V. I. Lenin

Our wireless stations intercept messages from
Carnarvon (Britain), Paris and other European centres. Today Paris
is the centre of the world imperialist alliance and its wireless
messages are therefore often of particular interest. A few days
ago, on September 13, the government wireless station in this
centre of world imperialism reported the publication of a new
anti-Bolshevik book by Karl Kautsky, the well-known renegade and
leader of the Second International.

The millionaires and multimillionaires would not use their
government wireless station for nothing. They considered it
necessary to publicise Kautsky’s new crusade. In their attempt to stem the advancing tide of Bolshevism they have to
grasp at everything—even at a straw, even at Kautsky’s book. Our heartfelt thanks to the French millionaires for helping
Bolshevik propaganda so splendidly, for helping us by making a
laughing-stock of Kautsky’s philistine anti-Bolshevism.

Today, September 18, I received the September 7 issue of Vorwärts ,
the newspaper of the German social-chauvinists, the murderers of
Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg. It has an article by Friedrich
Stampfer on Kautsky’s new book ( Terrorism and Communism ) and cites a number of passages from it. [1] When we compare Stampfer’s
article and the Paris wireless message we see that the latter is
in all probability based on the former. Kautsky’s book is
extolled by the Scheidemanns and Noskes , the bodyguards of the German bourgeoisie and murderers of the
German Communists, by those who have joined the imperialists of
the Entente in fighting international communism. A highly edifying
spectacle! And when I called Kautsky a lackey of the bourgeoisie
(in my book The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky ), our
Mensheviks, those typical representatives of the Berne (yellow) International , could not find words strong enough to
express their indignation.

But it is a fact, gentlemen, despite all your indignation. The
Scheidemanns of Vorwärts and the Entente millionaires are certainly not in collusion with me when they
praise Kautsky and hold him up as a weapon in the struggle against
world Bolshevism. In relation to the bourgeoisie
Kautsky—even if he did not realise and did not wish it—has proved to be exactly what I described him to be.

Some of the more “thunderous” of his accusations against the Bolsheviks will show how far he has gone in his
apostasy from socialism and the revolution, apostasy that hides
behind the name of Marxism.

“Kautsky describes in detail,” Stampfer writes, “how the Bolsheviks always, in the end, arrive at the very
opposite of their avowed aims: they were opposed to the death
sentence, but are now resorting to mass shootings. . . .”

First, it is a downright lie to say that the Bolsheviks were
opposed to the death sentence in time of revolution. At the
Party’s Second Congress in 1903, when Bolshevism first emerged, it was suggested that abolition of the death sentence be
made one of the demands in the Party programme then being drawn
up, but the minutes record that this only gave rise to the
sarcastic question: “For Nicholas II too?” Even the
Mensheviks, in 1903, did not venture to call for a vote on the
proposal to abolish the death sentence for the tsar. And in 1917,
at the time of the Kerensky government, I wrote in Pravda
that no revolutionary government could dispense with the death
sentence; the question was against which class a particular government would use it. Kautsky has so far forgotten
how to think in terms of revolution and is so steeped in
philistine opportunism that he cannot visualise a proletarian
revolutionary party openly acknowledging, long before its victory,
the need for capital punishment in relation to counter-revolutionaries. “Honest” Kautsky, being an
honest man and an honest opportunist, quite unashamedly writes
untruths about his opponents.

Secondly, anyone with the least understanding of revolution
will realise that here we are not discussing revolution in
general, but a revolution that is developing out of the great
imperialist slaughter of the peoples. Can one conceive of a
proletarian revolution that develops from such a war being free of
counter-revolutionary conspiracies and attacks by hundreds of
thousands of officers belonging to the landowner and capitalist
classes? Can one conceive of a working-class revolutionary party
that would not make death the penalty for such attacks in the
midst of an extremely cruel civil war, with the bourgeoisie
conspiring to bring in foreign troops in an attempt to overthrow
workers’ government? Everyone, save hopeless and ludicrous
pedants, must give a negative answer to these questions. But
Kautsky is no longer able to see issues in their concrete
historical setting in the way he formerly did.

Thirdly. If Kautsky is no longer capable of analysis and writes
lies about the Bolsheviks, if he cannot think, or even present the
problem of distinctive features of a revolution arising out of
four years of war—he could at least take a closer look at
what is going on around him. What is proved by the assassination
of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg by army officers in the
democratic republic of Germany? What is proved by the escape from
prison of these officers, who were given preposterously lenient
sentences? Herr Kautsky and his whole “independent” party (independent of the proletariat but very much dependent on
petty-bourgeois prejudices) evade these issues and resort to
snivelling condemnation and philistine lamentations. That is
precisely why more and more revolutionary workers the world over
are turning away from the Kautskys, Longuets, MacDonalds and
Turatis and joining the Communists, for the revolutionary
proletariat needs victory over counter-revolution, not impotent “condemnation” of it.

Fourthly. The question of “terrorism” is, apparently, basic to Kautsky’s book. That is evident from
the title, also from Stampfer’s remark that “Kautsky is doubtlessly right in asserting that the fundamental principle
of the Commune was not terrorism, but universal suffrage”. In my Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky I cited ample evidence to show that all this talk of
a “fundamental principle” is a sheer travesty of
Marxism. My purpose here is a different one. To show what
Kautsky’s disquisitions on the subject of “terrorism” are worth, whom, which class ,
they serve , I shall cite in full a short article by a liberal writer. It is a letter to The New Republic (June 25, 1919), a liberal American journal which,
generally speaking, expresses the petty-bourgeois viewpoint. However, it is preferable to Kautsky’s in not
presenting that viewpoint either as revolutionary socialism or
Marxism.

This is the full text of the letter:

MANNERHEIM AND KOLCHAK

Sir: The Allied governments have refused to recognise the Soviet Government of Russia because, as they state:

1.; The Soviet Government is—or was—pro-German.

2.; The Soviet Government is based on terrorism.

3.; The Soviet Government is undemocratic and unrepresentative of the Russian people.

Meanwhile the Allied governments have long since recognised the
present whiteguard Government of Finland under the dictatorship
of General Mannerheim, although it appears:

1.; That German troops aided the whiteguards in crushing the
Socialist Republic of Finland, and that General Mannerheim
sent repeated telegrams of sympathy and esteem to the
Kaiser. Meanwhile the Soviet Government was busily undermining the German Government with propaganda among
troops on the Russian front. The Finnish Government was
infinitely more pro-German than the Russian.

2.; That the present Government of Finland on coming into power
executed in cold blood within a few days’ time 16,700 members of the old Socialist Republic, and imprisoned in
starvation camps 70,000 more. Meanwhile the total executions
in Russia for the year ended November 1, 1918, were officially stated to have been 3,800, including many corrupt
Soviet of officials as well as counter-revolutionists. The
Finnish Government was infinitely more terroristic than the
Russian.

3.; That after killing and imprisoning nearly 90,000 socialists,
and driving some 50,000 more over the border into
Russia—and Finland is a small country with an electorate of only about 400,000—the white guard
government deemed it sufficiently safe to hold elections. In
spite of all precautions, a majority of socialists were
elected, but General Mannerheim, like the Allies after the
Vladivostok elections, allowed not one of them to be seated. Meanwhile the Soviet Government had disenfranchised
all those who do no useful work for a living. The Finnish
Government was considerably less democratic than the
Russian.

And much the same story might be rehearsed in respect to that
great champion of democracy and the new order, Admiral Kolchak
of Omsk, whom the Allied governments have supported, supplied
and equipped, and are now on the point of officially recognising.

Thus every argument that the Allies have urged against the
recognition of the Soviets, can be applied with more strength
and honesty against Mannerheim and Kolchak. Yet the latter are
recognised, and the blockade draws ever tighter about starving
Russia.

Stuart Chase

Washington, D.C.

This letter written by a bourgeois liberal, effectively exposes
all the vileness of the Kautskys, Martovs, Chernovs, Brantings
and other heroes of the Berne yellow International and their
betrayal of socialism.

For, first, Kautsky and all these heroes lie about Soviet
Russia on the question of terrorism and democracy. Secondly, they
do not assess developments from the standpoint of the class
struggle as it is actually developing on a world scale and in the
sharpest possible form, but from the standpoint of a petty-bourgeois, philistine longing for what might have been if
there had been no close link between bourgeois democracy and
capitalism, if there were no whiteguards in the world, if they had
not been supported by the world bourgeoisie, and so on and so
forth. Thirdly, a comparison of this American letter with the
writings of Kautsky and Co. will clearly show that Kautsky’s
objective role is servility to the bourgeoisie.

The world bourgeoisie supports the Mannerheims and Kolchaks in
an attempt to stifle Soviet power, alleging that it is terrorist
and undemocratic. Such are the facts. And Kautsky, Martov, Chernov
and Co. are only singing songs about terrorism and democracy in
chorus with the bourgeoisie, for the world bourgeoisie is singing
this song to deceive the workers and strangle the workers’
revolution. The personal honesty of “socialists” who sing the same song “sincerely”, i.e., because they are
extremely dull-witted, does not in any way alter the objective
role played by the song. The “honest opportunists”, the Kautskys, Martovs, Longuets and Co., have become
“honest” (in their unprecedented spinelessness)
counter-revolutionaries.

Such are the facts.

An American liberal realises—not because he is theoretically equipped to do so, but simply because he is an
attentive observer of developments in a sufficiently broad light,
on a world scale—that the world bourgeoisie has organised
and is waging a civil war against the revolutionary proletariat and, accordingly, is supporting Kolchak and Denikin in Russia,
Mannerheim in Finland, the Georgian Mensheviks, those lackeys of
the bourgeoisie, in the Caucasus, the Polish imperialists and
Polish Kerenskys in Poland, the Scheidemanns in Germany, the
counter-revolutionaries (Mensheviks and capitalists) in Hungary,
etc., etc.

But Kautsky, like the inveterate reactionary philistine he is,
continues snivelling about the fears and horrors of civil war! All
semblance of revolutionary understanding, and all semblance of
historical realism (for it is high time the inevitability of
imperialist war being turned into civil war were realised) have
disappeared. This is, furthermore, directly abetting the
bourgeoisie, it is helping them, and Kautsky is actually on the side of the bourgeoisie in the civil war
that is being waged, or is obviously being prepared, throughout
the world.

His shouting, groaning, weeping and hysteria about the civil
war serve to cover up his dismal failure as a theoretician. For
the Bolsheviks have proved to be right; in the autumn of 1914 they
declared to the world that the imperialist war would be transformed into civil war. Reactionaries of every shade were
indignant or laughed; but the Bolsheviks were right. To
conceal their complete failure, their stupidity and short-sightedness, the reactionaries must try to scare the petty
bourgeoisie by showing them the horrors of civil war. That is just
what Kautsky as a politician is doing.

To what absurd lengths he has gone can be seen from the
following. There is no hope of a world revolution, Kautsky
asserts—and what do you think he used as an argument? A
revolution in Europe an the Russian pattern would mean “ unleashing (Entfessellung) civil war throughout the world for a whole generation ”, and moreover not simply
unleashing a veritable class war, but a “ fratricidal war among the proletarians ”. The italicised words belong
to Kautsky and are—admiringly of course—quoted by
Stampfer.

Yes, Scheidemann’s scoundrels and hangmen have good reason to admire them! Here is a “socialist leader”
scaring people with the spectre of revolution and scaring them
away from revolution! But, curiously enough, there is one thing
Kautsky overlooks; for nearly two years the all powerful Entente
has been fighting against Russia and thereby stirring up
revolution in the Entente countries. If the revolution were even
to begin now, even if only in its compromising stage and in only
one or two of the Entente Great Powers this would immediately put an end to the civil war in Russia, would
immediately liberate hundreds of millions in the colonies, where resentment is at boiling-point and is kept in
check only by the violence of the European powers.

Kautsky now obviously has another motive for his actions in
addition to the foulness of his servile soul that he demonstrated
throughout the imperialist war—he is afraid of protracted civil war in Russia. And fear prevents him from seeing
that the bourgeoisie of the whole world is fighting
Russia. A revolution in one or two of the European Great Powers
would completely undermine the rule of the world bourgeoisie, destroy the very foundations of its
domination and leave it no safe haven anywhere.

The two-year war of the world bourgeoisie against
Russia’s revolutionary proletariat actually encourages revolution aries everywhere, for it
proves that victory on a world scale is very near and easy.

As far as civil war “among the proletarians” is concerned, we have heard that argument from the Chernovs and
Martovs. To assess its utter dishonesty, let us take a simple
example. During the great French Revolution, part of the peasants,
the Vendée peasants, fought for the King against the
Republic. In June 1848 and May 1871 part of the workers served in
the armies of Cavaignac and Galliffet, the armies that stifled the
revolution. What would you say of a man who took this line of
argument: I regret the “civil war among the peasants in France in 1792 and among the workers in 1848 and
1871”? You would have to say that he was a hypocrite and
defender of reaction, the monarchy and the Cavaignacs.

And you would be right.

Today only a hopeless idiot could fail to understand that what
has taken place in Russia (and is beginning or maturing in the
rest of the world) is a civil war of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. There never has been, and never can be, a
class struggle in which part of the advanced class does
not remain on the side of the reactionary forces. That applies to
civil war too. Part of the backward workers are bound to help the
bourgeoisie—for a longer or shorter period. But only scoundrels can use that to justify their
desertion to the bourgeoisie.

Theoretically, this is a refusal to understand what the facts
of the development of the world labour movement have been
screaming and shouting about since 1914. The break away of the
top strata of the working class, corrupted by a middle-class way of life and opportunism and bribed by
“soft jobs” and other bourgeois sops, began to take shape on a world scale in the autumn of 1914 and reached its full
development between 1915 and 1918. By disregarding this historical
fact and blaming the Communists for the split in the movement,
Kautsky is only demonstrating, for the thousandth time, his role
of lackey of the bourgeoisie.

For forty years, from 1852 to 1892, Marx and Engels spoke of
part (i.e., the top strata, the leaders, the “aristocracy")
of the workers in Britain becoming increasingly bourgeois , owing to that country’s colonial
advantages and her monopolies. [2] It is clear as daylight that the twentieth-century imperialist monopolies in a
number of other countries were bound to create the same phenomenon
as in Britain. In all the advanced countries we see corruption,
bribery, desertion to the bourgeoisie by the leaders of the working class and its top strata in consequence of
the doles handed out by the bourgeoisie, who provide these leaders
with “soft jobs”, give crumbs from their profits to these upper strata, shift the burden of the worst paid and hardest
work to backward workers brought into the country, and enhance the
privileges of the “labour aristocracy” as compared with the majority of the working class.

The war of 1914-18 has given conclusive proof of treachery to
socialism and desertion to the bourgeoisie by the leaders and top strata of the proletariat, by all the social-chauvinists,
Gomperses, Brantings, Renaudels, MacDonalds, Scheidemanns,
etc. And it goes without saying that for a time part of the
workers by sheer inertia follow these bourgeois scoundrels.

The Berne International of the Huysmanses, Vanderveldes and
Scheidemanns has now taken full shape as the yellow International
of these traitors to socialism. If they are not fought, if a split
with them is not effected, there can be no question of any
real socialism, of any sincere work for the benefit of the social revolution.

Let the German Independents try to sit between two stools—such is their fate. The Scheidemanns embrace Kautsky
as their “own man”. Stampfer advertises this. Indeed, Kautsky is a worthy comrade of the Scheidemanns. When Hilferding,
another Independent and friend of Kautsky’s, proposed at
Lucerne that the Scheidemanns be expelled from the International,
the real leaders of the yellow International only laughed at
him. His proposal was either a piece of extreme foolishness or a
piece of extreme hypocrisy; he wanted to parade as a Left among
the worker masses and, at the same time, retain his place in the
International of bourgeois servitors! Regardless of what motivated
this leader (Hilferding), the following is beyond doubt—the
spinelessness of the Independents and the perfidy of the
Scheidemanns, Brantings and Vanderveldes are bound to result in a
stronger movement of the proletarian masses away from these traitorous leaders. In some countries imperialism can
continue to divide the workers for a fairly long time to come. The
example of Britain is proof of that, but the unification
of the revolutionaries, and the uniting of the masses with the
revolutionaries and the expulsion of the yellow elements are, on a
world scale, proceeding steadily and surely. The tremendous
success of the Communist International is proof of it: in America,
a Communist Party has already been formed, [3] in
Paris, the Committee for the Re-establishment of International
Contacts and the Syndicalist Defence Committee [4] have
come out for the Third International, and two Paris papers have
sided with the Third International: Raymond Péricat’s
L’Internationale [5] and Georges
Anquetil’s Le Titre censuré (Bolshevik?). In
Britain, we are on the eve of the organisation of a Communist
Party with which the best elements in the British Socialist Party , the Shop Stewards Committees , the revolutionary trade-unionists, etc.,
are in solidarity. The Swedish Lefts, the Norwegian
Social-Democrats, the Dutch Communists, the Swiss [6] and
Italian [7] Socialist parties stand solid with the
German Spartacists and the Russian Bolsheviks.

In the few months since its organisation early this year, the
Communist International has become a world organisation leading
the masses and unconditionally hostile to the betrayers of
socialism in the yellow International of the Berne and Lucerne
fraternity.

In conclusion, here is a highly instructive communication that
casts light on the part played by the opportunist leaders. The
conference of yellow socialists in Lucerne this August was
reported by the Geneva paper La Feuille [8] in a special supplement appearing in several languages. The English
edition (No. 4, Wednesday, August 6) carried an interview with
Troelstra, the well-known leader of the opportunist party in
Holland.

Troelstra said that the German revolution of November 9 had
caused a good deal of agitation among Dutch political and trade
union leaders. For a few days the ruling groups in Holland were in
a state of panic especially as there was practically universal
unrest in the army.

The Mayors of Rotterdam and The Hague, he continues, sought to
build up their own organisations as an auxiliary force of the
counter-revolution. A committee composed of former generals—among them an old officer who prided himself on
having shared in the suppression of the Boxer rebellion in
China—tried to mislead several of our comrades into taking
up arms against the revolution. Naturally, their efforts had the
very opposite result and in Rotterdam, at one time, it seemed
that a workers’ council would be set up. But the political
and trade union leaders believed such methods premature and
confined themselves to formulating a workers’ minimum programme and publishing a strongly worded appeal to the
masses.

That is what Troelstra said. He also bragged a good deal,
describing how he had delivered revolutionary speeches calling
even for the seizure of power, how he realised the inadequacy of
parliament and political democracy as such, how he recognised
“illegal methods” of struggle and “dictatorship of the proletariat” in the transition period, and so on and
so forth.

Troelstra is a typical specimen of the venal, opportunist
leader who serves the bourgeoisie and deceives the workers. In
words he will accept everything — workers’ councils, proletarian dictatorship and whatever else you wish. But
actually he is a vile betrayer of the workers, an agent of the
bourgeoisie. He is the leader of those “political and trade union leaders” that saved the Dutch bourgeoisie by joining forces with them at the decisive
moment.

For the facts revealed by Troelstra are perfectly clear and
point in a very definite direction. The Dutch army had been
mobilised, the proletariat was armed and united, in the army, with
the poor sections of the people. The German revolution inspired
the workers to rise, and there was “practically universal
unrest in the army”. Obviously, the duty of revolutionary
leaders was to lead the masses towards revolution, not to
miss the opportune moment, when the arming of the workers
and the influence of the German revolution could have decided the
issue at one stroke.

But the treasonable leaders, with Troelstra at their head,
joined forces with the bourgeoisie. The workers were stalled off
with reforms and still more with promises of reforms. “Strongly worded appeals” and revolutionary
phrases were used to placate—and deceive—the workers. It was the Troelstras and similar “leaders”,
who make up the Second International of Berne and Lucerne, that
saved the capitalists by helping the bourgeoisie demobilise the
army.

The labour movement will march forward, ousting these traitors
and betrayers, the Troelstras and the Kautskys, ridding itself of
the upper stratum that has turned bourgeois, is misleading the
masses and pursuing capitalist policies.

N. Lenin

September 20, 1919

P.S. Judging by Stampfer’s article, Kautsky is now silent
on the Soviet political system. Has he surrendered on this
cardinal issue? Is he no longer prepared to defend the banalities
set forth in his pamphlet against The Dictatorship of the Proletariat ? Does he prefer to pass from this chief
issue to secondary ones? The answer to all these questions must
await examination of Kautsky’s pamphlet.

Endnotes

[1]
Vorwärts ( Forward )a daily newspaper, Central Organ of the German Social-Democratic Party. In accordance
with a decision of the Halle Congress of the party, it was
published in Berlin from 1891 under the name of Vorwärts Berliner Volksblatt as a continuation of the newspaper
Berliner Volksblatt issued since 1884. Engels used the columns of this paper to combat all manifestations of
opportunism. In the late nineties, after the death of Engels,
Vorwärts was controlled by the Right wing of the party and regularly published articles by opportunists. During the
First World War Vorwärts took a social-chauvinist stand; after the Great October Socialist Revolution the paper
carried on anti-Soviet propaganda. It was published in Berlin till
1933.

Lenin refers to Friedrich Stampfer’s article “Kautsky gegen Spartakus” published in
Vorwärts No. 457 of September 7, 1919.

[2]
See record of Karl Marx’s speech on the Barry Mandate ( Minutes of the Hague Congress of 1872 , Madison, 1958);
Engels’s Preface to the English edition of The Condition of the Working Class in England , Preface to the
second German edition of The Condition of the Working Class in England ; Engels’s letters to Marx of September 24,
1852 and of October 7, 1858; letters by Engels to Sorge of
September 21, 1872 and of October 5, 1872; Marx’s letter to
Sorge of August 4, 1874; Engels’s letter to Marx of August
11, 1881; Engels’s letters to Kautsky of September 12, 1882
and to Sorge of December 7, 1889.

[3]
In 1919 two Communist Parties were founded in the U.S.A. Their
core was the Left wing of the Socialist Party. The Communist
Labour Party headed by John Reed, James P. Cannon. It was based
on, and oriented to, native born American workers, the majority of
the US Working class. Support to the the CLP came also from the
Jewish Federation of the Socialist Party which joined the CLP. The
Communist Party of the United States was headed by Charles
Ruthenberg and Louis Friana, with the support of the majority of
the foreign born workers federations of the Socialist Party such
as the Italians, Finns and Russians. The two parties had no
serious programatic disagreements. Both parties passed decisions
at their inaugural congresses on affiliation to the Third
International. In May 1921 they united to form one Communist
Party.

[4]
The Committee for the Re-establishment of International Contacts
was formed in January 1916 by French internationalists. This was
the first attempt to set up in France an internationalist
revolutionary organisation of socialists to counterbalance the
social-chauvinist organisations. Lenin regarded the Committee as a
factor in rallying the internationalist forces; he proposed that
Inessa Armand participate in the Committee.

Under the influence of the October Revolution in Russia and the growth of the French labour movement, the
Committee became the centre of the revolutionary internationalist
forces in France, and in 1920 merged with the Communist Party of
France.

The Syndicalist Defence Committee was formed in autumn of 1916 by a group of syndicalists who broke away
from the Committee for the Re-establishment of International
Contacts because they rejected parliamentary activity. In May 1919
it resolved to join the Communist International.

[5]
L’Internationale— a weekly newspaper of the
French syndicalists, organ of the Syndicalist Defence Committee,
appeared in Paris from February to July 1919; edited by Raymond
Péricat.

[6]
The Social-Democratic Party of Switzerland (known as the Socialist Party) was founded in the 1870s and affiliated to
the First International; a new party was founded in 1888. The
party was strongly influenced by opportunists, who took a
social-chauvinist position during the First World War. In the
autumn of 1916 the Right wing broke away from the Party and
founded its own organisation. The party majority, led by Robert
Grimm, followed a Centrist social-pacifist policy. The Left wing
adhered to the internationalist stand. After the October
Revolution in Russia the Left wing became much more influential. In December 1920 the Left withdrew from the party
and in 1921 merged with the Communist Party of Switzerland.

[7]
The Socialist Party of Italy was founded in 1892 and from
the very start was the scene of a sharp struggle on all basic
political and tactical issues between the opportunist and
revolutionary trends. At its Congress in Reggio-Emilia (1912), the
more outspoken reformists, who supported the war and co-operation
with the government and the bourgeoisie (Ivanoe Bonomi, Leonida
Bissolati and others), were expelled from the party under pressure
from the Left. Prior to Italy’s entry into the First World
War, the party opposed war and advocated neutrality. In December
1914 it expelled a group of renegades (among them Mussolini) for
supporting the imperialist policy of the bourgeoisie and urging
Italy’s entry into the war. In May 1915, when Italy did
enter the war on the side of the Entente, the party split into
three distinct factions: (1) the Right wing, which helped the
bourgeoisie prosecute the war, (2) the Centrists who made up the
majority of the party and pursued the policy of “non-participation in the war and no sabotage of the
war”, and (3) the Left wing, which took a more resolute
stand against the war but failed to organise a consistent struggle
against it. The Lefts did not realise the necessity to convert the
imperialist war into a civil war, or to break resolutely with the
reformists. The Italian socialists held a joint conference with
the Swiss socialists in Lugano (1914), took part in the
international socialist conferences at Zimmerwald (1915) and
Kienthal (1916), where they sided with the Centrist majority.

After the October Soclalist Revolution in
Russia the Left wing of the Italian Socialist Party became more
influential. The 16th party congress, held October 5-8, 1919 in
Bologna, passed a decision to join the Third International. The
I.S.P. delegates took part in the Second Congress of the Communist
International. After the Congress, Serrati, head of the delegation
and a Centrist, declared against the break with the reformists. In
January 1921, at the 17th party congress in Livorno the Centrists
who were in the majority refused to break with the reformists and
to recognise all the terms of admittance to the Communist
International. On January 21 the Left-wing delegates left the
congress and founded the Communist Party of Italy.

[8]
La Feuille— a daily newspaper published in Geneva from August 1917 to 1920. Its editor was Jean Debrit. The
newspaper did not formally belong to any party, but in fact it
adhered to the positions of the Second International.