Il Soviet 1920/15

Note: This article was first published in English as the third part of a collection of three articles, collectively entited Three Texts of the Italian Left on Anarchism, and includes Socialism and Anarchy and Socialists and Anarchists.

1992 English Introduction

The last text presented here defends the Bolsheviks’ policies against their contemporary anarchist critics. It’s clear from the summaries of anarchist arguments in the article just how little the types of accusations hurled against the party of Lenin and Trotsky have changed in the last seventy years: the idea that the Bolsheviks were duplicitous in their statements about the soviets seems an “invariant” characteristic of anarchism. The article shows why there is no contradiction in marxist theory between the affirmations “all power to the soviets” and “rule by the communist party”. Anarchists consistently fail to comprehend that, had the Russian communists leading the proletariat not seized power, and resolved to hold on to it until assistance came from new revolutionary communist states in the industrialized lands, there could only have been one result: an ignominious death for the soviets. Those who admire the programme of the Kronstadt rebels or the Makhnovists so much should realise that “free Soviets’’, that is, a working class and peasantry not led by the communist party; would have inevitably made the soviets into a playground for various bourgeois tendencies which had not the slightest interest in world revolution – and the latter was the only possible opening to the development of a genuinely communist society and economy in Russia (and everywhere else: for that matter).

“For as, October was socialist. But in the absence of a military victory of the counter-revolution, two possibilities, not one, remained open: either the apparatus of power (the state and the party) would degenerate from within and adapt itself to the administration of capitalist forms who openly renouncing its wait for the world revolution (this is what actually happened); or the marxist party would maintain itself in power for a long period; devoting itself expressly to supporting the revolutionary proletarian struggle in aIl foreign countries and declaring with the same courage as Lenin that the social forms remained largely capitalist (and even pre-capitalist in Russia)” (“Forty years of organic evaluation of the Russian events in the dramatic international, historical and social development”, Il Programma Comunista, N. 21/1957).

It was the second possibility that the communist left of Italy struggled to realise from within the International until 1926.

Finally, it should be pointed out that the “undersigned” mentioned at the end of this text was Amadeo Bordiga. This is only by way of explanation, not because its necessary to establish the proprietary rights of authors to their texts. The writings of the communist left are distinguished by the continuity in the arguments they employ, not by the mark of this or that specific author.

Bolshevism Defamed by the Anarchists

The readers will recall how a sharp polemic has begun between us and the “’Avvenire Anarchico” of Pisa, a journal which seems totally dedicated to the denigration of communism and of the Russian communist comrades.

The assertions of the little paper in question – as far as one can be reconstructed from its epileptic prose, crammed with a simulacrum of documentation – consist in the stupid insinuation that the Russian Bolsheviks were, up to the revolution of October 1917 and even afterwards, stubborn social-democrats and that only the force of events and revolutionary pressure of the masses has induced them to transform themselves into upholders of soviet power, channelling into an authoritarian path for their own purposes the spontaneous formation of the Soviets, libertarian organs of the masses.

The absurdity of such a thesis is so obvious that it isn’t even necessary to hesitate to refute it.

The masses were supposed to have drawn the Bolsheviks from the terrain of social-democracy to that of soviet power – “while the Bolsheviks were still for the Constituent Assembly, the workers demonstrated united by the cry: power to the Soviets!” – and thus the Bolsheviks were supposed to be transformed dextrously into communists; but then the same masses: anarchist by definition, weren’t able to prevent the Bolsheviks from imposing their devilishly “statist” programme on them.

But leaving aside the very obvious contradiction existing in the plot of this novelette, we claim for the Russian communist party the entire merit of having responded marvellously to its task of vanguard of the revolutionary proletariat, foreseeing and tracing the paths af the revolution, and bringing the propaganda of the postulates that this had to realise among the masses which weren’t yet aware af them.

It’s asserted that the Bolsheviks, that same Lenin, in their programme of 1905 and 1915 were for the democratic constituent assembly, this is in part true. But while waiting to be able to devote greater study, and above aIl greater space, to the argument, there is a position to make clear in a general way.

The Russian Bolsheviks, in the front line among the marxist and radical left of the international socialist movement before the war, have always thought and argued that the revolution of the proletariat against capitalism could have no other aspect than that of the armed struggle for the conquest of power, by denying that parliamentarism could serve as a road to proletarian power and by supporting Marx’s statement that in the period of passage from capitalism to communism political power could have no other form than that of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

This thesis being quite clear, another and quite different question was presented to the Russian comrades.

How could the passage from the feudal regime, still in force in Russia: to communism appear? Would a period of capitalist democracy have to come between the fall of Czarism and the victory of the proletariat?

Without going into details, until the European war the Bolsheviks held such a period to be inevitable, while arguing that during it their movement would’ve continued an intransigent work of propaganda for the conquest of power by the proletariat, for the second revolution.

But already during the first years of the war the conviction grew in the Bolsheviks that the Russian revolutionary process could speed up, if the armies of the Czar were defeated, and they maintained it was necessary to provoke such a denouement, thus putting themselves in disagreement with the majority at Kienthal.

As soon as the first revolution broke out in February 1917 the Bolshevik leaders returned to Russia, the forces of their party increased, and the struggle began. We’ll show that right from the first moment the programme of this struggle – omitted any distinction between maximum and minimum programme – was the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The different phases of the struggle and the different situations which presented themselves required different tactical measures, and its known that we in a certain sense disagree with certain tactical solutions, like that of participation in the elections for the Constituent Assembly.

We don’t hope that the anarchists can understand the relationship between programme and tactics. The programme represents the objective to realise, the opposing position to assail – tactics deduces, in a certain moment, from the proportion of one’s own forces to those of the adversary, the possibility of launching the attack, of waiting, or of making simple shows of force. If tactical considerations should lead to changing the final objective, to amending the programme, then certainly it would fall into error, and into reformist betrayal.

But if it affirms at every moment that this is without doubt the moment of onslaught it’s mistaken and betrays even the identical result; of leaving to the adversary the position that it holds.

What Lenin’s programme was from his arrival in Russia we documented precisely with the publication in no, 6 of “I1 Soviet”, of the Theses presented by him at the conclusion of a speech given by him at on the 16^th April 1917 in Petrograd. The 5^th thesis is explicit:
     “Not a parliamentary republic – a return to this from the Workers’ would be a step backwards – but a republic of workers’ and peasants’ councils in the whole country and from top to bottom”.

On the 23-4-1917 Lenin repeats his exposition to the Bolshevik Congress. In point 11 of his programmatic discourse he affirms that the Soviets of Workers, Peasants and Soldiers are the new type of State, but that they don’t yet have the consciousness of it.

The conclusions of Lenin – says a note to the Russian edition of the speech, which could have been printed only weeks afterward – were approved by the majority of the congress, with the exception of the one point relating to the separation from Zimmerwald (see the 10^th of the aforesaid theses).

A speech given by Zinoviev after the attempt on Lenin’s life, and published in instalments by “La Vie Ouvriere” affirms that from the first moment of the revolution Lenin had the unshakeable persuasion that its outlet would be the coming to power of the Russian proletariat. He immediately saw in the Soviets the organs of the new power, on condition that the communists would succeed in conquering the majority of them. But when in a certain epoch it seemed that even in the Soviets social-democratic opportunism had taken a definitive position, Lenin didn’t hesitate to give the watchword: to power even without the Soviets. Anything but libertarian legends.

In July 1917 the onrush of the masses led Lenin and the Bolshevik Central Committee to anticipate the eventuality of unleashing the final attack.

But the conditions were not yet mature, and it was decided to wait.

All of the later tactical and polemical play against the policy of Kerensky’s government and in regard to the convocation of the Constituent Assembly didn’t impair the guiding programmatic line tending towards the final struggle for the proletarian dictatorship.

In an article by Lenin of September 1917, dedicated to supporting the thesis “all power to the Soviets” he wrote: “Two paths can be foreseen for the Soviets – either let them die by ignominious death, or give all power to the Soviets – this I proclaimed before the Pan-Russian Congress of Soviets in June 1917”.

Further on Lenin makes it clear that the formula: power to the Soviets, doesn’t mean the formation of a Ministry among the parties of the majority of the Soviets, rather it implies the destruction of the old bureaucratic, military and parliamentary apparatus of the State, the carrying out of the communists’ political programme.

The stupid thesis of “Avvenire Anarchico” rests – very weakly – only on the text of a Bolshevik programme whose source is Guilbeaux’s review “Demain”. We’ll speak of the authenticity of this text another time.

No more acceptable is the speculation of some letters written by Sadoul in the moments of the November struggle, whose very manner shows how the author hadn’t then digested the Bolshevik programme or understood the situation. He declares that he’d only made the acquaintance of Lenin and Trotski to whom he attributes obviously fantastic opinions and declarations, speaking of the formation of a Ministry in eventual collaboration with the Mensheviks! While precisely the 26^th October – 7^th November the Council of Commissars of the People was nominated by the Soviet Congress. Trotski in his noted pamphlet (No. 2 of the documents of “Avanti!”, p. 56) says: “The C.C. of our party made the attempt to come to an agreement with the Left Social-Revolutionaries.., while the Mensheviks and Right S.R.s had broken any connection with the Congress of Soviets, because they thought a coalition of anti-soviet parties was necessary”.

The lies of A.A. therefore don’t ring any truer even with the aid of… the clangers of Sadoul.

In any case from the elements expounded, and from many others previously devoted to the question, it becomes clear what is the significance of the historical development of the Russian revolution and of the task, in it, of the Bolsheviks, who were precisely the opposite of what the anarchists say, and even of what is said by some others, who believe more in the revolutionary efficiency of the soviet form than in that of the work of propaganda and struggle carried out by the communist party.

To put matters in a prosaic form, it’s certain that the Bolsheviks wanted all power to go to the Soviets, when the Soviets themselves, being in the majority Menshevik and counter-revolutionary, wanted nothing to do with taking it.

Not even the tall story of the local and libertarian action of the Soviets against the central state power can hold water. The Soviets, in the first period, made an article of faith of the democratic regime and of the parliamentary state, exactly because they were dominated by the Mensheviks and S.R.s.

The work of the anarchists can be seen even more in certain forms of local expropriation brought about in revolutionary moments, and which, as we’ve said many times, not only don’t open the true process of realisation of communism, but were a source of initial obstacles to it.

In an article in “Comunismo” the statistics of the increase of Bolshevik mandates in the Soviet central organs have appeared. These statistics are the true diagram of the revolution, as the communist political party is the true historical precursor of the revolution.

It doesn’t have the anarchists on the extreme left, as “Avvenire” yells. It only, sometimes, finds them under its feet – see, among other things, the true story of the famous Makhno, in No. 43 of “Ordine Nuovo”.

What remains of all the anecdotes of the anarchist sheet? The stupid pretence of showing that authoritarian and statist communism is not in direct line of descent from classical marxism, but has been improvised by the Bolsheviks to exploit the Soviet revolution.

We libertarians – they cry – are the true communists!

Old Engels remarked justly; if you discuss with the anarchists, first agree on the meaning of words. As it’s changed several times, and as today a return is made to the words and polemical positions of the classical debate between marxists and anarchists, a passage of their own Bakunin can demonstrate it to those of A.A. (see “Cronaca Sovversiva”, 20^th March).
    “Here they separate principally into revolutionary socialists (sic) and authoritarian communists…”
     “…the communists imagine they’ll reach it with the development and with the organisation of the political power of the working classes, while the revolutionaries think to the contrary that such an end can only arrive at with the development not of he political but of the social, and in consequence (the consequence lies wholly in the consciousness of papa Bakunin) antipolitical power of the masses”.

So isn’t it obvious that the columnist specialising in anti-Bolshevism spreads them on too thick?

And now for a personal coda. The bilious writer of A.A. boasts of having contradicted in 1915 in the Vicaria circle in Naples the undersigned who was supporting parliamentarism. Go on! The undersigned then fought the nascent anarcho-syndicaIism middle, by defending proletarian political action and explaining to the contradictors how political doesn’t only mean electoral action but signifies for marxists revolutionary conflict between the classes for the coming to power of the proletariat, driven on and led by a class party. It would be silly to close here by showing with citations that the undersigned has always negated the parliamentary conquest of power.

The marxist left has never believed in this. It has allowed for the tactical utilisation of parliamentary activity, which some of ours support even in this historical period. But the fulcrum of the marxist programme has always been the “proletarian dictatorship” – the historical key to the revolutionary problem, which burns the fingers of the semi-bourgeois followers of legalitarian reformism or of anarchist hysteria, closer in kin than they think and wish or than they – sometimes – have reason to hide.

I think that A.A. has served its purpose.

“Avanti” issue 16 summarily reports a resolution adopted by the Moscow Executive Committee of the Communist International whose importance is easy to see, even through the incongruities of the article.

The Moscow Committee, after having discussed a few controversial points of the tactics of communists, has decided, taking a position on this issue, to cancel the term of office formed a few months ago in Amsterdam for Western Europe and America. The reason for that was that this office defends all those positions opposed to that of the Committee.

The fundamental criterion for centralization of revolutionary action certainly allows the central organ of the International, in the interval separating the regular international Congresses, to decide the direction that must be followed in action. However, the Executive Committee itself, while charging Zinoviev, Radek, and Bukharin to prepare theses which contain its point of view on controversial issues, postpones the final decision to the next International Communist Congress, which promises a really extraordinary importance.

It is however interesting to establish clearly – at least when it is possible on the basis of information and communications which we have – the terms of the controversy, because it is foreseeable that Moscow’s resolution will be exploited for justifying equivocal and possibilist electoralism that the Italian Socialist Party practices in the shadow of the Soviet flag.

The issues that have led to the intervention of the Moscow comrades reflect in substance the position of the opposing tendencies of the communist movement in Germany.

It is to them that we must therefore refer to understand Moscow’s resolution, according to which communists must not renounce using parliamentary weapons nor conquering the economic organizations that, today, are in the hands of the social democrats.

It is precisely the position of the German tendencies that has put on the same level these two issues of a different nature and weight.

This is what we recalled in an another article published in issue 11 of “Il Soviet” entitled “The German Communist Party”.

On the same subject, there exists an article by a comrade from the German opposition published in an Amsterdam column, and reproduced in issue 43 (year 1) of “L’Ordine Nuovo” and an article by Boris Souvarine in issue 1, year 2, of the same newspaper. In addition, “Avanti”, in the issue cited above, announced that the German opposition formed in the Communist Workers’ Party of Germany, independent of the Communist Party which, in its conference in Heidelberg in 1919, expelled the minority from its fold.

So remember the point of view of these two tendencies, or rather these two parties, not without having added that the tendencies of the German movement are, in reality, much larger, and that it would be very difficult, for someone who is not in the same movement, to define with precision.

The opposition hurls accusations of hesitation and weakness against the Central Party that are not really unjustified. In the latest issues, we have dealt with the attitude of communists during the recent attempted military coup, and we have also reported severe criticisms of Bela Kun’s attitude toward the leadership with regard to the Independents. The accusation of connivance with the Independents, stated by the opposition, consequently appears to be plausible. As for the accusation of lack of revolutionary fervor, we have many reservations, for it is often proffered by impatient people that have a very simplistic idea of revolution that brings them to continually protest against the leaders who would delay. In this case, however, it seems the leadership of the KPD was not up to the job of the events.

When we turn to the examination of the programme and the directives, we have to consider contrariwise how well-founded the reproach of syndicalist heterodoxy is made to the opposition.

It is in reality moving further from sound Marxist conceptions and follows a utopian and petty-bourgeois method.

The political party, says the opposition, does not have preponderant importance to the revolutionary struggle. It has to be developed on the economic field without centralized leadership.

There must arise, against the old unions fallen into the hands of the opportunists, new organizations, based on factory councils. It is enough that the workers act in this new type of organization for their action to be communist and revolutionary.

This tendency’s electoral abstentionism comes from the fact that it refuses any importance to political action and the party in general, that is to say the negation of the political party as an instrument central to the revolutionary struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat; this abstentionism is bound up with a syndicalist critique – for which action would have to be concentrated on the economic field – and a libertarian critique – which brings up the usual horror of “leaders”.

We will not repeat our criticisms of these conceptions that are a little like those of Turin’s “Ordine Nuovo”.

Proof that such conceptions are the result of a petty-bourgeois degeneration of Marxism is given by the fact that they have given rise to the famous “national bolshevism” of Laufenberg and Wolffheim, according to which it envisages an alliance between the revolutionary proletariat and the militarist bourgeoisie for… a holy war against the Entente. This strange conception is so pathological that it does not merit for an instant a longer critique.

It is true that this absurd idea of “national bolshevism” is encountering resistance within the opposition.

We have explained in the article mentioned that we adhere to the theses from the leadership of the Communist Party of Germany which timely condemns all these deviations and reaffirms the political character of the communist Revolution, the importance of the task of the class party, and the necessity of fighting off syndicalism and all federalism. However, we remain in disagreement on the parliamentary question.

Our abstentionism – we repeat – derives precisely from the great importance that we place on the political task that falls to the Communist Party in the present historical period: insurrectionary conquest of political power, establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the soviet system.

As the bigger obstacle to this struggle are the traditions and the parties of the bourgeois democracy and the ramifications that it connects to the working masses through “2nd International”-type socialism, we affirm that it is indispensable to break off all contact between the revolutionary movement and the bourgeois representative organs and that it is necessary to separate ourselves from the putrefying corpse of parliamentary democracy.

So what is the meaning of the resolutions of the Executive Committee of the 3rd International?

They denounce, with reason, the directives to boycott present unions in order to give birth to new economic organizations. By its nature, the economic union is always a proletarian organization, and it can and must be penetrated by communist propaganda in the direction very well indicated by Zinoviev’s circular note on communist action in the unions.

Of course, in some cases, the reformist leaders’ corruption can reach such a degree and take such a form that it becomes necessary to abandon such a totally rotten corpse to itself.

Moscow has condemned this pretension to consider as a revolutionary method the constitution ex novo of other economic organs like the industrial unions, the factory councils (Turin), the Shop Stewards (England), in affirming to have resolved the problem of leading the proletariat to communism, an error reminiscent of the syndicalists (surviving in the organs that want to adhere to Moscow, like the I.W.W. of America, the Spanish C.N.T., and the Italian Syndicalist Union). On the other hand, it claimed the revolutionary function of political action of the “Marxist, strong, centralized” party as said by Lenin, who said the proletarian revolution is, in the acute phase, less a process of economic transformation than a struggle for power between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, which culminates in the constitution of a new form of state conditioned on the existence of proletarian councils as political organs of the class and on the predominance of the communist party in these councils.

Secondly, the Moscow Committee has condemned electoral abstentionism. In this regard, it is necessary to make a clear distinction. Abstentionism derived from the errors of conception indicated above – and that is above all an apoliticism called to fall back into the arms of its twin: laborist and reformist apoliticism – leans on false premises.

But abstentionism supported on the grounds of Marxist doctrine, that we defend as well as other currents in the International, has nothing to do with the previous and demands its own place, and even orthodoxy, in the Communist International. It will be supported in the International Congress, possibly against the theses of the Moscow Committee, with the arguments that have been fully developed in our newspaper and in our other foreign communist newspapers.

Our fraction’s C.C. has received in Florence the charge to establish closer links between the currents, the newspapers, and the militants of this tendency, and it is putting itself to work in this direction.

As for the disavowal of the Amsterdam Office, entrusted to excellent comrades whose activity we have often commented on, we can advance no judgement. It does not seem accurate to say the opinions of this office and of the conference are in all points opposed to those of Moscow. The respective theses (see “Comunismo” issue 13 and “L’Ordine Nuovo” issue 43) demonstrate it.

The theses on syndicalism contradict themselves somewhat (maybe it is the result of a hasty collaboration), but from point 12 on, they are correctly attached to condemn neo-syndicalism.

On one point, the Amsterdam resolution is unacceptable: it acted to admit the factory councils to the International. It is evident that the International is a political organ and can only understand political parties. The economic organs will be able to form the Union International, which is already on the way to being built, and which will adhere and will submit to the politics of the International.

However, we would not want that Amsterdam is condemned for its just attitude, energetic and intransigent, towards opportunists, independents, and reconstructors. We do not believe that Moscow abandons its positions of fierce criticism against the renegades of Kautsky’s kind. But we will deal with these delicate points when we get better information.

A last consideration. Moscow’s decision and theses that follow may well be opposed to our tendency’s positions, hostile in general to any use of bourgeois democracy. But they may, in no way, be invoked to justify Italian electoralist maximalism, shaky in doctrine, and equivocal in practice since the collaboration with Nitti.

As we have stated many times, Italian electoralism is not practiced by communists, but by a conglomeration of communists (at least nominally) and social democrats. That is why it is worse than openly reformist and legalitarian parliamentarism, practiced by those that, in other countries, are out of the Moscow International and are against it, are condemning revolutionary action and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Penetration in parliament and in the towns are carried out here by means of extremist demagogues, but with a character and a content that resembles, not their revolutionary negation, but reformist routine.

As for the P.S.I., they are not in line with Moscow. We hunt the slanderers of Soviet Russia and those who speculate on “electoral bolshevism”, and we will finally have the right to debate the big questions of principle and of communist tactics!

It is on this terrain that, moving to abandon the old party, our current, small but resolute, wants a place to finally be able to have its say on vital issues of the communist International.

La Rote Fahne di Vienna, n. 278 (13 aprile) pubblicò quanto segue:

   “I due compagni Della Seta e Vella hanno dichiarato, che la frazione socialista in Parlamento lotta instancabilmente (!!! sic) contro il terrore bianco ungherese, ed ha ottenuto che il Governo italiano favorisse il loro viaggio. Interrogati come stessero le cose in rapporto all’intromissione del Governo italiano contro il rilascio dei comunisti ungheresi internati in Austria, i due compagni dichiararono quanto segue: – Appena ricevuto il telegramma, in cui il Partito comunista austriaco dava notizia del passo del Governo italiano, i compagni italiani (quali?) si recarono da Nitti per domandare schiarimenti. In seguito a tutte le trattative corse, i compagni italiani (Della Seta e Vella) possono stabilire, che in realtà da Roma non fu fatto alcun passo contro la liberazione dei compagni ungheresi. I compagni lavorano alacremente a chiarire le circostanze, a cercare i responsabili di tutto questo intrigo. Essi sono convinti, che se qualche funzionario italiano ha agito di propria iniziativa, sarà immediatamente (infatti! …) chiamato a render ragione. La verità, che forse può arrecare sorprese, non si farà certamente aspettare a lungo” (infatti, infatti …).

   Da tutto ciò risulta:

    1)  che non era infondata l’affermazione dell’Az Est, da noi riferita nel numero scorso, che Della Seta e Vella fossero andati in Ungheria “per conto del Governo italiano” una volta che avevano ottenuto (e quindi chiesto) l’appoggio del Governo stesso per la loro missione;

 2)  che tale figura di rappresentanti ufficiali o almeno ufficiosi, del patrio Governo, dei due missionari doveva apparire tanto più certa, in quantoché ancora a Vienna, prima di giungere in Ungheria, si erano fatti pubblicamente mallevadori della “innocenza” del Governo [testo illeggibile] nell’affare del mancato rilascio dei compagni comunisti ungheresi;

    3)  che è stato possibile che al Partito sia stata denunziata la condotta dei rappresentanti  ufficiali dell’Italia a Vienna; opponenti il veto al rilascio dei compagni ungheresi, e che “compagni italiani” (certo i due missionari stessi o altre personalità rappresentative del Partito) si siano recati da Nitti per “chiedere schiarimenti”, si siano lasciati … persuadere da Nitti (quel veritiero uomo delle spedizioni di cannoni a Kolciak sotto titolo di “arnesi da cucina”, delle denegazioni sulle spedizioni d’armi in Polonia già accertate da documenti ufficiali, ecc.) ch’egli era puro e vergine come una colomba a tal punto da accettare di coprirne la responsabilità di fronte ai compagni austriaci e tutto ciò senza che di questo “intrigo ungherese” a ramificazioni italiche sia mai comparsa una sillaba sull’organo del Partito, il quale evidentemente fa progressi sulla via della maturità politica, avendo anche imparato la “diplomazia segreta”;

   4) che dopo essersi impegnati coi compagni austriaci a ottenere la punizione del … Battirelli viennese, i due missionari non hanno fatto niente di tutto ciò, a quanto almeno noi, volgo escluso dalle segrete cose del Partito, possiamo sapere;

   5) che da tutto ciò risulta evidente come, mentre alla Camera il gruppo parlamentare ostentava la più feroce opposizione a Nitti, in realtà lo appoggiava nella maniera più decisa con la innegabile complicità della direzione e dell’organo del Partito, nascondendone le “marachelle” al proletariato italiano, cui non sarebbe facile dare a bere queste cose, e giustificandolo di fronte al proletariato internazionale che non conosce le cose e gli uomini di casa nostra.

   Così si spiegano gli atteggiamenti di Ciccotti e C. Così si spiega come la Direzione del Partito non possa prendere alcun provvedimento contro il recalcitrante e imperterrito collaborazionismo opportunista della maggioranza del gruppo parlamentare. E così viene quotidianamente sabotato lo splendido slancio rivoluzionario del proletariato italiano.