e riformisti, ma gli anarchici guidati da Pelloutier avrebbero assunto un ruolo sempre più importante e si sarebbero opposti alla loro concorrente, la FNS controllata dal POF, la cui influenza era ormai molto debole. Questo movimento delle Borse del Lavoro avrebbe prevalso su quello delle camere sindacali della FNS. Una delle risoluzioni a favore dello sciopero generale proposta da Pelloutier fu adottata come «mezzo pacifico e legale … (per) accelerare la trasformazione economica e assicurare, senza possibilità di reazione, il successo del quarto stato [le associazioni operaie]» (citato da Programme Communiste n. 25 del 1963) basandosi, come aveva fatto la Seconda Internazionale, sull’evidente insuccesso di un movimento insurrezionale.

Da parte sua, nel settembre 1892 la Federazione delle Camere sindacali FNS (sindacati di categoria) tenne il suo quinto congresso a Marsiglia, alla presenza di delegati delle Borse del Lavoro, tra cui quella di Parigi. Anche Guesde e Lafargue vi parteciparono in qualità di delegati. In tale occasione fu adottata, come al congresso delle Borse del Lavoro, una risoluzione promossa dal socialista indipendente Aristide Briand a favore del principio dello sciopero generale («sospensione simultanea universale»), lasciando però al terzo congresso internazionale dei lavoratori socialisti (II Internazionale) di Zurigo il compito di stabilirne le modalità d’azione; l’argomento addotto era che i sindacati, dopo aver utilizzato senza successo lo sciopero parziale, lo avevano adottato con successo e quindi accettavano di «fare politica». Durante il congresso del POF nel settembre 1892 a Marsiglia, la proposta a favore dello sciopero generale fu nuovamente respinta. Mentre nel 1879 e nel 1886 i guesdisti potevano pensare di aver messo le mani sul movimento operaio, dovettero fare un passo indietro durante l’ultimo decennio del secolo e oltre.

In occasione del terzo congresso della Seconda Internazionale, tenutosi a Zurigo nell’agosto del 1893, al quale era presente Engels, gli anarchici guidati da Gustav Landauer furono espulsi (la scissione fu sancita nel 1906). I sindacati furono ufficialmente ammessi (i guesdisti e Vaillant vi erano ostili, sostenitori di un’organizzazione sindacale internazionale separata da quella dei partiti socialisti) e il tema dello sciopero generale fu accennato rapidamente e senza giungere a una conclusione!

L’anarchismo in Francia, al termine di un periodo di attentati spettacolari (1892-94), il più famoso e l’ultimo dei quali fu l’assassinio del presidente della Repubblica, Sadi Carnot, nel 1894 a Lione, «espressione sublimata dell’esasperazione e dell’impotenza delle classi sfruttate» (Programme n. 25), si allontana dal terrorismo e si dedica all’azione sindacale, ma al di fuori di qualsiasi partito, azione sindacale a partire dalla quale ritiene di poter operare alla riorganizzazione della società. E furono in particolare le borse del lavoro, che raggruppavano i sindacati, a vedere il decollo del sindacalismo rivoluzionario derivato dall’anarchismo, conferendo i tratti dominanti al periodo che va dal 1892 al 1906, periodo in cui dominò la rivalità ideologica tra socialismo e sindacalismo, mentre il periodo dal 1906 al 1914 vedrà il declino dei sindacalisti rivoluzionari e il rafforzamento di questa rivalità tra sindacato e partito, giustificata allora dall’atteggiamento riformista e opportunista del partito con la partecipazione dei socialisti al governo.

Infatti, la separazione tra sindacato e partito non fece che accentuarsi. Numerose battaglie politiche distolsero i partiti socialisti dal loro compito di lotta all’interno delle organizzazioni economiche, con lo scontro tra monarchici e repubblicani, l’ascesa del radicalismo borghese, gli scandali politici e finanziari (lo scandalo di Panama, l’affare Dreyfus).

Nel 1893 la FNB dichiarò l’assoluta indipendenza del sindacato rispetto allo Stato e ai partiti politici! Il suo federalismo si opponeva anche alla centralizzazione del POF. Affermava che l’emancipazione dei lavoratori attraverso lo sciopero generale espropriativo, la presa di possesso degli strumenti di produzione, doveva avvenire per quartiere, per impresa, e senza centralizzazione.

In occasione del congresso di Nantes (settembre 1894) della FNS, fino ad allora patrocinato dal Partito Operaio, la maggioranza approvò una mozione a favore dello sciopero generale. Ciò che era in gioco nella polemica tra socialisti e sindacalisti (Programme n. 24) «era proprio una questione di programma, la sostituzione della parola d’ordine socialista della presa del potere da parte del proletariato e della dittatura della classe rivoluzionaria vittoriosa sulle classi espropriate, con la parola anarchico-sindacalista dello «sciopero generale espropriatore»». In altre parole, si trattava della continuazione della vecchia polemica tra marxismo e anarchismo. (…) In una prima fase il partito di Guesde, senza commettere gravi infrazioni nei confronti dei principi del movimento proletario rivoluzionario, non seppe tuttavia comprendere quali fossero le esigenze imperative del movimento sindacale e, in gran parte per questo motivo, ne perse il controllo. (…) L’organizzazione sindacale aveva in quel momento raggiunto un notevole grado di coesione ed efficacia e assumeva risolutamente la guida delle lotte operaie». I guesdisti subirono così una sconfitta all’interno della Federazione delle Camere sindacali: non erano riusciti a ottenere che questa respingesse ancora una volta una mozione a favore dello sciopero generale, e si dimisero perché ritenevano che essa non fosse che una caricatura della concezione marxista della rivoluzione proletaria.

L’anno 1895 segnò quindi una cesura tra due periodi: il primo, in cui il partito incarnava ancora i principi rivoluzionari del marxismo e i sindacati non avevano alcun peso, e il secondo, in cui i sindacati si espandevano mentre il partito era già sulla china dell’opportunismo.

La fondazione della CGT a Limoges nel settembre 1895

La questione dell’unità sindacale tra le due federazioni, FNS e FNB, si pose rapidamente, dopo la sconfitta dei guesdisti al congresso della FNS a Nantes del settembre 1894. La FNS decise di invitare al suo futuro congresso a Limoges nel settembre 1895 tutte le organizzazioni sindacali, i rappresentanti delle camere sindacali, dei gruppi corporativi, delle federazioni di mestiere, delle unioni e delle borse del lavoro, e la FNB, che accettò l’offerta.

Un comitato nazionale, in cui sedevano rappresentanti delle due federazioni insieme ad altri militanti, era incaricato della preparazione del congresso, che si tenne a Limoges dal 23 al 28 settembre 1895 e che diede vita alla Conferazione generale del lavoro -Confédération Générale du Travail (CGT)-, con 75 delegati provenienti da 26 federazioni industriali o di categoria, da 18 borse del lavoro, 126 camere sindacali isolate. Inviati dai più diversi gruppi sindacali, i delegati – tra cui si contarono tre donne – discussero un ordine del giorno molto fitto. Tuttavia, fu la creazione di un’organizzazione nazionale a occupare la maggior parte dei dibattiti e a portare alla fondazione della CGT. Alcuni avrebbero voluto chiamare la nuova centrale «Confederazione nazionale» o «francese» del lavoro, ma questa proposta fu infine respinta sulla base della seguente argomentazione: l’organizzazione del lavoro non deve essere solo nazionale, ma anche internazionale! Si organizzava per federazioni di mestieri e Borse del lavoro.

Ma soprattutto: un emendamento precisava che «i membri della CGT dovranno tenersi al di fuori di ogni corrente politica». Fin dalla sua nascita, undici anni prima del congresso in cui sarebbe stata adottata la «Carta di Amiens» nel 1906, la CGT manifestava estrema diffidenza nei confronti di qualsiasi organizzazione politica. Manterrà questo atteggiamento fino alla prima guerra mondiale e, anche se in seguito lo rivendicherà, il suo rapporto con il partito cambierà!

Partito operaio francese e questione sindacale: dal marxismo all’opportunismo

In Programme Communiste n. 24, 1963, p. 62 scrivevamo:

«Se al termine della lunga depressione determinata dallo schiacciamento della Comune di Parigi, la costituzione del Partito operaio, cioè la prima organizzazione proletaria marxista in Francia, è stata un risultato politico di prim’ordine, se ne cercherebbe invano l’equivalente in campo sindacale. Se infatti nel 1880 i principi del socialismo scientifico vengono affermati per la prima volta in Francia in modo netto e chiaro, quindici anni dopo, nel 1895, la maggior parte delle organizzazioni sindacali sfugge ancora all’influenza di questo socialismo, e la rottura tra il partito di Guesde e i sindacalisti è già consumata.» E più avanti a pag. 65:

«Che la divergenza tra socialisti e sindacalisti si basasse, almeno all’inizio del conflitto, solo su una lotta per la guida del movimento sindacale – e non sulla superiorità e l’utilità di una determinata forma d’azione – basta constatare che il famoso «sciopero generale» propugnato dal sindacalismo francese non vide mai la luce in Francia.

Quando, all’inizio del secolo successivo, scoppiarono scioperi generali in Russia, essi non confermavano affatto gli schemi degli anarchici-sindacalisti francesi (e stranieri) da un lato, ma dall’altro, i socialisti, corrotti da una lunga pratica parlamentare, erano diventati incapaci di coglierne la portata e, a maggior ragione, di assumerne la guida, se per caso questa forma di lotta si fosse generalizzata dalla Russia zarista alla Francia ultra-borghese.

Ciò non cambia nulla al senso della divergenza iniziale. Fino a quella svolta dell’inizio del XX (ventesimo) secolo, la sostituzione della parola d’ordine «sciopero generale espropriatore» a quella di «presa del potere politico» non era e non poteva essere che un ripudio del partito e dell’azione politica, anche se nel pensiero dei suoi sostenitori era un mezzo per scongiurare la deviazione parlamentarista. Al conflitto scoppiato intorno al 1890 tra i guesdisti e i sindacalisti, l’evoluzione dei rapporti di forza di classe in Francia non poteva fornire una soluzione rapida; ma tale conflitto rifletteva comunque l’irriducibile opposizione tra due concezioni della rivoluzione operaia: il marxismo, per il quale non c’è socialismo senza la distruzione dello Stato borghese e l’uso di uno strumento di repressione quale lo Stato proletario; il sindacalismo che, pur avendo rotto formalmente con l’anarchismo, rimaneva nemico di «ogni» Stato, opposto a «ogni» costrizione. L’importanza di principio del problema sollevato giustifica ampiamente l’intransigenza di Guesde.» E più avanti a p. 66:

«Guesde voleva, a ragione, la rottura con coloro che facevano dello sciopero generale un fine a sé stesso e facevano credere che fosse possibile porre fine al Capitale senza affrontare lo Stato capitalista, rovesciare il potere borghese, instaurare la dittatura rivoluzionaria, ed è anche giustamente che cercò di impedire che il nascente movimento sindacale cadesse nelle mani di una frazione intrisa di utopismo anarchico nel momento in cui l’unica centrale esistente [FNS] era nelle mani del Partito socialista [POF].L’indignazione dei democratici operai di fronte ai tentativi «autoritari» di Guesde di mantenere l’influenza del Partito nel sindacato era tanto più meschina, e tanto più vane le loro invocazioni della presunta volontà generale che sarebbe stata così «calpestata», quanto più la lotta si sviluppava in circoli molto ristretti e quanto più la maggior parte del proletariato ne era allora totalmente estranea. Il sindacato stesso era ancora solo un embrione, e l’unica questione che si poneva era se sarebbe caduto sotto l’influenza dei socialisti marxisti o sotto quella degli anarchici.

Il grande errore di Guesde fu quello di trasferire meccanicamente, nelle condizioni di immaturità del movimento operaio francese, una formula di stretto controllo del sindacato da parte del partito che era possibile solo in paesi con uno sviluppo e una concentrazione industriale ben più avanzati, come la Germania e il Belgio, due terre d’elezione della socialdemocrazia. In questi paesi, e fino alla degenerazione opportunistica della Seconda Internazionale, la centralizzazione dei due organismi aveva permesso di coniugare le rivendicazioni sindacali con la lotta socialista in Parlamento. In Francia, invece, il tentativo fallito di imitare goffamente la socialdemocrazia tedesca in materia sindacale ebbe l’effetto di polarizzare ancora di più l’attività del partito verso la propaganda elettorale, di mettere contro di esso i militanti già ostili per formazione, di esasperare la volontà di autonomia dei dirigenti sindacali e di conferire un carattere di principio eterno e sacro di salvaguardia dell’organizzazione sindacale a una formula nebulosa che all’inizio esprimeva solo l’ideologia propria di una minoranza.»

Infatti Guesde, che si impegnò senza riserve a favore degli operai in sciopero, si mostrò intransigente nei confronti dell’azione diretta raccomandata dai sindacalisti rivoluzionari, sostenendo l’efficacia della lotta parlamentare.

Continuiamo con Programme Communiste n. 24, pag. 67:

«Un’altra conseguenza, ancora più grave, dell’atteggiamento intransigente di Guesde fu quella di rendere, a lungo andare, il partito ostile per principio allo sciopero generale, anche se considerato come semplice mezzo d’azione nella lotta operaia. Ciò che in Guesde era solo una deformazione scolastica doveva diventare, con l’aiuto delle circostanze, un argomento veramente opportunista. Una lodevole preoccupazione di allontanarsi da concezioni avventuristiche doveva trasformarsi in un rifiuto della lotta e in una complicità oggettiva con la borghesia. Così, poiché gli anarchici volevano conferire all’attività sindacale una prospettiva rivoluzionaria romantica, Guesde finì ben presto per adottare quell’atteggiamento che, vent’anni dopo, in Germania, tradì la totale sclerosi della socialdemocrazia e che consisteva nel lasciare ai sindacati le rivendicazioni economiche e affidare al partito le riforme da realizzare in Parlamento.

Un atteggiamento veramente ispirato al marxismo sarebbe stato diverso. L’importanza, l’ampiezza e la forma delle lotte da condurre non sono una questione di principi, ma solo di valutazione del rapporto di forze e, nella prospettiva rivoluzionaria della presa del potere, già il concetto di sciopero generale è perfettamente ortodosso. È sugli obiettivi politici, sulla natura e sulla forma del potere e sull’accettazione della dittatura proletaria che si pongono le questioni di principio. Nonostante la loro fraseologia battagliera, gli anarchici, e i sindacalisti che si ispirano ai loro principi, hanno una concezione democratica della rivoluzione; incapaci di concepire la dittatura di ferro necessaria per la distruzione dei rapporti di produzione capitalisti, il loro liberalismo si accontenta di una coalizione tra le classi e i partiti più disparati. È proprio attraverso questi ultimi che vengono sconfitti dalla controrivoluzione, come hanno avuto modo di dimostrare, mezzo secolo dopo gli eventi che qui ci interessano: nel corso dei loro «scioperi generali» in Spagna i repubblicani e gli antifascisti tradirono e consegnarono a Franco le insurrezioni proletarie del 1936. È quindi necessario che il marxismo combatta l’accezione anarchica dello sciopero generale e Guesde, da questo punto di vista, era perfettamente autorizzato a farlo agli albori del movimento sindacale francese. Ma questa delimitazione e questa salvaguardia dei principi acquisiti nel movimento proletario non richiedevano affatto che il partito rifiutasse, anche in un periodo di espansione del capitalismo, un potente mezzo d’azione valido per le rivendicazioni proprie di tutta la classe. È su questo terreno, e non nelle malsane anticamere dell’attività parlamentare, che il partito degli operai può agire a favore delle rivendicazioni immediate del proletariato nei periodi in cui gli è preclusa la prospettiva di un assalto rivoluzionario al potere. In altre parole, sarebbe stato opportuno che il partito di Guesde, di fronte allo slogan che gli anarchici hanno elevato a ‘nec plus ultra’ (al massimo) della rivoluzione sociale, si fosse impegnato a separarne l’aspetto ideologico, che andava combattuto in quanto viziato da utopismo e apoliticismo, dal suo contenuto di combattività sociale, che andava invece incoraggiato e sviluppato.

Adottando una posizione contraria, la frazione sindacale di Guesde dimostrava che il partito conteneva già i germi dell’evoluzione opportunista che, concentrandosi sulle elezioni e sulla conquista dei comuni, suscitò nel movimento sindacale una feroce tradizione «anti-partito» e lasciò ai sindacalisti il monopolio delle agitazioni per obiettivi che erano tuttavia strettamente conformi ai compiti del partito, in particolare la denuncia della guerra imperialista in vista, l’antimilitarismo e l’anticolonialismo che, nei decenni successivi, avrebbero costituito i titoli di gloria del sindacalismo rivoluzionario.

Se ora ricollochiamo la formazione della tendenza anarchico-sindacalista nelle condizioni dell’epoca, comprendiamo perché l’ideologia dello sciopero generale abbia permesso ai suoi sostenitori di rispondere meglio, rispetto al partito socialista, alle aspirazioni degli operai. E questo ci dà il diritto di separare l’innegabile efficacia pratica dei sindacalisti, per un determinato periodo, da una visione sociale che è tanto conformista e deviazionista rispetto al programma iniziale del proletariato quanto quella dei riformisti dichiarati. (…) Pertanto, senza nulla togliere ai meriti individuali dei sindacalisti — militanti spesso integri, devoti e pieni di abnegazione —, non si può condividere l’apologia che ne fanno i loro storici quando questi ultimi affermano con tono dottrinario che quel sindacalismo rappresentasse la forma definitiva e futura del movimento rivoluzionario del proletariato. Se i promotori dell’indipendenza sindacale e dello sciopero generale si sono trovati alla guida del primo raggruppamento di massa dei lavoratori, non è affatto in quanto rappresentanti del proletariato industriale del futuro, ma al contrario, in quanto residuo storico, perché il basso livello di sviluppo e di concentrazione delle forze produttive aveva lasciato la direzione del movimento sindacale ai vincitori di una sorta di competizione a porte chiuse in cui, tra le due minoranze organizzate presenti, la maggioranza era dalla parte della perpetuazione anacronistica del passato.

Che la lotta per la direzione dei sindacati si sia svolta all’interno di una minoranza della classe operaia, ce lo conferma un dato relativo agli iscritti alla C.G.T. nel 1902: «A quella data», scrive lo storico del movimento operaio francese, Edouard Dolléans, «sul totale della forza lavoro dell’industria appena il 17% era sindacalizzato: si tratta sia di una minoranza operaia che di una minoranza sindacale che si sono confederate». Perché allora la maggior parte dei militanti di questa avanguardia operaia optò per il sindacalismo, lo sciopero generale e l’azione diretta? Perché il partito, già impantanato nel parlamentarismo, non sapeva proporre loro altro che le elezioni, perché erano stanchi di un’attività parlamentare deludente da parte dei delegati operai, perché la loro tradizione di classe trasmetteva loro la profonda e giustificata diffidenza di una plebe che era sempre stata ingannata dai rappresentanti della piccola borghesia, perché, per le due o tre generazioni precedenti, la politica aveva sempre significato chiacchiere impotenti in parlamento, tradimento nelle strade. Perché numerosi erano accaniti sostenitori dell’indipendenza sindacale? Perché prima ancora che i «socialisti di governo» di Millerand cercassero di annettere il movimento sindacale, «i militanti operai avevano sofferto talmente tanto per le divisioni politiche tra le loro organizzazioni che ai loro occhi l’autonomia sindacale era la condizione dell’unità operaia» (Dolléans). Perché gli anarco-sindacalisti, che diedero militanti di grande rilievo, erano gli unici, in tutto il movimento, a sfuggire alla soffocante attività essenzialmente elettorale del partito, a potersi dedicare ai problemi immediati delle rivendicazioni operaie e, di conseguenza, gli unici a sapere come risolverli e ad affrontarli con tenacia negli organismi più adatti.» (Programme Communiste n. 24).

IL SINDACATO FERROVIERI, LA MISERA FINE DI UN GLORIOSO SINDACATO ROSSO

Il rapporto, data la sua lunghezza, soprattutto per effetto dell’abbondante uso di citazioni dagli organi di stampa del PCd’I, è stato presentato in due parti distinte: al sabato ed alla domenica.

Quando avremo nel nostro partito un consistente numero di compagni ferrovieri e questi daranno tutta la loro attività al rinato sindacato di classe, allora ci sarà bisogno di riscrivere, dall’inizio, la storia del Sindacato Ferrovieri Italiani, il glorioso sindacato rosso, nato nel 1907 e miseramente morto nel 1925.

Nella serie di rapporti già presentati abbiamo preso in esame solo la ingloriosa fine di quelle che, in passato, erano state delle formidabili organizzazioni di classe ed abbiamo cercato di mettere in evidenza le cause della loro degenerazione che, da marxisti, non accolliamo unicamente alla responsabilità dei capi traditori, ma a condizioni materiali, sociali e storiche ben superiori alla volontà degli individui. Anche se questi hanno pur sempre le loro responsabilità.

A noi non scandalizza prendere atto che la volontà della borghesia è di imprigionare i proletari in sindacati trasformati in organi statali, altrettanto bene sappiamo che il piano di svuotamento del movimento operaio, proprio del revisionismo riformista coincide sostanzialmente con il sindacalismo fascista, il corporativismo alla Mussolini. Quello che, attraverso questi rapporti, ci preme ribadire e sottolineare è che la nostra corrente comunista di sinistra non ha mai parlato di traumatiche rotture, per noi le degenerazioni degli organi sindacali non subiscono soluzioni di continuità: già con l’adesione alla prima guerra mondiale le centrali sindacali si erano messe al totale servizio dello Stato sottomettendo gli interessi immediati della classe operaia a quelli immanenti di conservazione sociale della classe borghese e del suo regime. Quindi, se non interverrà una forte ripresa della lotta di classe, diretta da un partito comunista, radicato all’interno del proletariato e dei suoi organismi di classe, i sindacati saranno condotti, a livello internazionale, a divenire delle semplici appendici della macchina statale borghese.

Dopo aver favorito l’avvento del fascismo al potere, la CGdL non fu certo l’unico sindacato a cercare di saltare sul carro del vincitore. Anche il Sindacato Ferrovieri Italiani (SFI) fece lo stesso ignobile percorso, benché nella sua storia e azione di classe si fosse, a ragione, guadagnato il titolo di sindacato rosso.

Ma procediamo con ordine.

Nei cinque mesi successivi alla sua fondazione il Partito comunista d’Italia si era dato una ben solida e diffusa struttura all’interno dei sindacati cosiddetti «di classe» e, attraverso propri gruppi di azione e proselitismo, il Partito conquistava sempre maggiori consensi tra la massa proletaria.

Al X Congresso del Sindacato Ferrovieri, che si tenne a Bologna nel luglio 1921, la rappresentanza comunista ribadì la tattica del partito di condanna verso ogni tipo di scissione sindacale, auspicando invece la riunione di tutti i sindacati di classe in una unica organizzazione; ossia far convergere tutte le sigle esistenti, all’interno della Confederazione Generale del Lavoro, in modo da strapparne la dirigenza ai bonzi opportunisti. E, a tale scopo, presentò apposita mozione.

La risposta di tutte le altre componenti politiche rappresentate nel SFI non mancò e fu unanime. Immediatamente, da parte di anarchici, sindacalisti, socialisti, repubblicani e «senza partito», si formò un «fronte unico» anticomiunista: solo 22 delegati votarono la mozione, mentre l’ordine del giorno dei sindacalisti-anarchici otteneva 58 voti.

È da notare che nei congressi precedenti i delegati socialisti avevano sempre avanzato la proposta di adesione del SFI alla CGdL anche in continuità con il «Patto d’Azione» di Firenze del 1907. Così che anche al X Congresso SFI ai delegati socialisti era stato dato mandato, dalla loro base, di sostenere l’adesione alla CGdL, ma, per ordine di partito, dovettero votare contro la mozione comunista.

Da parte loro anarchici e sindacalisti avevano dichiarato che, nel caso fosse passato l’ordine del giorno comunista, loro sarebbero usciti dall’organizzazione. Ecco che i dirigenti «rivoluzionari» del glorioso sindacato di classe dei ferrovieri sarebbero stati disposti a spezzarne l’unità pur di mantenere i loro privilegi ed i posti di comando. Proprio come i socialdemocratici, con i quali, infatti, formarono uno strettissimo fronte unico contro i comunisti.

L’attacco anticomunista proseguì poi al momento della nomina dei cinque Consiglieri Generali; mentre ad ogni corrente politica, perfino ai repubblicani, fu data la possibilità di scegliersi un rappresentante, questo si volle impedire ai comunisti.

Proprio come i bonzi socialdemocratici della CGdL, i «rivoluzionari» si riproponevano di mettere i comunisti nella condizione di abbandonare il sindacato. Questa però era solo una pia illusione perché il Partito mai avrebbe ritirato i propri iscritti da un sindacato. In fondo queste erano le direttive dell’Internazionale Comunista che, nel dicembre 1922, aveva sancito: «È assurdo che singoli comunisti ed operai rivoluzionari vengano tolti dai sindacati riformisti per essere inseriti nei sindacati rivoluzionari. Nessun sindacato riformista deve essere privato dei fermenti rappresentati dai comunisti. Una attività efficiente e vigorosa dei comunisti in entrambe le organizzazioni è la premessa per la ricostituzione della distrutta unità.»

Cosa rimaneva quindi da fare ai bonzi di entrambi gli schieramenti? Procedere alla espulsione dei comunisti!

Quindi i compagni nostri Azzario e Berruti, strenui organizzatori, rispettivamente, dei compartimenti ferroviari di Milano e Torino, vennero espulsi per «indisciplina». È questa una accusa che i veri comunisti si sono sempre (anche recentemente) sentiti addebitare.

Nel frattempo la reazione fascista andava intensificando ed estendendo in tutta Italia la sua più brutale violenza, a cui i lavoratori piemontesi e lombardi, il 19 luglio 1922, rispondevano con un compatto sciopero generale.

Per tassativi ordini dei dirigenti centrali del SFI, che, tra l’altro, costituivano la Segreteria dell’Alleanza del Lavoro, ai ferrovieri di Lombardia e Piemonte, fu proibito di aderire all’azione, dando così libertà di movimento e di rapida concentrazione alle armate fasciste.

Allo stesso tempo, però, una tendenza che aveva i suoi esponenti diretti e più rappresentativi all’interno degli organi dirigenti cercava palesemente di condurre il sindacato sul terreno della collaborazione e del sindacalismo nazionale, sotto gli auspici di D’Annunzio.

Quando il 1° agosto 1922 l’Alleanza del Lavoro proclamò lo sciopero generale per protestare contro il fascismo, che nella sua ultima impresa aveva messo a sacco Ravenna, i gruppi ferrovieri comunisti furono ovunque ai primi posti, e in molti centri ferroviari la buona riuscita dello sciopero fu dovuta esclusivamente alla attività ed allo spirito di sacrificio e di iniziativa da essi dimostrato.

Come abbiamo più volte denunciato, malgrado le eroiche difese opposte dal proletariato in tante località, lo sciopero ebbe una fine disorganica, politicamente e sindacalmente fallimentare. Ancora una volta i proletari erano stati condotti allo sbaraglio sia dalla tattica rinunciataria dei riformisti, sia dalla inettitudine di sindacalisti ed anarchici.

Terminato lo sciopero i fascisti ebbero nuovamente la possibilità di concentrarsi in luoghi precedentemente stabiliti e lì sferrare i loro attacchi terroristici nei confronti della classe operaia.

Particolarmente colpiti dallo scatenarsi della reazione illegale e legale furono i ferrovieri, a cominciare da quei militanti che sempre si erano distinti in tutti gli episodi della lotta di classe. Ma la cosa più grave fu che a questa reazione si unì una violenta crisi all’interno del sindacato determinata dagli elementi nazionalisti e dannunziani, ai quali risaliva la responsabilità prima della espulsione dei compagni Azzario e Berruti perché comunisti.

Il 18 agosto 1922 il Comitato Esecutivo del SFI, con atto arbitrario deliberava l’immediato ritiro del Sindacato Ferrovieri Italiani dall’Alleanza del Lavoro. Gravissimo atto che spezzava l’unità proletaria proprio nel momento in cui maggiore si scatenava la violenza avversaria.

Nel corso del rapporto ci siamo soffermati sulle misure di vero terrorismo di classe adottate dallo Stato nei confronti dei ferrovieri che avevano preso parte attiva allo sciopero, cosa che qui, ora, non possiamo ripercorrere.

A migliaia furono i ferrovieri licenziati; i puniti oltre 75mila, compresi molti avventizi a cui venne rifiutato ogni diritto di sistemazione e licenziati immediatamente.

E dire che il Presidente del Consiglio, il democratico Facta, agli onorevoli Turati e Modigliani, mediatori di pace tra l’Alleanza del Lavoro e il governo, aveva assicurato che da parte dello Stato non ci sarebbe stata nessuna rappresaglia.

Mentre i comunisti premevano per l’attuazione di un vero fronte unico proletario con la rinascita dal basso dell’Alleanza del Lavoro, all’interno delle dirigenze SFI sempre più insistente si diffondeva la proposta dello scioglimento del sindacato e dare vita a vari, «indipendenti», sindacatini di categoria.

Mentre i comunisti incitavano la massa a fronteggiare con azioni di classe i colpi della reazione legale ed illegale, i bonzi si appellavano al Mninistro dei Lavori Pubblici chiedendo che cessassero le minacce e le violenze di cui venivano fatti segno i ferrovieri organizzati nel SFI.

Ma, visto che le assicurazioni di un ministro non portavano a nessun risultato, i bonzi traditori pensarono di spingersi più in alto a chiedere pietà. Sì, anche loro, proprio come i bonzi della CGdL si inginocchiavano di fronte a Mussolini.

Ebbene, il 17 gennaio 1923 Mussolini concedeva udienza ai vili rappresentanti del Comitato Centrale del SFI, i quali presentavano al duce del fascismo un loro supplichevole memoriale. Dopo nemmeno tre mesi dalla cosiddetta «Marcia su Roma», il SFI in un documento ufficiale dichiarava a Mussolini la propria sottomissione al nuovo regime.

Malgrado il servilismo dimostrato verso il potere, la risposta di Mussolini fu quella del padrone che non ammette se non la esplicita resa incondizionata:

Ma i dirigenti del sindacato ferrovieri non si diedero per vinti ed esattamente due mesi dopo (il 17 marzo) rivolgevano a Mussolini un secondo memoriale, ancora più vile del primo, nel quale possiamo leggere espressioni di questo tenore: «Il Sindacato ferrovieri italiani, si lusinga che V. E., quale espressione di sana giustizia, …» Come si vede il Sindacato ferrovieri dichiarava il suo completo assoggettamento al regime fascista, ma anche questa volta la risposta di Mussolini è quella del vincitore che sfodera tutta la sua sete di vendetta nei confronti del vinto, anche se pronto a mettersi al suo servizio. La risposta di Mussolini non può essere più chiara: «faccia il Sindacato ferrovieri atto formale e solenne di sottomissione allo Stato, sciogliendosi ed entrando a far parte delle corporazioni fasciste.»

Su «Il Sindacato Rosso» commentavamo: «L’uomo di Predappio, che conosce a fondo l’anima dei ferrovieri, non a torto, pretende di più che non il servile inchino e le semplici dichiarazioni verbali che possono fare quelli che oggi credono di rappresentare e dirigere il sindacato Ferrovieri Italiani. Lui il dittatore di … paglia, vuole fatti; le parole non contano, e naturalmente, non può prendere sul serio quei tre meschini che a lui si prostrano. Dietro a quei tre non vede certo il grosso dell’esercito del rosso proletariato ferroviario.»

Nei giorni 21 e 22 ottobre 1923 si tenne a Roma un Convegno del SFI, pomposamente definito Congresso. La particolarità di questo Convegno fu dovuta ad una «storica decisione»: l’adesione del SFI alla CGdL.

Abbiamo già visto quale e quanto accanita si fosse dimostrata l’opposizione da parte di tutte le componenti politiche interne al sindacato nei confronti della proposta comunista di adesione alla CGdL. Naturalmente questo repentino cambio di atteggiamento non poteva che confermare certezze, più che sospetti, sulle vere, autentiche motivazioni. Quando della gente senza coscienza politica muta improvvisamente di opinione vi è normalmente sotto qualcosa di poco confessabile.

«Chi non rammenta — scriveva «Il Sindacato Rosso» — gli indecorosi ed abbietti approcci collaborazionisti da costoro tentati quando ancora il fragore della Marcia su Roma riempiva di alalà le piazze d’Italia ed erano tuttora insepolti i caduti torinesi, tra cui dei ferrovieri, nelle brillanti ed eroiche giornate fasciste del dicembre? Compagni attenti! Ancora una volta si tenta condurre, mani e piedi legati, sotto il tallone del dittatore fascista, il vostro rosso battagliero sindacato. La deliberata adesione alla CGdL temiamo seriamente non abbia altro scopo, altro significato. Preparatevi quindi alla difesa contro i traditori della lotta di classe, contro gli indegni che con equivoci e astuzie tentano ai danni vostri e di tutti i lavoratori, il supremo inganno, la inqualificabile vergogna, il passaggio al nemico.»

E, in altra occasione: «Il Sindacato ferrovieri deve più che mai riconfermare nettamente le sue direttive rivoluzionarie; soltanto salvando oggi il proprio onore di organizzazione classista, sarà possibile domani riabbracciare le grandi masse colpite dalla reazione e condurle alla battaglia e alla vittoria. Viva il Sindacato rosso dei ferrovieri! Viva l’unità proletaria.»

Superata la «crisi Matteotti» il fascismo consolidò il suo potere. Alla riapertura della Camera il 3 gennaio 1925, Mussolini, con un discorso in cui si assumeva la piena responsabilità politica dei delitti consumati, diede inizio alla fase decisamente dittatoriale del suo governo. Furono impartite disposizioni ai Prefetti per la chiusura di tutti i circoli e partiti politici che potessero mettere a repentaglio l’ordine pubblico.

In base a ciò, il 9 aprile 1925, il prefetto di Bologna, emanò il decreto di scioglimento del SFI in quanto la sua attività si era «tramutata dal campo sindacale sul terreno politico con propaganda ed indirizzo contrari alle istituzioni e al governo con conseguente pericolo per l’ordine pubblico».

Questo è il modo con cui, sempre, il potere statale ringrazia i suoi servi sciocchi, i traditori della propria classe.

Da parte sua il Partito comunista non rinunciò a riorganizzare nella clandestinità le sparse forze dei ferrovieri comunisti e simpatizzanti. Un esempio ci viene da una circolare del PCdI del 14 luglio, diretta ai segretari interregionali, alle federazioni provinciali, e al Comitato nazionale sindacale comunista, con la quale si davano direttive per la costituzione del Comitato nazionale sindacale comunista ferroviario che quanto prima avrebbe dovuto provvedere «alla convocazione di un convegno nazionale di ferrovieri per il necessario coordinamento delle forze sindacali ferroviarie comuniste».

Quali siano stati i risultati di questa riorganizzazione, che doveva compiersi nella più assoluta clandestinità, non ci è dato, per ora, sapere. Comunque rapporti di polizia segnalavano che parte del personale ferroviario ancora in servizio continuava «a tener desta la propaganda sovversiva in forma subdola ma efficace».

Le prime tappe del movimento operaio in Russia

Il tema dello sviluppo storico del movimento operaio russo nel suo cammino verso la vittoria dell’ottobre 1917 è stato trattato da molti. Allora perché tornarci sopra? Non è per un desiderio accademico, ma per prepararci a una situazione storica che trasmette un senso di déjà vu: uno Stato autoritario isolato, privo di concrete organizzazioni dei lavoratori, opportuniste o meno.

Sebbene la questione contadina sia stata da tempo dimenticata, non limitando più la produzione capitalistica, la sua natura nel contesto russo continua a far sentire i suoi echi ancora oggi. Infatti, mostreremo come la repressione sia una tradizione consolidata della borghesia russa: nell’evoluzione dai contadini agli operai industriali, prima non liberi e simili a servi della gleba, poi veri e propri proletari, lo Stato, in quanto cane da guardia dei capitalisti, era lì per reprimere sanguinariamente i lavoratori. E con queste battaglie si sviluppò dialetticamente anche l’evoluzione del pensiero socialista, ideologia della classe operaia: prima il movimento narodnik, poi i disparati gruppi socialisti e infine i marxisti, con la successiva fondazione del POSDR.

La prima parte: «Il movimento operaio pre-marxista», tratta proprio di queste fondamenta, della base materiale e politica della Russia all’inizio del XIX secolo, il secolo dello sviluppo capitalistico mondiale e di come esso entrò nell’impero zarista. Il principale effetto collaterale della peculiarità sottosviluppata del sistema russo fu l’introduzione del capitalismo in un modo di produzione profondamente feudale, che portò alla figura del servo industriale: un lavoratore impiegato in un’impresa capitalista, ma al servizio di un signore feudale, senza che in certi casi venisse corrisposto alcun salario. Ma la marea del capitale è forte, e così il feudalesimo russo iniziò a decomporsi, cosa che intendiamo dimostrare, sia con statistiche economiche, sia con resoconti delle reazioni della classe operaia e delle terribili condizioni generali di un paese in fase di industrializzazione. Poi passeremo al successivo sviluppo della dottrina rivoluzionaria storica, dapprima negli scritti di Herzen e Chernyshevsky, i socialisti utopisti russi, i primi socialdemocratici, e infine richiamandoci agli scritti di Lenin e di Plekhanov, uno dei primi veri marxisti russi.

Il movimento operaio negli Stati Uniti d’America. Capitolo 20

Introduzione

Dopo una lunga pausa, riprendiamo questo lavoro di partito per la necessità di portare avanti lo studio del movimento operaio americano fino ai giorni nostri. Non si tratta di un’esigenza accademica. Non siamo storici. Il partito non scrive per il gusto della conoscenza astratta. La nostra conoscenza è un’arma nella lotta di classe, che dobbiamo affinare attraverso lo studio per colpire meglio nella pratica.

Il capitolo 20 si concentra principalmente sulla situazione economica, il 21 sarà su quella politica, sebbene queste siano dialetticamente connesse e non debbano essere viste come storie indipendenti. Questo formato è finalizzato a facilitare la comprensione ed è in parte cronologico, poiché la maggior parte degli eventi politici si è sviluppata pienamente solo nel 1920, anche se si era formata nel 1919. Pertanto, la Paura Rossa e i suoi eventi saranno trattati solo parzialmente nel capitolo 20.

Il movimento operaio del dopoguerra

Il proletariato uscì dalla guerra aspettandosi che le promesse fatte dalla borghesia durante il conflitto fossero mantenute. Non fu così. Non appena non ci fu più bisogno di placare i lavoratori con delle elargizioni, tutti i benefici furono ritirati e tornarono i violenti scontri contro i sindacati.

Ai lavoratori furono negate le loro aspettative del dopoguerra e i datori di lavoro cercarono di smantellare ciò che i lavoratori avevano ottenuto durante la guerra. Il governo abbandonò immediatamente i lavoratori non appena non ci fu più un bisogno urgente di tenerli docili. Questo senso di tradimento rimase impresso nei lavoratori. I forti appelli dei lavoratori affinché fosse mantenuto il War Labor Board non ebbero alcun esito. I lavoratori si resero conto che, se volevano mantenere gli standard di guerra, dovevano fare affidamento sulla loro forza.

I lavoratori neri furono particolarmente colpiti da questo tradimento. Mentre i lavoratori neri soffrivano maggiormente della disoccupazione del dopoguerra, tutte le agenzie coinvolte nel fornire loro lavoro furono abolite per impedirne la sindacalizzazione nel Sud. Anche i sindacati bianchi spesso ostacolavano i lavoratori neri e imponevano la segregazione.

Le donne si distinsero come le più militanti e scioperarono al fianco degli uomini. Molte svolsero ruoli importanti nell’ondata di scioperi del 1919.

Lo sciopero generale di Seattle

Seattle fu il punto focale dei disordini del 1919, che culminarono in uno sciopero generale in cui i lavoratori presero in mano la produzione.

La città aveva una lunga storia di movimento operaio radicale e militante. Molti lavoratori possedevano sia la tessera dell’IWW che quella dell’AFL. La prima era una questione di principio, la seconda di praticità, poiché Seattle era una città a «closed shop», quindi un lavoratore senza tessera AFL non poteva trovare lavoro.

La combattività dei lavoratori di Seattle era ispirata dalla Rivoluzione bolscevica. Nessun organismo sindacale americano fu più coerente nel difendere la Rivoluzione bolscevica del Seattle Central Labor Council (Consiglio Centrale del Lavoro di Seattle).

Lo sciopero iniziò nei cantieri navali, che durante la guerra erano diventati il principale datore di lavoro. Dopo un misero aumento salariale, ben al di sotto delle aspettative e in alcuni casi addirittura una riduzione, i lavoratori dei cantieri entrarono in sciopero. Il Seattle Central Labor Council dichiarò presto uno sciopero generale in segno di solidarietà.

Lo sciopero non si limitò a negare la forza lavoro. I lavoratori presero in mano la produzione per garantire il mantenimento dei servizi essenziali. Tuttavia, nonostante le simpatie rivoluzionarie della sua leadership, lo sciopero non andò mai oltre la lotta economica, il che ne segnò il fallimento.

Il comitato di sciopero pianificò meticolosamente lo sciopero in modo che la sanità, la sicurezza e altri servizi necessari potessero funzionare con la loro autorizzazione. Formarono anche una guardia operaia disarmata composta da veterani per mantenere l’ordine.

Anche in uno sciopero «perfetto» come questo, che fece ogni sforzo per mantenersi nei limiti della legalità, lo Stato usò tutta la violenza a sua disposizione per riportare i lavoratori alle condizioni di partenza. Lo Stato intervenne militarmente e lo sciopero terminò dopo soli 5 giorni.

Lo sciopero generale di Seattle fallì rapidamente e ignominiosamente nonostante la forte militanza e esperienza sindacali che lo sostenevano. Secondo le ideologie sindacaliste ed economiche, queste erano le condizioni perfette per una rivoluzione. L’impulso c’era, il momento era quello giusto, le organizzazioni economiche erano pronte a lottare, ma senza la coscienza del partito di classe per trasformare questo impulso in azione, era destinato al fallimento. Lo sciopero generale di Seattle è una chiara conferma della nostra dottrina secondo cui l’azione di classe è impossibile senza il partito di classe.

L’Estate Rossa

Il rapporto ha anche trattato delle rivolte razziali e dei linciaggi del 1919, noti come Estate Rossa. Si è concentrato in particolare sul massacro di Elaine, dove i mezzadri neri tentarono di sindacalizzarsi sequestrando il cotone fino a quando le loro richieste non fossero state soddisfatte. Vivevano ancora in condizioni di schiavitù nonostante questa fosse stata abolita, solo che ora venivano pagati per lo sfruttamento cui erano sottoposti. Una folla di bianchi aprì il fuoco su una riunione sindacale in una chiesa a Hoopspur. I lavoratori, che si erano preparati a questa violenta rappresaglia, risposero al fuoco, uccidendo un uomo bianco e ferendone un altro. Il sindacato riferì immediatamente che i bianchi avevano sparato per primi e che loro avevano solo risposto al fuoco, ma si formò rapidamente una folla di bianchi. La folla proveniente da Helena arrivò a Elaine e iniziò a perquisire e saccheggiare le case dei neri, arrestando uomini e donne indiscriminatamente. I neri armati risposero al fuoco e ci furono morti da entrambe le parti. I combattimenti si diffusero da Elaine alla parte meridionale della contea quando uomini bianchi provenienti dall’Arkansas, dal Tennessee e dal Mississippi arrivarono per partecipare al massacro.

Ancora una volta furono inviate truppe contro i lavoratori. Un comitato segreto di leader locali bianchi nominati dal governatore, tra cui due proprietari di piantagioni, «indagò» sulla rivolta e pubblicò un rapporto falso in cui si affermava che il sindacato avesse pianificato un’insurrezione con l’obiettivo di uccidere un certo numero di uomini bianchi.

Ogni persona di colore nei pressi di Elaine fu arrestata e rilasciata solo su richiesta di un cittadino bianco. Durante questo periodo, gli uomini furono torturati dai loro carcerieri mentre una folla esterna tentava di linciarli. Il tribunale locale si schierò con la folla bianca, condannando a morte 12 dei lavoratori neri e decine di altri al carcere. Grazie alla NAACP, il verdetto fu infine impugnato davanti alla Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti, che archiviò il procedimento, ma il danno era ormai fatto. Il numero esatto è indeterminato, ma almeno 100 contadini neri furono uccisi e molti furono costretti a trascorrere anni in prigione a causa di questo massacro.

Il massacro di Elaine fu una campagna di violenza e terrore contro i lavoratori neri che avevano osato opporsi ai loro miseri accordi. La loro ammirevole autodifesa contro questa campagna suscitò una reazione ipocrita da parte dello Stato borghese, che fornì tutti i mezzi militari e legali per aiutare gli assassini razzisti.

L’ondata di scioperi del 1919

Il rapporto trattava anche una serie di altri scioperi di rilievo avvenuti nel 1919, tra cui lo sciopero delle telefoniste (15-21 aprile 1919), lo sciopero della polizia di Boston (9 settembre 1919), lo sciopero dei lavoratori siderurgici (22 settembre 1919-8 gennaio 1920) e lo sciopero dei minatori (1 novembre-10 dicembre 1919). Ogni sciopero seguiva uno schema simile: combattività originata da condizioni precarie e ispirata dall’esempio dei bolscevichi, sostegno popolare e solidarietà tra i lavoratori, seguiti dal tradimento da parte dell’AFL e dall’interferenza dello Stato, spesso militare. Di questi scioperi solo gli operatori telefonici ebbero successo. Non tutte queste sconfitte possono essere attribuite alla sconfitta militare. La leadership dell’AFL colse ogni occasione per tradire le centinaia di migliaia di lavoratori in sciopero, soprattutto nei settori chiave del carbone e dell’acciaio.

Conferenza industriale

Il rapporto si concludeva con un resoconto della Conferenza Industriale del presidente Wilson, che tentò di porre fine ai disordini sindacali attraverso una collaborazione di classe indistinguibile dal futuro fascismo. La conferenza era composta dai membri più collaborazionisti dell’AFL e delle organizzazioni sindacali delle ferrovie che «rappresentavano» i lavoratori, da una serie di imprenditori che rappresentavano il mondo degli affari e da un nebuloso gruppo «pubblico» composto da figure «neutre» come Rockefeller. Lo Stato non cercò nemmeno di nascondere che l’interesse «pubblico» significava interesse borghese.

Nonostante gli sforzi dello Stato e dell’aristocrazia operaia, la Conferenza Industriale fallì. Il gruppo dei datori di lavoro rifiutò qualsiasi accordo con i sindacati e annunciò la propria intenzione di istituire gli «open shop» in tutti i settori industriali nel loro «Piano Americano». Mentre l’AFL cercava disperatamente di sostenere che senza di loro si sarebbero trovati di fronte ai «bolscevichi», i padroni risposero che i sindacati erano un pericolo maggiore di una manciata di rossi.

A text from 1980 on two diverse deviations regarding the economic struggles of the proletariat

The historical purpose of opportunism, that is, the tendency to choose the easy path, considered the most “appropriate” for achieving results, has always been to interpose the most varied hypotheses, proposals, and ideologies between the working class and its political party, in order to distract the former from its ultimate task: social revolution; but the labor movement is not excluded from this mission either; for the party, it would be the ideal instrument, the “transmission belt”, for conveying to the working class not only subversive messages aimed at the bourgeois order, but also appropriate guidance on the best tactics in economic struggles. Whether the opportunists are acting in good faith or are outright traitors matters little; as the saying goes, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” In any case, finding good faith in today’s politicians, regardless of their political affiliation, is simply impossible.

The article we are republishing, from 1980, effectively analyzes the two principal deviations from the economic class struggle: “anarcho-syndicalism” and what we might call “economic agnosticism”.

The former derives from currents already present at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, which placed the focus of revolutionary action on the union rather than the party, and sought to keep it free from bourgeois influences (Dutch Tribunists, the German KAPD, American and French syndicalists, etc.). Ever since then, the Left resolutely opposed those movements, similar to the Turin-based “L’Ordine Nuovo”, which believed that the revolutionary movement consisted of hollowing out the unions in favor of workers’ councils, which were supposed to form the structure of the revolution’s economic and state institutions, conceived as having begun in the midst of full-blown capitalism, with a wholly idealistic vision of the revolutionary process.

The latter deviation, the view that the struggle is futile, a mere Sisyphean task, and that everything should be staked on the Party’s political action, is even older, and was already refuted by Marx in 1864 during a debate that took place at the First International in London: Marx’s observations, recorded in the pamphlet “Value, Price, and Profit”, are unequivocal:

«Such being the tendency of things in this system, is this saying that the working class ought to renounce their resistance against the encroachments of capital, and abandon their attempts at making the best of the occasional chances for their temporary improvement? If they did, they would be degraded to one level mass of broken wretches past salvation.

At the same time […] the working class ought not to exaggerate to themselves the ultimate working of these everyday struggles. They ought not to forget that they are fighting with effects, but not with the causes of those effects; that they are retarding the downward movement, but not changing its direction; that they are applying palliatives, not curing the malady. […] Instead of the conservative motto: «A fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work!” they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: «Abolition of the wages system!»»

«[…] Trades Unions work well as centers of resistance against the encroachments of capital. They fail partially from an injudicious use of their power. They fail generally from limiting themselves to a guerilla war against the effects of the existing system, instead of simultaneously trying to change it, instead of using their organized forces as a lever for the final emancipation of the working class that is to say the ultimate abolition of the wages system»

Today, our great Karl would not be so delicate in his criticism of the trade union federations. In any case, we must always cite our mentors, Marx, Engels, Lenin, and the Left, to demonstrate that opportunism, which seemingly constantly renews itself in its anti-proletarian function, is in reality always the same: the arguments remain the same even if cloaked in ingenious innovations, and they will remain so as long as they are needed to prevent the class from waging genuine and effective struggles for its demands, and from aligning itself with the direction that only the revolutionary party can provide.

It doesn’t matter to us whether the unions are led by reactionaries, which is to be expected in periods when there is a lack of widespread worker militancy, as is the case now, nor are we concerned with founding purely communist, revolutionary unions. But neither do we believe that the struggle for specific demands is useless, in accordance with Marx’s teachings. For us, trade unions, to the extent that they are open to all workers, are and always will be the focus of our attention and, if possible, our participation; as early as 1951, we wrote:

«Trade unions, regardless of who leads them, being professional economic associations, always bring together members of the same class. It is quite possible that organized workers will elect representatives with not only moderate but even bourgeois tendencies, and that the union leadership will fall under capitalist influence. Nevertheless, the fact remains that trade unions are composed exclusively of workers, and therefore it will never be possible to say of them what is said of parliament, namely, that they are susceptible only to bourgeois leadership».

A lot has happened since then, but nothing has changed in the nature of capitalism, and nothing must change in the party’s attitude toward the class’s economic organizations.

The Communists and the Struggles for Workers’ Rights

from “Il Partito Comunista,” No. 66, 1980

Revolutionary communists have always attached great importance to the struggles that workers are forced to engage in, due to economic and social conditions, to defend their position as wage earners against pressure from employers and capitalists. They seek to be the vanguard of the workers in these struggles, to win their trust, and to demonstrate to them that communist methods are more effective in defending workers than those proposed by other political parties or groups.

However, given the inherent instability of the economic and social terrain on which these struggles take place and the precarious nature of “conquests” within a society that thrives on the exploitation of wage labor, these struggles do not even make a dent in social relations; they do not challenge the political power of the propertied classes or the capitalist system.

The proletarians, however, even if they wanted to, could not renounce to the struggles to defend their immediate interests, because simply giving up their defense against the greed of capitalism would reduce them to a state of brutishness worse than the one into which they are being forced. Nor would a “poor” working class, that is, one incapable of participating in the consumption of the commodities churned out at an ever-increasing rate by the productive apparatus, serve capitalism’s interests. Capitalism has an interest in ensuring that workers have an “income” that can be “consumed” on the capitalist market to the greatest extent possible, in order to keep it alive and functioning so as to perpetuate the infernal mechanism of the exploitation of wage earners.

This explains the existence of “capitalist” unions, that is, unions that the regime has an interest in establishing, either in opposition to class-based unions or, in the absence of a class-based organization, as totalitarian unions that serve the regime, abiding to the needs of the market economy, and uphold the social and political stability of the capitalist regime.

Given these preliminary considerations, two tendencies have emerged within the “opposition” to capitalism that deviate from revolutionary Marxism and represent a serious obstacle that delays the arduous and painful process of rebuilding proletarian organization. The first, which we might define as “pure syndicalism”, maintains that today’s unions do not defend the workers’ cause because they are tainted by “politics”, and that, consequently, true class-based unions cannot be revived until organized party groups are banned from within them. This position draws on anarchism, which views political struggle within the working class as an “evil” that generates divisions which tear apart the unity of action of the proletariat. It is a vision that disregards the actual state of social and political organization of the classes, which in simple terms divides people into two clear and distinct groups, the exploited and the exploiters, while overlooking the fact that the terms “exploited” and “exploiter” are “relative” and not absolute. The only social class that possesses this characteristic is the proletariat, which by definition has no reserves or resources other than the ability to create more proletarians. Thus, within these two broad categories, among the exploited, alongside the proletariat, we can also include the lumpenproletariat, which views the working proletarian as “privileged”; the petty bourgeoisie, which sees the middle bourgeoisie as its exploiter; and the middle bourgeoisie, which, in turn, recognizes the big bourgeoisie as its master. It is no coincidence that this conception is expressed in terms of the “People” as opposed to capitalism, a conception that is also common to opportunism. In reality, the boundaries between social classes are not fixed and, above all, cannot be identified in any single person; thus, unlike in pre-capitalist societies where classes were rigid and strictly compartmentalized, in capitalist society classes are “open”, so that individuals can cross class boundaries and move from one class to another at will over the course of their lives. It follows that a factory worker who owns a home is not a proletarian; conversely, an intellectual who writes books for a capitalist publisher, owns nothing, and barely makes ends meet is a proletarian. The labor union organizes both non-proletarian workers and proletarian workers; the unemployed, mostly pure proletarians, are organized alongside “white-collar workers», who are largely non-proletarian, as well as the upper strata of workers, the so-called “labor aristocracy,” and so on.

The working class, as we can see, is not homogeneous. Divided into strata, each with its own interests, it expresses itself through political orientations and organizes itself into parties. While the basis for union aggregating is common to all wage earners, precisely because they are wage earners, the interests that drive the various strata of workers to organize differ; therefore, each political group in which these different interests are expressed strives to gain control of the organization in order to use it as a lever to defend its own interests. This inevitable dialectic is clearly evident in the history of the labor movement, ranging from the earliest workers’ associations composed solely of wage earners to the Anglo-Saxon trade union, which accepted only skilled workers as members; from the “free” trade union up to the triumph of fascism, which brought all workers, whether or not they were affiliated with political parties, under its control; and finally to the fascist trade union, which was coercive and totalitarian. The division of social classes into political parties, therefore, is irrepressible, just as the political division of the working class is inevitable. Contrary to what the “pure syndicalist” approach posits, “politics” is the only means by which the pure proletariat can ensure that the immediate and general interests of the entire wage-earning class prevail within the class organization. Not just any “politics”, but the one and only “politics”, which springs from the revolutionary Marxist program, represented by the class-based political party, the sole instrument through which the proletariat presents itself as a historical class, with defined principles, a preordained strategy, and a solid and coherent organization. On the other hand, we challenge anyone to provide a single example that attests to the union’s neutrality toward political parties and the state. And even the union’s political neutrality would constitute, amid the clash between parties, a particular, distinct “politics”. The current regime-aligned unions are not the product of “politics” in general, but of a specific policy, one commonly expressed by all parties, based on the defense of the capitalist regime.

The second tendency, seemingly opposed to the one described above, maintains that the union is an outdated form that the proletariat must abandon, that economic demands are fleeting, and that everything must be resolved through “politics”. The proponents of this trend do not deny the “reality” of the proletariat’s economic needs, but they argue that these “vulgar” needs must be regarded as a “pretext”, an unpleasant and unsightly “accident”, to be exploited in a Machiavellian manner to “elevate” the wretched workers to the “level” of a higher political vision. A sort of updated politique d’abord with “revolutionary” overtones, which is supposed to make the bourgeoisie tremble before a proletariat so heroic and generous as to fight for an abstract ideal, to which socialism would be reduced. Socialism is instead a material social need through which all other needs, spiritual, cultural and intellectual are satisfied; it is not a sort of sectarian abstraction.

Political education is either revolutionary education or, alternatively, the mundane conditioning of the proletariat to accept the lies that the upper classes use to keep the working class subjugated. Revolutionary education is that which exposes capitalism’s economic and social blackmail aimed at inducing wage earners to make “sacrifices”, that is, to renounce economic and social struggles, the defense of wages that are being devalued, of jobs that are becoming increasingly precarious, and of lives increasingly teetering between being consumed in the factory or being violently cut short on the battlefields of an imperialist war that already looms large. It is nihilistic, that is, petty-bourgeois education, not emanating from our proletarian class, that urges workers to abandon the “vulgar” struggles for bread, wages, work, and housing. This, on the other hand, is the path toward the proletariat’s submission to the regime, which asks nothing more of the workers than to “leave” the concern for their needs in the hands of the unions and the regime’s parties.

The proletariat’s absence, total thus far, from the class struggle does not authorize anyone to advocate replacing “economics” with “politics”, or abandoning class organization in favor of other “political bodies”, perhaps “Soviet-style.” On the contrary, the proletariat’s current state of subjugation to the regime indicates that we must struggle to wrest from the regime the economic initiative of its unions, an initiative that is steadily waning as the capitalist crisis erodes the “reserves” that have thus far kept the working class tied to the present regime.

But in order to adopt this perspective, these two deviations are misleading. The first because it denies the political significance of economic struggles, and the second because it denies the immediate economic interests of the workers.

Communists neither deny nor dismiss the proletariat’s economic struggles as mere pretexts; rather, recognizing that these struggles are necessary, useful, and inescapable, they work within the proletariat to convince it that there are no “conquests” without class struggle, without class organization, and that these “conquests” are nullified by the capitalist regime if the proletariat does not violently overthrow it and establish its class dictatorship on the basis of this victory.

This is the political program that communists bring to the working class and to its struggles for better working conditions and social change.

With these notes, we continue to take stock of the current economic situation. Regarding industrial production indices, for Europe we can rely on Eurostat, which publishes indices for most European countries, with the exception of the United Kingdom. We compared these indices with those from the OECD and found a high degree of compatibility (except in the case of Portugal); consequently, they can reasonably be used. For the United States, we utilized indices provided by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. 

Interesting insights emerge from this data. Let us begin with inflation. The first chart shows inflation curves for the United States, Europe, and China. While the price index in China was bordering on deflation, due to the saturation of the domestic market, inflation remained above 2% in Europe and approached 3% in the United States. However, following the war against Iran waged by American imperialism, a sharp rise in inflation was observed due to the increase in hydrocarbon prices. Consequently, the rate in the United States rose from 2.4% in February to 3.8% in April. In China, inflation jumped from 0.2% in January to 1.3% in February, before holding at 1% in March and 1.2% in April. Inflation remains low due to the crisis of overproduction affecting China.

Let us examine Europe in greater detail using the charts below. What stands out is the high inflation in the United Kingdom, which has remained well above 3% since October 2024; this is a point that will require further analysis.

Another noteworthy fact is that Germany stands out for having an inflation rate higher than that of Italy and, above all, France. This is attributable to the fact that the German bourgeoisie had staked everything on low-cost energy from Russia, thereby placing itself in the hands of Russian imperialism. All European bourgeoisies, at least those of Western Europe, truly believed in lasting peace for Europe following the collapse of the USSR.

Another significant factor is the low inflation rate recorded in France the previous year, partly attributable to the use of nuclear-generated electricity, though inflation rose sharply starting in February due to the surge in hydrocarbon prices. Consequently, inflation climbed from 0.3% in January to 2.2% in April, even though it typically takes at least 42 days for oil to travel from the well to the gas station pump. This explains the astronomical windfall profits reaped by Total, which capitalized on this time lag. However, this practice of anticipating price hikes is common to producers of any commodity; naturally, the longer the time it takes for products to reach the market, the greater the differential profit.

In the United States, the price of gasoline has risen by 65% ​​since January. In a country where public transport is non-existent outside major cities and workers are forced to drive to work, the situation is dire. We are dealing with a system of swindlers that has expanded with the shift to neoliberalism and the abandonment of all state oversight. Fraud has always been a part of bourgeois society, just as that society is based on the exploitation of the proletariat and oppression in general, but in this historical phase, its unscrupulous use has grown out of all proportion.

Let us turn to an analysis of industrial production indices, first and foremost those of the United States, the world’s leading imperialist power, though one closely followed by Chinese imperialism.

After sluggish industrial growth of 0.2% and 0.3% in 2023 and 2024, respectively, there is a sudden shift to 1.1% growth in 2025. Of course, during the «Thirty Glorious Years,» such a «leap» would have seemed meager! Looking at the monthly indices, figures have hovered around 1% since January 2025, with peaks of 1.9% and lows of 0.7%. As is well known, industrial output is driven by hydrocarbon production, with the United States having become the leading producer, as well as by massive investments in AI.

However, if one considers the total growth of industrial production in 2025 relative to the peak reached in 2007, the result is a meager 2.2%, corresponding to an average annual growth rate of 0.12% over 18 years. Hydrocarbon extraction and the AI ​​boom have not, therefore, produced any miracle. Furthermore, looking at manufacturing output, 2023 shows a 7.6% decline compared to 2007; in other words, manufacturing production in 2023 was 7.6% lower than in 2007. The situation in the United States is comparable to that of other established imperialist nations, such as Japan, the UK, Germany, France, and Italy (not to mention Russia), resulting in a relative decline in their share of global industry, which drives the resort to military force to restore hegemony. During the «Thirty Glorious Years,» American hegemony rested primarily on economic, and thus industrial, might; today, however, following its decline, the US is forced to use military force to reassert its dominance over the Americas and the Middle East, thereby laying bare its own weakness. This has not gone unnoticed by its partner and rival, which is quietly awaiting the opportune moment to establish itself as the new master: Chinese imperialism, the new vampire, is poised to replace the old one.

Let us now consider industrial production in European countries. The accompanying table shows that, with the exception of Belgium, which benefited from the dynamic growth of Flanders, all these nations are trailing behind the peak levels reached in 2007. Industrial output in Portugal plummeted by 22% compared to 2007, and by 21.8% in Spain, while Italy recorded a staggering 24.1% decline. The United Kingdom followed a similar trend with a 22.2% drop (these figures refer to 2024; data for 2025 will be provided later in this study). Japan was no exception, posting a 17.8% decline. Germany and France fared better, with drops of 10.5% and 11.6%, respectively. However, we harbor serious doubts regarding the figures for France, given its deindustrialization and the massive offshoring of operations carried out by the French business class since the early 2000s; one would expect to see a decline much closer to that of Italy. To assess this, we will base our analysis on the physical output of key sectors.

Data regarding indebtedness, both public and private, which is colossal, have not been included here.

In conclusion.

For half a century, global capitalism has managed to sustain itself thanks to the development of capitalism in Southeast Asia, particularly in China, and to massive offshoring to countries with low labor costs (such as China, Vietnam, India, and Mexico, as well as Eastern Europe, Turkey, and, to a lesser extent, Morocco and Tunisia). The price paid for this has been a reckless rush toward massive indebtedness, alongside the growing precariousness and impoverishment of the proletariat.

However, capitalism is reaching the end of this cycle and approaching the moment when the entire house of cards will collapse. For nations, rising indebtedness translates into an increasingly burdensome debt-service cost within their budgets and a need for massive debt refinancing on international markets. For instance, the United States will need to borrow $900 billion from the market over the next five months. A time will come when securing such loans becomes increasingly impossible, or comes at exorbitant costs, forcing some nations into default. At that point, it will be a case of «every man for himself.»

At the same time, the relative decline of old imperialist states and the rise of new imperialist powers, foremost among them China, lead to growing instability, which is exacerbated by the crisis of capital. The global crisis of capitalism leads to a proliferation of conflicts and pushes imperialist states, slowly but inexorably, toward a global conflagration.

What lies ahead: a global crisis, featuring deflation and a collapse of financial assets, as in the 1930s, alongside skyrocketing unemployment and a resurgence of class struggle and the communist movement, or a Third World War? For the moment, the prospect of a global crisis akin to those of 1848 or 1929, occurring prior to the outbreak of a third conflict, remains a very real possibility. And this is the best-case scenario for us, for woe betide us should the Third World War break out before the communist movement has been reborn on an international scale.

More than a century has passed since the trumpets of the victorious revolution rang out across Russia. marking the beginning of the proletariat’s great struggle for its own emancipation, waged amidst the ruins of the Russian Empire by the Bolshevik Party at the head of the Soviets. But the horns of victory have long since been transformed, first into the ominous preludes of the Stalinist counter-revolution, then into the melody of the bleak, advertized peaceful coexistence, with Western capital. They now lie silent beside Comrade Lenin’s corpse. Today, in the imperialist war still raging in Ukraine, the Russian state has once again donned the red flag and invoked anti-fascism as a means of driving the proletariat into a bloody massacre; yet this revival has not worked as well as it did in the 20th century. So, what do we Marxists have on our hands in Russia? What are the echoes of the Party’s victory today? If there are any, of course. Let us take stock.

A tribute to the Soviet trade unions

Let’s start with the basics. A country with such a significant history of class struggle must surely have solid proletarian bodies for economic defence, even if they are state-run or have a nationalist slant?

We shall now, therefore, examine the trade unions, Профсоюзы in particular. These are the organisations that Russia is said to have inherited from the dear departed USSR. Our party has repeatedly emphasised the importance of trade unions under bourgeois rule, but the case of Russia deserves special attention. The proletariat in Russia has triumphed; it has seized power! As the proclaimed heir to the USSR, Did Russian workers in the Russian Federation inherit a proletarian or a bourgeois trade union structure? The original purpose of these bodies was described by Lenin in a speech in 1920:

«It follows from what I have said that the trade unions have an extremely important part to play at every step of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But what is their part? I find that it is a most unusual one, as soon as I delve into this question, which is one of the most fundamental theoretically. On the one hand, the trade unions, which take in all industrial workers, are an organisation of the ruling, dominant, governing class, which has now set up a dictatorship and is exercising coercion through the state. But it is not a state organisation [Editor’s Note: Emphasis added]; nor is it one designed for coercion, but for education. It is an organisation designed to draw in and to train; it is, in fact, a school: a school of administration, a school of economic management, a school of communism». (V.I.Lenin, On the Trade Unions, the Present Situation and the Mistakes of Comrade Trotsky, 1920.)

Here we can clearly see the Marxist conception of how trade unions should operate under the dictatorship of the proletariat: “it is not a state organisation; nor is it designed for coercion, but for education”. Later, in a speech in 1921, Lenin quoted the Bolshevik Party’s programme on the trade union question:

«The trade unions being, on the strength of the laws of the Soviet Republic and established practice, participants in all the local and central organs of industrial management, should eventually arrive at a de facto concentration in their hands of the whole administration of the whole national economy, as a single economic entity.

Everyone makes references to this paragraph. What does it say? Something that is absolutely indisputable: “should eventually arrive.” It does not say that they are arriving. It does not contain the exaggeration which, once made, reduces the whole to an absurdity. It says, “should eventually arrive”. Arrive where? At a de facto concentration and administration. When are you due to arrive at this point? This calls for education, and it must be so organised as to teach everyone the art of administration. Now can you say, with a clear conscience, that the trade unions are able to fill any number of executive posts with suitable men at any time? After all, it is not six million, but sixty thousand or, say, a hundred thousand men that you need to fill all the executive posts. Can they nominate this number? No, they cannot—not yet—as anyone will say who is not chasing after formulas and theses and is not misled by the loudest voices. Years of educational work lie ahead for the Party, ranging from the abolition of illiteracy to the whole round of Party work in the trade unions. An enormous amount of work must be done in the trade unions to achieve this properly. This is exactly what it- says: “should eventually arrive at a de facto concentration in their hands of the whole administration of the whole national economy”». (V.I. lenin, Speech closing the discussion delivered at a meeting of the communist group of the congress january 24, 1921)

To summarise: the trade unions, which are the foundation of the proletarian dictatorship, under the Party’s leadership, will act as non-state administrative institutions, whilst moving dialectically towards the coordination of the entire economy with the aim of replacing the exchange of commodities with total planning, thereby avoiding the trap of bureaucratisation. What, then, happened historically? To summarise a very long history of proletarian organisation (a history to which we shall undoubtedly return): the Russian trade unions organised themselves under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party, first as a confederation known as the All-Russian Central Council of Trade Unions (ВЦСПС/VTSPS), and subsequently, from 1923 onwards, as the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions. But what role did the trade unions actually play during the 69 years of the USSR’s existence? The trade unions went from being organs of workers’ control, a ”school of communism”, to bureaucratic instruments of the state. How could this have happened? It occurred in parallel with the degeneration of the Bolshevik Party, and with it the Comintern and the entire communist movement. (For a more comprehensive analysis, see our text Why Is Russia Not Socialist?, published in 1970). During the NEP period, the trade unions operated under the banner of increasing productivity to rebuild a country devastated by war, boosting industrial output and reducing absenteeism in the workplace. These were all harsh, necessary and temporary measures which, as in many other cases, were transformed during Stalin’s era of socialism in one country. What did this mean for the trade unions? Suddenly, the temporary measures became assosaited as socialism; to give an example, let us quote from a book on Soviet history:

«The Communist Party regarded the implementation of a strict austerity regime as one of the sources of socialist accumulation. In April 1926, the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission of the Communist (Bolshevik) Party of the Union issued an appeal, ‘On the Struggle for a Regime of Austerity’, addressed to party organisations, public administrations and all workers, calling for the establishment of a strict regime of austerity in institutions, enterprises and all organisations. This appeal was immediately taken up by the working class and the trade unions. They explained in detail to workers and employees the decisions of the Party’s 14th Congress, the nature and significance of socialist industrialisation, and the need to fight for a strict regime of austerity in order to increase the savings earmarked for industrialisation. The trade unions supported all the measures adopted by the economic bodies aimed at implementing austerity (reduction of the costs of the state and economic apparatus, staff cuts, the merger of small enterprises, etc.).

The trade unions mobilised the working class and all workers in the struggle for austerity, using various forms of mass action. Production meetings played a particularly important role in this regard. They increasingly focused on resolving the fundamental problems of production (its rationalisation, the reduction of industrial production costs, the economising of raw materials and supplies, the reduction of defects and the overall strengthening of work discipline) and began to delve deeper into the process of the technical reorganisation of enterprises». (from ‘History of the Trade Unions in the USSR 1905–1937’)

Socialist accumulation! What a term! We can at least commend this account for its honesty; here we see the truth clearly: the Russian proletariat was persuaded to lay down its arms, in a tragic display of loyalty to the Bolsheviks, unaware of the counter-revolutionary nature of these decisions, thereby aiding the State in its accumulation! (Read: More efficient extraction of surplus value). In 1923, with the official founding of the USSR, the People’s Commissariat for Labour (Narkomtrud) was established. Why is this important? The answer is simple: in 1933, it was dissolved and incorporated into the All-Russian Central Council of Trade Unions, completing the transformation of the trade union federation into a state apparatus.

Firstly, alongside the purges within the party, the All-Russian Central Council of Trade Unions was also subjected to purges: 14 of its 21 members in 1929 were executed. Once total control had been secured, trade union leaders were not appointed directly by the party, but were approved to ensure that the chosen trade union leader would cooperate with the state; they shifted their focus from improving working conditions to promoting Stakhanovism (the idea that workers should push themselves beyond their limits to increase productivity) during the Five-Year Plan period. The trade unions became a tool for monitoring and pacifying the workers. There were no strikes called by these organisations, nor was there any opposition to the state. Trade union officials distributed benefits and consulted workers on the issue of improving working conditions. In reality, the trade unions distributed leisure trips and minor benefits to workers as rewards for productivity. Soviet state officials boasted that 98% of workers in the USSR belonged to these organisations and, although membership had never been imposed by law, it was encouraged and expected. Nothing more than a tool of subjugation – so much for socialism.

And this is the trade union structure that the Russian Federation would have inherited. But the Soviet trade unions were an instrument of increasing accumulation during an era of industrialisation and economic recovery, population growth and a demographic boom, associated with the bloody and primitive accumulation instigated by the Soviet state; these endless extortions could not last forever, and indeed they did not. Just like a stray dog, the bureaucratic apparatus of the trade unions was left in the dust following the collapse of the USSR. In 1991, the All-Russian Central Council of Trade Unions was dissolved, replaced by the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (FNPR) – an ironic name, given the brief history we are about to outline. The only demonstration of independence the FNPR ever gave was during the October coup of 1993, when the trade unions backed parliament in its attempt to impeach Yeltsin, a move which, to put it bluntly, proved counterproductive. Let’s take a look at a report from the time:

«At the government’s insistence, the trade union leader has been replaced.

Yesterday, the Presidium of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia accepted Igor Klochkov’s resignation from the post of chairman. During the crisis in September and October, the federation’s leadership called on workers to defend the Constitution and Parliament, using all possible means “up to and including a strike”. Vasily Romanov has been appointed acting chairman of the Federation of Trade Unions of Russia.

Immediately following the publication of Boris Yeltsin’s Decree No. 1400 of 21 September, the leadership of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (which represents over 18 million people) issued a statement condemning the President’s move and called on workers to defend the constitutional order. This firm stance by the trade union leaders immediately prompted a response from the executive authorities: the telephones in the FNPR building were cut off. 

The trade unions proved to be fairly «reasonable», and on 28 September, at a plenary session of the Federation of Trade Unions, a «softer» statement was adopted, which effectively revoked the initial call for strikes. Nevertheless, even after this decision by the Federation, its chairman, Igor Klochkov, continued to demand the adoption of the «zero option» proposed by the former chairman of the Constitutional Court, Valery Zorkin, which provided for the simultaneous repeal of Boris Yeltsin’s decree and all subsequent resolutions of the Congress. Mr Klochkov did not declare his support for the President’s actions until the morning of 4 October, by which time tanks were already firing on the parliament building. 

According to information from government circles, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Vladimir Shumeiko demanded Klochkov’s immediate resignation. The Federation’s Presidium, having accepted Klochkov’s resignation, appointed Klochkov’s former deputy, Vasily Romanov, to act as chairman on an interim basis until the congress». (Kommersant, Change of leadership of the FNPR, October 9 1993)

Following Yeltsin’s ‘18 Brumaire’, the workers who had been called upon to defend the constitutional order were betrayed by their trade union leaders. Under its new leadership, the FNPR soon adopted the position of social partnership between owners, workers and the state (read: class collaboration), but unlike Western nationalist trade unions, the FNPR does not even pretend to protect workers in any way; even the aforementioned holiday trips, which mimicked socialism in the USSR, have been privatised! Since then, the FNPR has become a bureaucratic tumour attached to the Russian state, achieving nothing for workers except to skim a percentage off their wages, with union leaders chosen in sham elections, much like Russian democracy in general (which is not all that different from Western democracy). No strikes, but state-orchestrated demonstrations; no protection of workers’ rights, but fundraising for the imperialist war effort in Ukraine, and so on. Membership is generally considered compulsory, but is rarely even acknowledged during the course of employment, with many workers reportedly not even aware that they are members of the union! And trade union leaders are merely part of the state, with the entire FNPR apparatus intrinsically linked to the United Russia party. May the remnants of the trade unions established in the Bolshevik era rest in peace. But there is still hope. The material realities of Capital are ever-present, and no number of state bureaucrats can erase the spontaneous drive of workers to protect their own material interests. Following the repeated failures of state-controlled trade unions, during the era of liberal capitalism in Russia in the 2000s, genuine independent trade unions were formed to defend the concrete interests of workers, which we shall discuss in a forthcoming article.