The writings of Palmiro Togliatti on Fascism have been widely diffused in India, his book ‘Lectures on Fascism’ based on his talks in the Italian section of the Marxist-Leninist School in Moscow in January-April 1935 is well-known in the movement1. The book has been also translated into Hindi. Here we publish an extract of the book by the political secretary of Togliatti and his wife, Maurizio and Marcella Ferrara, entitled ‘Conversations with Togliatti’ which was originally published in January, 1953 in Italy2. The Russian translation of this book was published in the Soviet Union the following year and it is from this that the following chapter has been translated into English. Togliatti had actively participated in the 13th Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International in December 1933 so his views which are reflected in these pages are of considerable interest.3 In the post-Stalin period Togliatti was to become a pioneer of modern revisionism and the Ferraras were to follow in train. Two observations on this chapter are in order.
First, the Ferraras state, on the basis of the information given by Togliatti, that the definition of Fascism which ended years of discussion on this question in the communist movement and which was adopted at the 13th Plenum of ECCI was the decision of Stalin.
Fascism had been defined in the following manner based on the report of Kuusinen:
‘Fascism is the open, terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinist and most imperialist elements of finance capital. Fascism tries to secure a mass basis for monopolist capital among the petty bourgeoisie, appealing to the peasantry, artisans, office employees, and civil servants who have been thrown out of their normal course of life, and particularly to the declassed elements in the big cities, also trying to penetrate into the working class.’4
The information of the Ferraras, based on their discussions with Togliatti and published in the lifetime of the Soviet leader, that Stalin had authored this definition, is of great significance.
Second. These pages summarise the circumstances which led to the transition from the Sixth to the Seventh Congress of the Comintern which in the fight against fascism led to a new approach to the tactic of united front and popular front. As is known the Trotskyists, the enemies of communism, have long opposed the policies of the CPSU (b) and Comintern on these questions. The Trotskyist theses, moreover, have been tacitly adopted by a number of critics of Stalin and the Comintern. Of particular importance have been the views of Bill Bland and Francisco Martins Rodrigues. The former in his more-or-less fictional accounts of communist history argued that Stalin had lost power in the 1920s and that ‘agents of Nazism’ such as Georgi Dimitrov had taken over the CPSU (b) and the Comintern, introducing the policy of the Popular Front at its Seventh Congress5. These analyses have been diffused over decades by Hari Kumar of Alliance in North America and Wolfgang Eggers of Germany. In the volume ‘Anti-Dimitrov 1935/1985 – meio seculo de derrotas da revolugao,’6 Francisco Martins Rodrigues argues that the ‘defeats’ of the revolution since the Seventh Congress of the Communist International have their source in the ‘leftism’ and ‘opportunism’ under the cover of the Communist International, particularly the ‘centrism’ of not only Dimitrov but also of Stalin, Bukharin, Gramsci and Mao.
At present there is a rise of right reaction, fascisation and fascism across the globe. In these circumstances the views on United Front and Popular Front adopted by the Seventh Congress of the Communist International under the leadership of Dimitrov and Stalin have again come to the fore. A number of the parties of the ICMLPO have correctly sought to apply the tactic of Popular Front in their countries. The reasons for the coming into being of the theses adopted at the Seventh Congress suggested by the Ferraras, based on the views of Palmiro Togliatti, thus have a contemporary value.7
Notes
1. https://archive.org/details/LecturesOnFascism/page/n1These speeches are related to 1931, 1932 and the later years. The most important one was the speech at the 12th Plenum of the executive committee of the Comintern, which recognized that an end had come to the relative stabilization of capitalism, which meant the approach of a new revolutionary crisis. First of all, Togliatti opposed the “idealizing” of fascism, the tendency to consider the arrival of fascism to power as unavoidable, and unavoidably in the dramatic form of a state coup – as in Italy. This polemic was directed against Trotskyism as well as one group of German comrades who had built a whole theory upon this “unavoidability”. Having defined the advance on Rome as a “half plebeian, half dynastic and military” state coup, Togliatti stated that “if one aims to understand well the distinctive features of the German situation,... not only can not one start out of external analogies with the Italian situation of the time of the advance on Rome, but, on the contrary, it is necessary to point out the difference in the situation in these two countries”. Then he goes on with his analysis, underlining the differences in the international environment, the movement of the masses and the bourgeois politics. The conclusion is not the impossibility of the arrival of fascists to power in Germany, but “a prospect, which should not be ruled out, of establishment of a fascist dictatorship even if an event similar to the advance on Rome does not occur”. It was already in the methods of government practiced by Bruning and his direct heirs that elements of fascist dictatorship did exist. In Hitler’s fascism, supported by 13 million voters, an opportunity for the development of strong internal contradictions reveals itself in a concrete way, but only if policies capable of influencing these masses are exercised from our side. Approaching in such a way the study of the movement by the masses and of the work among them, Togliatti makes his first conclusion: one has to break away from the schemes that no longer work. “If, on the one hand, the development of the movement by the masses hampers government’s contemporary plans, it will – on the other hand – have a reverse effect. The reaction develops the forces of the revolution, while the development of the revolutionary forces, in its turn, stimulates the forces of reaction to develop and unite. The movement of the masses that develops on a turbulent rate could, at certain moments and under certain circumstances, speed up the process of installing a full fascist dictatorship... In elaborating its tactics and in organizing its work, the German Communist Party should consider the fact that it will undoubtedly encounter a very quick development of events and very sharp changes in the situation, the qualitative leaps”. Then Togliatti warns against the satisfaction with the quantity of masses already won over, calls upon working within reformist-led unions and learning how to practice the tactics of a united front well.
“The German Communist Party is strong”, continues Togliatti. “It is stronger now than the Italian party was after the war, and the German bourgeoisie acts carefully against it: instead of dismantling it, the bourgeoisie tries to cut its ties to the masses, banning the press and the gatherings, provoking the party to go into partial, untimely battles, in order to beat it, having isolated it from the huge masses of workers first. Similar tactics were applied by the Italian bourgeoisie in order to crush the forces of the workers' movement before the seizure of state power by the fascists. In Italy, the Communist Party committed an error back then, having exhausted its energy in a series of isolated battles, instead of – through the wide application of the united front tactics – trying to unite the broad masses that were fighting for their bread and their freedom around itself. The opportunities to create such a front for the German party are extremely huge... The reduction in wages is being presented as an international measure. Its application will start in Germany and spread around all capitalist states; the rising number of unemployed and their impoverishment will be an inevitable consequence of the development of the economic crisis. We are attending at a situation when all the preconditions for the development of great social battles are accumulating. The slowdown in the development of the party and especially in the growth of its influence on the enterprise level and its ability to boost the resistance and the struggle by the workers towards a higher level would be extremely harmful. The main task the German party faces now is to avoid such a slowdown and to overcome the already existing lag behind in winning over the workers, who are still controlled by the Social Democracy. Not only the development of the events in Germany, but a change in the whole European situation depends upon the fulfillment of this task”.
Thus, we come logically to the central question: “Yes, it is correct to state, as the German Communist Party states, that the antifascist activity should take most diverse forms and develop in all possible directions. But it would be justified to insist, at the same time, that the party should make exceptionally huge efforts to unite the masses politically and organizationally for the antifascist struggle”.
It was this path upon which the whole communist movement came to stand confidently and enthusiastically. In the later years, it was also the theoretical debate on the nature of fascism to which Stalin put an end, having defined the latter as “unconcealed terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, and most imperialistic elements of finance capital”. This definition, to which the Marxist imperative about the difference between the social and political phenomena is clearly and rigorously applied, was the theoretical justification of the political course that had to be followed after Hitler came to power, and also because of the spread of fascism around the whole Europe. Recognition of such a difference led to the conclusion about the possibility and necessity to isolate and smash fascists by establishing contacts and organizing joint actions together with all the other forces which resisted and stood against fascism.
The first successful attempt to achieve concrete results in this direction by means of creating a new atmosphere of mutual understanding and cooperation among the antifascists were the congresses for the organization of the resistance movement and propaganda against the danger of war – first in Amsterdam, and then in Paris in the hall of Pleyel. Simultaneously with the Amsterdam Congress, an Italian committee of action against imperialist warfare was organized. Representatives of the Republican party, the party of Maximalists, and a group of socialists participated in it together with the Communists. Dimitrov’s arrest in Berlin and the silly provocation plotted against him by Goebbels and Goering regarding the accusations charged against him in relation to the arson attack on the Reichstag, sparked a protest movement of unprecedented proportions not only in Europe, but across the globe. The Reichstag was burnt by the Nazis with the purpose to influence the social opinion, and the movement of solidarity with Dimitrov turned into a first mighty international manifestation against fascism. Organizations and individuals of many different tendencies participated in it. It was a grandiose example of what could and must be done. Hitler’s leadership, taken by surprise, was pressed against the wall by Dimitrov himself, thanks to his heroic behaviour in the Leipzig trial.
In 1934, the situation in Austria, France and Spain rapidly deteriorated. In February, Austrian clerical chancellor Dollfus initiated an open armed struggle against the workers of Vienna, hoping to crush their resistance and establish a reactionary dictatorship. Workers of all political tendencies united in the struggle. As a result, part of the best socialist fighters joined the Communist ranks, having realised that the cause of the defeat was the wrong policy by Social Democracy. In France, after the attempt at a fascist coup d’état in February of the same year, worker socialists and communists becameconvinced that it was necessary to fight together against the fascist threat. The French Communist Party began the very policy of democratic unity in the ranks of a Unified Front and the People’s Front, which after several months led to the defeat of fascism and a change in the overall situation in France. In October of that same year, another important event in Spain proved that a union was necessary to repel the fascist threat. The vanguard of the whole Spanish nation – the miners of Asturia – launched their struggle against the actions by the reactionary government in defence of their gains and their existence. The government resorted to the use of arms, but the working masses answered it heroically with all available means. Communists, socialists, anarchists and even the leadership of the socialist party stepped forward in defence of the movement. An avalanche of repressive measures was thrown upon the workers. Thousands were arrested. Some of the best fighters were forced to flee the country.
In the Italian anti-fascist emigration circles, all these events were met with deep empathy. Mussolini was preparing for war openly, taking measures at militarization of the whole country, orientation of industrial production at war preparation. The critical moment was approaching, for which preparation had to be made. After the “Concentration” was dissolved, a course upon the union of all the antifascist forces was taken. On August 17, 1934 a union-of-action pact was signed between the communists and the socialists after all the mutual work that had been done in the previous months.
This new orientation in politics and in practical work, rich with opportunities unknown up to that point, required discussion and deep elaboration. It had to be theoretically and historically justified, and it led to the main questions of the Communist movement being set up in a new way. The Seventh Congress of the Comintern was called for this purpose, and Georgi Dimitrov, the hero of the Leipzig trial, was put in charge of the preparation. Dimitrov suggested to involve Togliatti in the preparation work and charge him with presenting a report. He asked Togliatti to temporarily leave his job as the leader of the Italian overseas centre in order to work in Moscow for a while.
Togliatti agreed, and, before going to Moscow, occupied himself with the task of clarifying the opportunity for the union-of-action agreement with the Second International organizations, or at least with those groups of social democratic leaders who stood for decisive struggle against fascism in their countries and on the international stage. He met with the left socialist leaders who fled Spain, and immediately became convinced that a political agreement with them was not only possible but close to being materialized. It was at that time that he also got acquainted with Julio Alvarez del Vayo, with whom a friendly relationship was set up and continued. Another attempt was made in Belgium, where a powerful left movement for a united front existed among the young socialists. The most well-known leaders of this tendency were Marteaux and Henri Spaak. The former was a man of honesty, sincerity and clear mind. Things were different with Spaak. Even though he belonged to the left at that time, it was clear that he belonged to it out of personal considerations rather than beliefs. During his talks with Togliatti who, in essence, was offering nothing more than a joint movement of international antifascist solidarity, Spaak played the role of an “extremist”. He asked if the communists had weapons and if they were ready to provide them at his disposal. Of course, the conversation ended at that point.
Translated from the Russian by Vitaly Pershin
Click here to return to the October 2019 index.