V. I. Lenin

On the Struggle of the Italian Socialist Party [1]

Pravda No. 213 of September 25, 1920, published a short letter of mine entitled: “Letter to the
German and the French Workers Regarding the Discussion on the
Second Congress of the Communist International.” [2] In its
issue of October 5, Avanti!, the central organ of the
Italian Socialist Party , carried a reprint of this letter with
comments of its own, which are worth examining since they
strikingly reveal the fallacy of the stand taken by Comrade
Serrati, editor of Avanti!

“Lenin’s explanation,” we read, “to some extent mitigates the
draconic conditions dictated by comrades who are not quite in a
position to correctly appraise men and circumstances at such a
distance and in such a different situation...,” “... Lenin spared one of his victims: Modigliani
....”

“... Lenin now says-whether on his own behalf or on behalf of the Executive Committee of the Communist International,
we do not know-that ’exceptions’ [to the general rule] are permissible [with the consent of the Executive
Committee].”

The ironical remark about the “victim”, which
Modigliani, one of the reformists, is supposed to be, is
pointless. Despite Serrati’s opinion, my failure to mention
the name of Modigliani (and of Longuet) was unintentional. I took
one name or another as an example, in order to characterise a
trend, leaving aside, as I still do, the question of individuals; I did not undertake to decide this question,
considering it of secondary importance, and spoke of the
possibility of exceptions. Notwithstanding his statement, Serrati
is fully aware (for he makes precise reference to my article in
Pravda) that I speak, and can do so, only on my own behalf, and in no way on behalf of the Executive
Committee.

By his remarks, Serrati distracts Avanti! readers from the principal, basic and vital question of whether reformists
can now be tolerated in the ranks of the Italian party of the
revolutionary proletariat. Serrati covers up the falseness of his
stand by trying to divert attention from the essential to the
secondary and insignificant.

That must be combated. The essentials must be elucidated.

Both in the comment we are dealing with and in other articles,
Serrati says that the Moscow Congress (the Second Congress of the
Communist International) was not adequately informed about Italian
affairs. One might think that the gist of the matter did not lie
in the struggle between two fundamental trends, or in the answer
to the fundamental question of whether “unity” with the reformists is permissible, but in differences over points that
“Moscow” is not precisely informed about!

The glaring fallacy of this view-and of this attempt to
distract attention from the main point-is best of all exposed in
the official report of the discussion in the Central Committee of the Italian Socialist Party. This discussion
took place in Milan on September 28, 29 and 30 and October 1, only
a few days prior to the publication of the issue of
Avantil referred to above.

The discussion closed with a vote on two resolutions, one of
which may be called a communist, and the other a “Centrist” or evasive resolution, which in a masked
form advocated an alliance (“unity”!) with the reformists. The first resolution was carried, seven voting for it
(Terracini, Gennari, Regent.. Tuntar, Casucci, Marziali, and
Bellone); the second resolution was rejected (five in favour:
Baratono, Zannerini, Bacci, Giacomini and Serrati).

The first resolution is of a remarkable clarity and precision. It opens with a reference to the “present
conditions” of the revolutionary struggle in Italy calling
for “greater homogeneity” in the party. It goes on to say that the right to remain in the party was extended to all, on
condition of submission to party discipline; however, this
condition has not been observed. It would be erroneous, it goes on
to say, to expect submission to discipline from those whose
convictions are opposed to the principles and tactics of the Third
International; consequently, since the twenty-one points of the Moscow conditions have been accepted, a “radical purge”
of the party is necessary so as to eliminate all reformist and opportunist elements.

Here no reference is made to names or particular instances. A
clear political line is laid down. The grounds for the decision
are precisely stated, viz., concrete facts from the history of the
party in Italy, and concrete features in the revolutionary
situation there.

The second resolution is a model of evasiveness and poor
diplomacy: we accept the twenty-one points, but consider that
“these conditions leave a loop-hole for dubious interpretations”, and that “the political criterion of
each section of the Third, Communist International should be
adapted to the historical conditions and the actual specific
features of its country, and submitted for approval to this
International”. The resolution emphasises “the need to preserve the unity of the Italian Socialist Party on the basis of
the twenty-one points”; individual breaches of discipline
are to be sternly punished by the Central Committee of the
Party.

The communist resolution says that the revolutionary situation
calls for greater homogeneity in the party. That is undeniable. The resolution of those who advocate
“unity” with the reformists attempts to evade this undeniable truth, without daring to dispute it.

The Communist resolution says that it is a feature of the
situation in Italy that the condition demanding submission to
party decisions by the reformists has not been observed.
That is the gist of the matter. That being so, it is not merely a
mistake but a crime to allow the reformists to remain in
the party at a time when the general revolutionary situation is
becoming acute, and the country may even be on the eve of
decisive revolutionary battles.

Is this true or not? Have the reformists carried out party
decisions? Have they in fact submitted to the party? Have they
pursued its policy? The resolution of the defenders of the
reformists cannot give an affirmative answer; it cannot challenge
the Communists’ negative answer, and avoids a reply. It
twists and turns, makes general references to the different
specific features in the various countries, and does so in order to evade and to present in a false light the most
important “specific feature” of Italy herself at the moment. What constitutes this specific feature of Italy is the
fact that the reformists have already proved incapable in practice
of carrying out party decisions and pursuing party policy. By
evading this fundamental issue, the resolution of the advocates of
unity with the reformists utterly defeats itself.

By this fact alone, Serrati, Baratono, Zannerini, Bacci, and
Giacomini have already shown quite clearly and irrefutably that they are fundamentally wrong, that their
political line is fundamentally false.

The discussion in the Italian party’s Central Committee has ever more
forcefully revealed the total falsity of Serrati’s line. The
Communists were right in saying that as long as the reformists
remained what they were they could not but sabotage the
revolution, as they had already sabotaged it during the recent
revolutionary movement of the Italian workers who were taking over
the factories.

That is the pith and marrow of the matter! How is it possible
to prepare for revolution and advance towards decisive battles,
when there are people in the party who sabotage the revolution?
That is not merely a mistake but a crime.

If, as he frankly declared in his letter to l’Humanit’s [3] of October 14,
Serrati counted on the expulsion of Turati alone, [4] this
mistake of his has also already been revealed by the facts. The Italian reformists not only held a factional
congress of their own (in Reggio Emilia on October 11, 1920); at
this congress they not only reiterated the essence of their
reformist views; not only did they give a triumphant reception to
Filippo Turati at the congress, but they also declared, through
Trves: “We shall either remain in the party, or to a man
leave it.” Let us note in this connection that the bourgeois
press and the reformists themselves did their utmost to play up
the importance of their factional congress. But in A vantil of October 13 (the Milan edition) we find it frankly
stated that the reformists were able to get representatives from
only two hundred branches of a party with thousands of branches.

But let us dwell in greater detail on Serrati ’s main argument on the essence of the question. Serrati fears a split
that may weaken the party and especially the trade unions, the
co-operative societies and the municipalities. These institutions,
which are essential to the construction of socialism, must not be
destroyed-that is Serrati’s main idea. He asks (Avanti! , October 2, 1920, the Milan edition):
“Where shall we find enough ’Communists’, even if only the most ardent new-fledged Communists, to fill the public
posts from which we shall drive their holders, as Terracini
proposes?” The same idea is expressed by Serrati in an article on the Second Congress of the Third international, in the
journal Co,nunismo (No. 24, p. 1627), which he edits:
“Picture to yourselves the Milan commune [i.e., the Milan
municipality] administered, not by competent people but by novices
who only yesterday declared themselves ardent
Communists.”

Serrati fears the destruction of the trade unions, the co-operative societies and municipalities, and the inefficiency
and mistakes of the novices.

What the Communists fear is the reformists’ sabotage of
the revolution.

This difference reveals Serrati’s error of principle. He
keeps reiterating a simple idea: the need for flexible tactics. This idea is incontestable. The trouble is that Serrati
leans to the right when, in the present-day conditions in
Italy one should lean to the left. To successfully accomplish the revolution and safeguard it, the Italian party must
take a definite step to the left (without in any way keeping its hands tied or forgetting that subsequent events may
well call for definite steps to the right).

Victory in the proletarian revolution cannot be achieved, and that revolution cannot be safeguarded,
while there are reformists and Mensheviks in one’s ranks. That is obvious in principle, and has been strikingly
confirmed by the experience both of Russia and of Hungary. This is
a decisive consideration. It is simply ridiculous to compare with
this danger the danger of “losing” the trade unions, cooperative societies, municipalities, etc., or of their failures,
mistakes, or collapse. It is not only ridiculous, but criminal. Anyone who would subject the entire revolution to risk
for fear of injuring the municipal affairs of Milan and so forth,
has completely lost his head, has no idea of the fundamental task
of the revolution, and is totally incapable of preparing its
victory.

We in Russia made thousands of mistakes and suffered thousands
of reverses, losses, etc., owing to the inefficiency of novices
and incompetent people in the co-operative societies, municipalities, trade unions, etc. We have no doubt that other and
more civilised nations will make fewer mistakes of this
kind. Notwithstanding these mistakes, we have achieved what is
most important, viz., the conquest of power by the proletariat. Moreover, we have maintained that power for three
years.

The mistakes mentioned by Comrade Serrati are minor ones and
are infinitely easier to rectify than the “mistake” of allowing the sabotage of the revolution by the Mensheviks and the
wrecking of the revolution itself. That is selfevident. It has
been strikingly demonstrated in the case of Hungary. It has also
been confirmed by our experience; during the three years of
proletarian government in Russia difficult situations have arisen
many times, when the Soviet regime would most certainly have been overthrown if Mensheviks, reformists,
petty-bourgeois democrats had remained in our Party, or even if
they had remained in any considerable numbers in the central
Soviet bodies, such as the Central Executive Committee.

Serrati has failed to understand the specific features of the
transitional situation that exists in Italy, where, as is
generally admitted, decisive battles are in store between the
proletariat and the bourgeoisie for possession of state power. At
such a moment, it is not only absolutely essential to remove the
Mensheviks, reformists, Turatists from the party, but it may even
be useful to remove some very good Communists too, to remove them
from all responsible posts, if they are inclined to waver, and
reveal a tendency to drift towards “unity” with the reformists.

Let me give a practical illustration. On the eve of the October
Revolution in Russia, and immediately after it, a number of very
good Communists in Russia committed an error, one which our people
are now loth to recall. Why are they loth to recall it? Because,
unless there is particular reason for it, it is wrong to recall
mistakes which have been completely set right. But it will be
useful to recall this mistake for the benefit of the Italian
workers. At the time mentioned, prominent Bolsheviks and
Communists, such as Zinoviev, Kamenev, Rykov, Nogin and Milyutin,
wavered and expressed the fear that the Bolsheviks were isolating
themselves excessively, were taking too much risk in heading for
an uprising, and were too unyielding in their attitude towards a
certain section of the Mensheviks and
Socialist-Revolutionaries. The conflict became so acute that these
comrades demonstratively resigned from all responsible posts in
Party and government, to the great glee of the enemies of the
Soviet revolution. It developed so far that the Central Committee
of our Party conducted a very heated controversy in the press with
the comrades who had resigned. But a few weeks later-at most a few
months-all these comrades realised their mistake and returned to
their posts, some of the most responsible in the Party and the
Soviets.

Why this happened can readily be understood. On the eve of
revolution or at the height of the struggle for its victory, the
slightest wavering in the ranks of the Party may wreck everything, frustrate the revolution, and wrest power from
the hands of the proletariat, for that power has not yet been
consolidated, and the onslaught against it is still very
strong. If wavering leaders resign at such a time, that does not
weaken the party, the working-class movement and the revolution,
but strengthens them.

Italy is going through a similar period. It is generally seen and admitted that a nation-wide revolutionary
crisis is maturing The proletariat has proved in deed that it is
capable of rising spontaneously, and of rousing the masses for a
mighty revolutionary movement. The poor peasants, or semi-proletarians (it is a pity that Comrade Serrati has acquired
the bad habit of putting a question mark after this word whenever
he uses it; it is a correct Marxist term and expresses a correct
idea, which has been confirmed by facts both in Russia and in
Italy, viz., that the poor peasants are half property-owners and
half proletarians)the poor peasants in Italy have shown in deed
that they are capable of rising for a revolutionary struggle, in
the wake of the proletariat. What is most essential now, in fact
absolutely essential for the victory of the revolution in Italy,
is that the Italian revolutionary proletariat should have a real
vanguard in the shape of a truly Communist Party, one that is
incapable of wavering and flinching at the decisive moment, a party that will concentrate within itself the utmost
fervour, devotion to the revolution, energy and boundless courage
and determination. Victory has to be achieved in a very hard and
painful struggle that will entail great sacrifice; when captured,
power will have to be upheld in the face of incredibly fierce
attacks, intrigues, slander, calumny, intimidation and violence on
the part of the bourgeoisie of the whole world, in the face of the most dangerous waverings on the part of every
petty-bourgeois democrat, every Turati supporter, every
“Centrist”, every Social Democrat, socialist and anarchist. At such a time and in such surroundings, the Party must
be a hundred times firmer, bolder, more determined, devoted and
ruthless than in ordinary or in less difficult times. At such a
time and in such surroundings, the Party will become a hundred
times stronger, not weaker, if Mensheviks, like those who
foregathered in Reggio Emilia on October II, 1920, withdraw from
it altogether, and even if some excellent Communists-such as
Baratono, Zannerini, Bacci, Giacomini and Serrati, members of the
present Central Committee of the party, probably are-withdraw from
its leadership.

Even if the people of the latter category resigned now, most of
them would undoubtedly very soon see their mistake and return
after the victory of the proletariat, after its victory had been
consolidated. In all probability, even a section of the Italian
Menshoviks, of the Turati supporters, would return, too, and be
received into the party when the period of greatest difficulties
had passed, just as a section of the Mensheviks and
Socialist-Revolutionaries, who were on the other side of the
barricades in 1917-18, have come over to us now (after we have
been through three difficult years since the revolution).

The Italian revolutionary proletariat is about to face a period
of battles that will be not merely extremely difficult, as I have
said, but truly the most difficult of all. The greatest trials lie
ahead. I would consider it frivolous and criminal to shrug off
these difficulties. It surprises me how Comrade Serrati could have
published in his journal Comunismo (No. 24, September
15-30, 1920), without any comment, such a superficial article as
that by G. C. entitled “Will We Be Blockaded?” Despite what the author of this article says, I personally think that in
the event of the proletariat’s victory in Italy, the blockade of that country by Great Britain, France and America is
possible and probable. In my opinion, Comrade Graziadei was much
closer to the truth in his speech at the meeting of the Italian
party’s Central Committee (Avanti!, October 1, 1920, the Milan edition), when he admitted that the problem of a
possible blockade was “very grave” (“problema gravissima”). He said that Russia
had held out despite the blockade, partly because of the
sparseness of her population and her enormous territory, but the
revolution in Italy “could not resist (resistere)
for long if it were not co-ordinated with a revolution in some
other country in Central Europe”, and that “such co-ordination is difficult but not impossible”, because the
whole of continental Europe is passing through a revolutionary
period.

Though put very cautiously, this is true. I would merely add
that Italy is assured of acertain amount of co-ordination—although that may as yet be inadequate and
incomplete—and that complete co-ordination will have to be /ought for. When the reformists speak of the
possibility of a blockade they do so in order to sabotage the
revolution, instil apprehension of the revolution, and imbue the
masses with their own panic, fear, indecision and vacillation. Revolutionaries and Communists must not deny the
dangers and difficulties of the struggle in order to put
greater firmness into the masses, purge the party of those that are weak, wavering and unstable, and inspire the entire
movement with greater enthusiasm, a higher spirit of internationalism, and a greater preparedness to make sacrifices
for the sake of a great aim, namely, hastening the revolution in
Great Britain, France and America should these countries
dare to blockade the proletarian and Soviet Italian republic.

The question of replacing experienced reformist or “Centrist” leaders by novices is not a particular
question, of concern to a single country in special circumstances. It is a general question which arises in every
proletarian revolution, and as such it is formulated and quite
specifically answered in the resolution of the Second Congress of
the Communist international on “The Fundamental Tasks of the
Communist International”. In point 8 we read:
“Preparation for the dictatorship of the proletariat, not
only entails explaining the bourgeois character of all reformism;
... it also entails replacing the old leaders by Communists in
proletarian organisations of absolutely every type-not only
political, but also trade union, cooperative, educational, etc
. ... These representatives of the labour aristocracy, or the
hourgeoisified workers, should be eliminated from all their posts
a hundred times more boldly than hitherto, and replaced by
workers, even if wholly inexperienced, as long as they are
connected with the exploited masses and enjoy the latter’s
confidence in the struggle against the exploiters. The dictatorship of the proletariat will require the appointment of
such inexperienced workers to the most responsible posts in the
state; otherwise the workers’ government will be impotent,
and will not have the support of the masses.” [5]

Serrati is therefore wrong in saying that “all” in the Italian party agree to accept the decisions of the Communist
Congress. In fact the reverse is to be seen.

In the above-mentioned letter to l’Humanit
Serrati says among other things:

As for the recent events, one should know that the leaders of
the General Confederation of Labour (the Italian variant of the
T.U.C.) proposed that the leadership of the movement should be
turned over to those who wanted to expand it to a revolution. Our
comrades of the General Confederation of Labour declared that they
were willing to remain disciplined soldiers if the extremists
assumed leadership of the insurrection. But the latter did not
assume leadership of the movement ....”

It would be highly nave on Serrati’s part to take at its face value this statement from the reformists in the General
Confederation of Labour. In fact, threatening to resign at crucial
moments is a variety of sabotage of the revolution. This is in no
way a question of loyalty, but simply of the victory of the
revolution being impossible if at every difficult turn the leaders are faced with hesitation, vacillation and
resignations on the part of their “own” colleagues, those at the top, the “leaders”. It may be useful to
Comrade Serrati to know that at the end of September 1917, when
the coalition of Russian Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries
with the bourgeoisie had obviously fallen through politically,
none other than our Socialist-Revolutionaries, Chernov’s
party, wrote in their newspaper: “The Bolsheviks will be
obliged to form a cabinet .... Let them not make futile attempts
to hide behind a hastily concocted theory that it is impossible
for them to take power. The democracy will not accept these
theories. At the same time, the advocates of coalition must
guarantee them full support” (the Socialist-Revolutionary
newspaper, the newspaper of their party, Chernov’s newspaper
Dyelo Naroda, September 21, 1917, quoted in my pamphlet
Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power? , Petrograd, 1917, p. 4). [6]

It would be just as fatal a mistake for the revolutionary
workers to believe in the loyalty of such statements as it was to
believe the Hungarian Turatists, who promised Bela Kun their help
and joined the Communist Party, but, nevertheless, proved to be
saboteurs of the revolution and wrecked it by their vacillation.

*   *   *

To sum up:

1) The party of the revolutionary proletariat in Italy should
display the utmost self-restraint, circumspection and coolness for
a correct appraisal of the conditions in general, and the
appropriate moment in particular, in the impending decisive
battles for political power between the Italian working class and
the bourgeoisie.

2) At the same time, all propaganda and agitation conducted by
that party should be imbued with the firmest determination to
wage that struggle to a victorious conclusion, come what may,
in a united and centralised manner, and with supreme heroism,
ruthlessly eliminating the vacillation, indecision and wavering with which the Turati supporters are so thoroughly
imbued.

3) The propaganda conducted by the Milan edition of
Avanti!, which is edited by Serrati, does not prepare the
proletariat for the struggle, but brings disintegration into its
ranks. At a moment like the present, the party’s Central
Committee should give the workers leadership, prepare them for the
revolution, and challenge wrong views. This can (and should) be
done, while allowing all trends to express themselves. Serrati is
giving leadership, but doing so in the wrong direction.

4) The expulsion from the party of all who attended the Reggio
Emilia Congress on October ill, 1920, will not weaken the party
but strengthen it; such “leaders” are capable only of wrecking the revolution in the “Hungarian style”, even
if they do remain loyal. The whiteguards and the bourgeoisie will
be able to utilise the hesitation, vacillation, doubts,
uncertainty, etc., of even quite “loyal” socialists, Social-Democrats, etc.

5) If people such as Baratono, Zannerini, Bacci, Giacomini and
Serrati display vacillation and resign, they should not be asked
to remain; their resignations should be immediately accepted. They
will return after the period of decisive battles and will then be
of greater use to the proletariat.

6) Comrades, workers of Italy, do not forget the lessons of the
history of all revolutions, the lessons of Russia and Hungary in
1917-20. Great battles, great difficulties and great sacrifices
await the proletariat in Italy. Victory over the bourgeoisie, the
assumption of power by the proletariat and the consolidation of
the Soviet Republic in Italy all depend on the outcome of these
battles, and. on the solidarity, discipline and devotion of the
masses of the workers. The bourgeoisie of Italy and of all
countries of the ’world will do their utmost and resort to
any crime and atrocity to prevent the proletariat from taking
power, and to overthrow its power. The hesitation, vacillation and
irresolution of the reformists and of all who attended the Reggio
Emilia Congress on October 11, 1920, are inevitable, because, even
though many of them are quite honest, such people have always and
in all countries, wrecked the cause of revolution by their
vacillation. It was such as these who wrecked the revolution (the
first revolution; it will be followed by another ...) in Hungary,
and would have wrecked the revolution in Russia had they not been
removed from all responsible posts and surrounded by a wall of
proletarian distrust, vigilance and surveillance.

The toiling and exploited masses of Italy will follow the
revolutionary proletariat. It will prove victorious in the end,
for its cause is that of the workers of the whole world, and there
is no way to avoid the continuation of the present imperialist
wars, the advent of the new imperialist wars that are being
prepared, and the horrors of capitalist slavery and oppression,
otherwise than in a Soviet Workers’ Republic.

4.11. 1920

False Talk On Freedom (Instead Of An Epilogue)

Comrade Nobs, editor of Volksrecht, the Swiss
Left Socialist newspaper in Zurich, recently published a letter
by Zinoviev on the need to break with the opportunists, together
with his own lengthy reply to this letter. Nobs ’s reply
amounts to an emphatic rejection of the twenty-one conditions
and of affiliation to the Communist International, this, of
course, being done in the name of “freedom”the freedom to criticise, freedom from excessive demands or the
dictatorship of Moscow (I have not kept Nobs ’s article
and am therefore obliged to quote from memory; I can vouch for
the idea, but not for the exact wording).

Incidentally, Comrade Nobs has enrolled Comrade Serrati as an
ally, who is also known to be displeased with “Moscow”, i.e., particularly with the Russian members
of the Communist International’s Executive Committee and who
also complains that Moscow violates the “freedom” of the constituent sections, the individual parties and individual
members of the Communist International. It will not be superfluous, therefore, to say a few words about freedom.

After three years of the dictatorship of the proletariat, we
may safely say that the most common and popular objection to it
all over the world is its alleged violation of freedom and
equality. The entire bourgeois press in all countries, including
the press of the petty-bourgeois democrats, i.e., of the
Social-Democrats and socialists, among them Kautsky, Hilferding,
Martov, Chernov, Longuet, etc., etc., rail against the Bolsheviks
for the latter’s violation of freedom and equality. From the
standpoint of theory, this can be readily understood. The reader
will recall Marx’s celebrated and sarcastic words in
Capital:

“This sphere [of the circulation or exchange of commodities], within whose boundaries the sale and
purchase of labour power goes on, is in fact a very Eden of the
innate rights of man. There alone rule Freedom, Equality, Property
and Bentham.” (Capital, Vol. I, Part II, end of
Chapter 4, Russian language edition, 1920, p. 152 [7]

This sarcastic remark has a profound historical and philosophical meaning. It should be compared with the popular
explanation of the same question given by Engels in
Anti-Duhring, particularly with what Engels said about the idea of equality being a prejudice or an absurdity, if it does
not mean the abolition of classes. [8]

The abolition of feudalism and of its vestiges, and the
establishment of the foundations of the bourgeois order (one may
quite correctly say: the bourgeois-democratic order) occupied an
entire epoch of world history. It was inevitable for freedom,
equality, property and Bentham to become the slogans of this epoch
of world history. The abolition of capitalism and its vestiges,
and the establishment of the fundamentals of the communist order
comprise the content of the new era of world history that has set
in. It is inevitable that the slogans of our era are and must be:
the abolition of classes; the dictatorship of the proletariat for
the purpose of achieving that aim; the ruthless exposure of
petty-bourgeois democratic prejudices concerning freedom and
equality and ruthless war on these prejudices. Whoever does not
understand this has no understanding of the dictatorship of the
proletariat, Soviet government, and the fundamental principles of
the Communist International.

Until classes are abolished, all talk about freedom and
equality in general is self-deception, or else deception of the
workers and of all who toil and are exploited by capital; in any
case, it is a defence of the interests of the bourgeoisie. Until
classes are abolished, all arguments about freedom and equality
should be accompanied by the questions: freedom for which class,
and for what purpose; equality between which classes, and in what
respect? Any direct or indirect, witting or unwitting evasion of
these questions inevitably turns into a defence of the interests
of the bourgeoisie, the interests of capital, the interests of the
exploiters. If these questions are glossed over, and nothing is
said about the private ownership of the means of production, then
the slogan of freedom and equality is merely the lies and humbug
of bourgeois society, whose formal recognition of freedom and
equality conceals actual economic servitude and inequality for the
workers, for all who toil and are exploited by capital, i.e., for
the overwhelming majority of the population in all capitalist
countries.

Thanks to the fact that, in present-day Russia, the dictatorship of the proletariat has posed in a practical manner
the fundamental and final problems of capitalism, one can
see with particular clarity whose interests are served (cui prodest?-“who benefits?”) by talk about freedom
and equality in general. When the Socialist-Revolutionaries and
the Mensheviks. the Chernovs and the Martovs, favour us with
arguments about freedom and equality within the limits of labour democracy (for, you see, they are never guilty of
reasoning about freedom and equality in general! They never forget
Marx!) we ask them: what about the distinction between the class
of wage-workers and the class of small property-owners in the
period of the dictatorship of the proletariat?

Freedom and equality within the limits of labour democracy mean freedom for the small peasant owner (even if
he farms on nationalised land) to sell his surplus grain at
profiteering prices, i.e., to exploit the workers. Anyone
who talks about freedom and equality within the limits of labour
democracy when the capitalists have been overthrown but private
property and freedom to trade still survive is a champion of the
exploiters. In exercising its dictatorship, the proletariat must
treat these champions as it does the exploiters, even though they
say they are Social Democrats or socialists, or admit that the
Second International is putrid, and so on and so forth.

As long as private ownership of the means of production (e.g.,
of agricultural implements and livestock, even if private
ownership of land has been abolished) and freedom to trade remain,
so does the economic basis of capitalism. The dictatorship of the
proletariat is the only means of successfully fighting for the
demolition of that basis, the only way to abolish classes (without
which abolition there can be no question of genuine freedom for
the individualand not for the property-owner-of real equality, in
the social and political sense, between man and man-and not the humbug of equality between those who possess property and those who do not, between the well-fed and the hungry,
between the exploiters and the exploited). The dictatorship of the
proletariat leads to the abolition of classes; it leads to that
end, on the one hand, by the overthrow of the exploiters and the
suppression of their resistance, and on the other hand by
neutralising and rendering harmless the small property-owner’s vacillation between the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat.

The falsity of Comrade Nobs’s and Comrade Serrati’s statements does not, of course, consist in their being falsely or
insincerely meant. Nothing of the kind. They are quite sincere,
and there is nothing subjectively false in what they have
said. However, their statements are false objectively, in content,
for they are a defence of the prejudices of petty-bourgeois
democracy; they amount to a defence of the bourgeoisie.

The Communist International cannot under any circumstances
recognise freedom and equality for all who wish to subscribe to
certain statements, irrespective of their political conduct. To
Communists this would be no less suicidal both as regards theory
and practical politics than the recognition of freedom and
equality “within the limits of labour democracy”, etc. To anyone able to read and willing to understand what he
reads, it must be quite clear that none of the decisions,
theses, resolutions and conditions of the Communist International
recognise the absolute “freedom and equality” of those who desire to affiliate to the Communist International.

What is our stipulation for recognising “freedom and equality”, the freedom and equality of members of the
Communist International?

It is that no opportunists and “Centrists”, such as the well-known representatives of the Right wing of the Swiss and
Italian socialist parties, shall he able to become members. No
matter how these opportunists and “Centrists” may claim that they recognise the dictatorship of the proletariat,
they actually remain advocates and defenders of the prejudices,
weaknesses and vacillations of the pettybourgeois democrats.

You must first break with those prejudices, weaknesses and
vacillations, with those who preach, defend and give practical
expression to those views and qualities. Then, and only on this
condition, can you be “free” to join the Communist
International; only then can the genuine Communist, a Communist in
deed and not merely in word, be the “equal” of any other Communist, of any other member of the Communist
International.

Comrade Nobs, you are “free” to defend the views you hold. But we, too, are “free” to declare that
these views are petty-bourgeois prejudices, which are injurious to
the proletarian cause and of use to capitalism; we, too, are
“free” to refuse to join in an alliance or league with people who defend those views or a policy that corresponds to
them. We have already condemned that policy and those views on behalf of the Second Congress of the Communist
International as a whole. We have already said that we absolutely
demand a rupture with the opportunists as a first and preliminary
step.

Do not talk of freedom and equality in general, Comrade Nobs
and Comrade Serrati! Talk of freedom not to carry out the
decisions of the Communist International on the absolute duty of
breaking with the opportunists and the “Centrists” (who cannot but undermine, cannot but sabotage the dictatorship of
the proletariat). Talk of the equality of the opportunists and
“Centrists” with the Communists. Such freedom and such equality cannot be recognised by us for the Communist
International; as for any other kind of freedom and equality-you
may enjoy them to your heart’s content!

On the eve of the proletarian revolution, the liberation, the
freedom, of the parties of the revolutionary proletariat from
opportunists and “Centrists”, from their influence, their prejudices, their weaknesses and vacillations, is the main
and essential condition of success.

11.12.1920

Endnotes

[1]
This work consists of two articles on a single subject. The first
article, whose title covers the two articles in the present
edition, was written on November 4, 1920, and first published in
Pra ucla No. 250 on November 7, 1920. In the note to the article,
the editors wrote: “Comrade Lenin wrote the article before
he received the news of the despicable behaviour of D
’Aragona and the opportunist trade unionists, Party members,
who insisted on their policy in opposition to the Central
Committee of their own Party and, acting in collusion with
Minister Giolitti, frustrated an immense movement of the working
class. These facts, of which we shall speak in greater detail in
one of our next issues, confirm still more strikingly that Lenin
is right.” The second article, which Lenin entitled “False Talk on Freedom (Instead of an Epilogue)” was
written on December 11, 1920. The following note is to be found in
the MS: NB:“if you are going to publish it at all, then
publish it as an epilogue to the article on the struggle in the
Italian Socialist Party.” (Central Party Archives at the
Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the C.C. C.P.S.U.). Both articles
were published in issue No. 15 of the journal The Communist
International in December 1920 under a common title “False
Talk on Freedom”.

[2]
See pages 280-82 in this volume.

[3]
l’Humanité—French daily founded by Jean
Jaurès in 1904 as organ of the French Socialist Party . During the First World War it was the
mouthpiece of the extreme flight wing of the Party and took a
social-chauvinist stand. Shortly after the split in the Party at
the congress in December 1920 and the formation of the Communist
Party, it became the organ of the latter and has since then been
published as such.

[4]
Here is the principal passage in this letter: “We all stand
for the Moscow conditions. The question is how they are to be applied. I assert that the party must be purged of
harmful elements, and I proposed that Turati be expelled; but we
must not lose the masses belonging to the syndicates [trade
unions] and co-operative societies. Others want a radical
split. That is where we differ.” (l’Humanité, October 14, Serrati’s
italics.) —Lenin.

[5]
See p. 191 of this volume.

[6]
See present edition, Volume 26, pp. 91-92.

[7]
See Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, Marx-Engels Internet Archive

[8]
See Frederick Engels, Anti-Dühring, on the Marx-Engels Inernet Archive