Page:Grigory Zinoviev - Report of the Executive Committee of the Communist International (1921).pdf/26

 Comrade Kabaktschiew spoke, people screamed and shouted; Long live the Pope; a pigeon was let loose, and various unheard-of chauvinist scenes were enacted. And after all that, it was said that Comrade Kahaktschiew was to blame.

The events of September and October should leave no doubt in the mind of anyone. It was not a question of Comrade Kabaktschiew's speech but of the retrogression of the party, at least in its leading strata, to the role of a simple, ordinary Social Democratic Party. This is what we have in Italy, retrogression under the pressure of a whole number of circumstances; retrogression of the leaders who have to become mere Independents. I must admit that the right-wing Independents in Halle behaved much more decently towards the Communists than did Serati and his people.

The Congress took place. Serati with his group moved a resolution. He proposed that the party should call itself Social Communist, accept the 21 conditions, but remain quite free. There was no question of a split. Turati, the only one who delivered a speech on principles, was given an ovation. He is the real leading spirit of the party. He declared quite openly that he is against force: all must be carried out peacefully. And now attempts are being made to lay the blame for the split on the Executive. What other alternative did the Executive have?

It is quite clear that this was the first collision between the Communist International and the reformist elements. It was the first trial of forces. Should the Communist International have given way it must be frankly acknowledged that we would have no Communist International and no political or world significance at this time, had we given way on this question; then it would have been said that the Communist International had gone down on its knees before Turati and the other reformists. It could have continued to exist, and could have had large