It is not possible to analyze our crisis with a comparison and an analogy with the crisis of the Second International, while the teachings of Lenin and Bordiga must be constantly present to the left communists. These teachers of ours taught us to remain deeply connected with the process of revolutionary struggle, to follow its phases in order to accelerate its course, because only with the most determined effort to extract from the situations the maximum possible mobilization of the masses, is it possible to successfully fight opportunism in our very ranks.

The Third International is dominated, like the whole life of the international proletariat, by the existence of a party of government. From this fact descend, with the nature of the crisis, the prospects of the revolution and the expression that must be given to our Left activity.

Even before the Fifteenth Russian Congress, interclass principles had made progress in the ruling circles of the Bolshevik Party, the Russian State and the International. Having exchanged the principle of individual consumption, as the general principle to evaluate the country’s economy, with that of increase of production at all costs, the new theory on industrialization, on kulaks, on NEP, on the middle peasants, and on the poor peasants was at the same time established. It was no longer the classes that were most capable of leading the economic transformation of Russia towards communism to be considered fundamental to the Soviet regime, but rather the classes that were able to produce more. And the bourgeois and neo-capitalist classes, the best equipped because of their experience, have seriously benefited in order to inflict blows on the proletariat and the poor peasants and to accumulate the wealth that allows them to unify, with economic sabotage of the Soviet government, which has not obtained the greater production that was deceptively expected, the work and direct organization of the counter-revolution!

In the face of this situation there is no shortage of groups claiming that there’s a capitalist government in Russia. Such a claim would have to be substantiated by an analysis which, according to the Communist Manifesto, would prove that the economic organization of Russian society corresponds to that of a bourgeois State. This is fortunately impossible to prove, while the Hungarian and Italian experiences, if we don’t want to refer to the Commune, show that the placid decline of the Soviet regime is unlikely, while for the capitalist class – in the economic phase of imperialism – only the dictatorship without limitations remains. There has been no lack of those who, in connection with the Chinese revolution, have advocated the struggle between the two governments of London and Moscow, the events of December 1927 have shown that the false opportunist political line has cost the lives of Russian comrades who were representatives of the Soviet government towards the supposed Southern allies.

The correct understanding of the Russian situation is indispensable for correctly orienting oneself in these events, characterized by the skillful attempt of international capitalism to win its battle inside Russia as well. After the events of November 1927 and the violent repression against the vanguard movement of the Russian proletariat, it’s clear that capitalism is maneuvering to take advantage of the Soviet economic crisis, in the face of which – because of the economic policy followed – the proletarian class and the peasants have an unfavorable position in comparison with the situation that preceded it when it comes to dealing with capitalism, which threatens to tighten the isolating cordon and the rupture of trade relations if the Soviet government does not yield, moving towards the easing of the monopoly on foreign trade and the recognition of debts. The current phase of the oil wars, the new attack by the conservative government and the Franco- German blockade are clear indications of this capitalist orientation, while the news given and not denied by L’Humanité of the partial recognition of debts to England is extremely worrying.

The left is convinced that in Russia today we are in a transitional phase that is aggravated by the economic crisis; the political line that inspires the Russian state is that of capitulation and defeat, the continuous and violent action against the comrades of the left who are fighting in a terrible situation, does not represent revolutionary success, but facilitates counterrevolutionary success.

These days we read that arrangements for internal democracy in the Russian party are underway; would anyone want to accept a demand of the left?

Either this democracy did not exist when people were expelled from the party or deported because they were demanding that very same democracy, or the real necessity for it is now apparent, and so we must begin by reintegrating those who are still being arrested. But the manifestation of dissent from the Left corresponds to the degree of success achieved by opportunism; when we were still in the field of mistakes, the opposition had to limit its demands to party democracy, which would have facilitated the resolution of the crisis; now that an opportunist political line has become the official line of the International, we need a Left fraction to overcome those strata alien to the revolutionary proletariat that have consolidated in our ranks.

Either this democracy did not exist when people were expelled from the party or deported because they were demanding that very same democracy, or the real necessity for it is now apparent, and so we must begin by reintegrating those who are still being arrested. But the manifestation of dissent from the Left corresponds to the degree of success achieved by opportunism; when we were still in the field of mistakes, the opposition had to limit its demands to party democracy, which would have facilitated the resolution of the crisis; now that an opportunist political line has become the official line of the International, we need a Left fraction to overcome those strata alien to the revolutionary proletariat that have consolidated in our ranks.

Conclusion

The International as the supreme governing body of the struggles of the world proletariat failed its purpose in November 1927, when it officially altered its programs. Today, in spite of the outward centralization, the International presents itself as an aggregate of communist parties, some of which operate in a very serious environment where the revolutionary struggle is imposed on the proletariat.

The 6th World Congress could still favorably solve our crisis, but for that a real internal revolution would be necessary to bring back the Bolsheviks who are deported or imprisoned to their respective command posts. The Left will do what it can in this regard, even though it grounds no prospect of success given the seriousness of our crisis and the political orientation of the leaders of the Communist parties.

Although as an organization of revolutionary struggle the International has failed, the parties that compose it are still the organizations where the proletariat must struggle in order to make itself the leader of the revolution.

The very course of the Russian revolution depends on the success of the revolution in another country, and the crisis of capitalism is such that all is not lost, even of Soviet Russia if the proletariat succeeds in winning its revolutionary battle.