SPEECH ON THE ITALIAN QUESTION
JUNE 28
Comrades! I would like to respond primarily to Comrade Lazzari. He said, “Bring forth concrete facts—not just words.” Excellent. But if we trace the development of the reformist-opportunistic tendency in Italy, what will we find—words or facts? In your speeches and throughout your entire political line, you overlook a profoundly significant fact for the socialist movement in Italy: not only has this tendency existed for a long time, but the opportunist-reformist faction itself has been around for just as long. I still vividly remember the time when Bernstein launched his opportunistic propaganda, which ultimately culminated in social-patriotism, betrayal, and the bankruptcy of the Second International. Even back then, Turati was known to us not only by name, but also through his relentless agitation within the Italian Party and the Italian labor movement—agitation that had disorganized the movement for twenty years since that time. The lack of time prevents me from thoroughly examining the materials pertaining to the Italian Party; yet one of the most important documents, in my view, is the report on the conference held in Reggio Emilia in 1914 by Turati and his comrades, published in one of the bourgeois Italian newspapers—I no longer recall whether it appeared in “La Stampa” or in “Corriere della Sera.” I compared it with what was published in “Avanti!” That alone should be sufficient proof, should it not? After the Second Congress of the Communist International, in our dispute with Serrati

III CONGRESS OF THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL
and his friends, we stated openly—and with absolute clarity—what, in our view, the situation truly was. We told them that the Italian Party could not become communist so long as it continued to harbor within its ranks individuals like Turati.
So what are these—political facts, or merely words once again? And when, after the Second Congress of the Communist International, we openly declared to the Italian proletariat: “Do not enter into unity with the reformists, with Turati”—and when Serrati began publishing a series of articles in the Italian press attacking the Communist International and convened a special conference of reformists in 1916—were all these mere words? It was more than a split; it was already the birth of a new party. One would have to be blind not to see this. This document is of decisive importance for this question. All those who took part in the conference in Reggio Emilia must be expelled from the Party: they are Mensheviks—not Russian Mensheviks, but Italian Mensheviks. Lazzari said, “We know the psychology of the Italian people.” Personally, I would not dare to make such a claim about the Russian people—but that is beside the point. “Italian socialists understand the spirit of the Italian people very well,” Lazzari declared. Perhaps that is so—I do not dispute it. But Italian Menshevism, when viewed in light of concrete data and the stubborn refusal to eradicate it, remains unfamiliar to them. We are compelled to say: regrettably though it may be, we must reaffirm the resolution of our Executive Committee. A party that tolerates opportunists and reformists like Turati within its ranks cannot belong to the Communist International.
“Why change the Party’s name?” Comrade Lazzari asks. “After all, the name is perfectly satisfactory.” But we cannot share this view. We know the history of the Second International, its decline and ultimate collapse. Are we unaware of the history of the German Party? And do we not know that the greatest misfortune of the German labor movement was that it failed to break with the Mensheviks and reformists even before the war? That cost the lives of 20,000 workers, who were handed over to the German government by the Scheidemannites and centrists—thanks to their polemics and their constant complaints against the German communists.
And is it not precisely this same picture that we now see unfolding before us in Italy? The Italian Party was never truly revolutionary. Its greatest misfortune lies in the fact that it did not break with the Mensheviks and reformists before the war—and that the latter continued to remain within the Party. Comrade Lazzari says, “We fully recognize the necessity of breaking with the reformists; our only disagreement is that we did not deem it necessary to carry out this break at the Livorno Congress.” But the facts tell a different story. This is not the first time we have debated the question of Italian reformism. Last year, when we argued with Serrati about this very issue, we asked him: “Excuse me, but why can’t the split in the Italian Party be carried out right now? Why must it be postponed?” What did Serrati reply to us? Nothing. And when he quotes Frossard’s article—which states that “one must be shrewd and clever”—Comrade Lazzari clearly sees this as an argument in his favor, directed against us. I believe he is mistaken. On the contrary, this is an excellent argument in our favor—and against Comrade Lazzari. When he is forced to explain his conduct and his departure to the Italian workers, what will the latter say? If they come to recognize that our tactics are both shrewd and clever, in contrast to the zigzags of the so‑called communist left—a left that is not always even simply communist, often bearing far more the marks of anarchism—what will you say to them?
What, then, are all those tales spun by Serrati and his Party about how the Russians only wish to be imitated? We demand precisely the opposite. It is not enough to know the Communist resolutions by heart and to employ revolutionary rhetoric at every turn. That is insufficient—and we are, from the outset, wary of communists who merely recite a particular resolution from memory. The first condition of true communism is a break with opportunism. With those communists who subscribe to this principle, we will speak with complete freedom and openness.

III CONGRESS OF THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL
And with full right and unshakable courage, we may say to them: “Do not commit any foolish acts; be wise and skillful.” But we can only speak in this way to those communists who have broken with the opportunists—something that cannot yet be said of you. Therefore, I repeat: I hope that the Congress will adopt the resolution of the Executive Committee. Comrade Lazzari has said, “We are in a preparatory period.” This is utterly true. You are indeed in a preparatory period. The first stage of this period is the break with the Mensheviks—a rupture akin to the one we ourselves effected in 1903, when we parted ways with our own Mensheviks. And it is precisely because the German Party has failed to sever its ties with the Mensheviks that the entire German working class has suffered throughout the long and exhausting postwar period in the history of the German Revolution.
Comrade Lazzari says that the Italian Party is undergoing a preparatory period. I fully acknowledge this. And the first stage consists in a serious, definitive, unequivocal, and resolute break with reformism. Once this is accomplished, the masses will wholeheartedly embrace communism. The second stage will by no means consist in merely repeating revolutionary slogans; rather, it will involve the adoption of our wise and skillful decisions—decisions that will always remain such, always reaffirming that the fundamental principles of revolution must be adapted to the specific conditions of each country.
The revolution in Italy will unfold differently from the revolution in Russia. It will begin in a different manner. But how exactly? Neither you nor we know this. Italian communists are not always sufficiently communist. During the factory occupations in Italy, did even a single communist truly emerge? No. At that time, communism had not yet taken root in Italy; one could speak of a certain anarchism, but certainly not of Marxist communism. The latter still had to be forged, instilled in the working masses through the crucible of revolutionary struggle. And the first step on this path is the decisive break with the Mensheviks—who, for more than twenty years, had collaborated with and worked alongside the bourgeois government. It is quite possible that Modigliani, whom I had the opportunity to observe briefly at the Zimmerwald and Kienthal Conferences, is a shrewd enough politician not to enter into a bourgeois government, but instead to remain within the heart of the Socialist Party, where he can do far more good for the bourgeoisie. Yet the very theoretical stance, the very propaganda, the very agitation carried out by Turati and his friends already amount to collaboration with the bourgeoisie. Has this not been amply demonstrated by the numerous quotations cited in Genari’s speech? Yes, this is the very united front that Turati has already prepared. Therefore, I must say to Comrade Lazzari: with speeches like yours—and like the one delivered here by Comrade Serrati—the revolution is not being prepared; it is being disorganized. (Cries of “Bravo!” and applause.)
In Livorno, you secured a substantial majority: 98,000 votes against 14,000 for the reformists and 58,000 for the communists. For the inception of a purely communist movement in a country like Italy—with its well‑established traditions and without sufficient preparatory groundwork for a split, that number represents a great success for the communists.
This is a momentous victory, a palpable testament illustrating the fact that the workers’ movement in Italy will develop more rapidly than our own movement in Russia. For if you are familiar with the figures pertaining to our movement, you know that in February 1917—after the fall of Tsarism and during the brief period of the bourgeois republic—we still constituted a minority in relation to the Mensheviks. This was the case after fifteen years of fierce struggle and bitter splits. Our Right Wing never achieved the same degree of development—and as you might think, speaking dismissively of Russia, it was not nearly as simple as you imagine. Undoubtedly, in Italy, development will proceed along entirely different lines. After fifteen years of struggle against the Mensheviks and following the fall of Tsarism, we began our work with far fewer supporters. You have 58,000 workers inclined toward communism, as opposed to 98,000 centrists whose position remains uncertain. This is proof—this is a fact—that should surely convince all those who refuse to close their eyes

III CONGRESS OF THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL
eyes turned toward the mass movement of Italian workers. Not everything comes all at once. But this already serves as proof that behind us stand the working masses—not the old leaders, not the bureaucrats, not the professors, not the journalists—but the truly exploited class, the vanguard of the exploited. And this is a telling indication of the grave error you committed in Livorno. It is a fact: you held 98,000 votes, yet you chose to align yourself with 14,000 reformists against 58,000 communists. Even if those communists had not been genuine communists—if they had merely been supporters of Bordiga—which is not true, since after the Second Congress Bordiga declared, with complete loyalty, that he renounced all forms of anarchism and anti‑parliamentarism—still, you should have sided with them. What did you do? You opted instead for an alliance with 14,000 reformists and a break with 58,000 communists—and this is the clearest evidence that Serrati’s policy was a misfortune for Italy. We never intended for Serrati in Italy to emulate the Russian Revolution; that would have been foolish. We possess sufficient wisdom and flexibility to avoid such folly. But Serrati proved that his policy in Italy was fundamentally wrong. Perhaps he ought to have practiced “skilful maneuvering”—that was the phrase he repeated most often here a year ago. He used to say: “We know how to maneuver; we do not seek slavish imitation. That would be sheer idiocy. We must maneuver in order to bring about a clear break from opportunism. You Russians, you do not know how to do that. We Italians are far more capable in this regard. We shall see.” And what did we see? Serrati maneuvered brilliantly. He broke with 58,000 communists. And now comrades come here and say, “If you push us away, the masses will become confused.” No, comrades, you are mistaken. The working masses in Italy are already confused—and it will benefit them if we tell them: “Choose, comrades, choose, Italian workers, between the Communist International, which will never demand that you slavishly imitate the Russians, and the Mensheviks, whom we have known for twenty years and whom we will never tolerate as fellow travelers in a truly revolutionary Communist International.” This is what we will say to the Italian workers. The outcome is beyond doubt: the working masses will follow us. (Stormy applause.)
The newspaper report was published on July 1, 1921, in Pravda, No. 141,
and in Izvestia of the VTsIK, No. 141.
It was printed in full on July 4, 1921, in the Bulletin
of the Third Congress of the Communist
International, No. 8.

Printed according to the text of the book “The Third World Congress of the Communist International.

Stenographic Report.”

Petrograd, 1922