November marks the anniversary of the launch of one of the most important publications of the Communist Left. Bilan, the organ of the Italian Communist Left Fraction, was published during the darkest years of the counter-revolution. The purpose of this short text is neither to examine the Italian Communist Left Fraction nor to analyse Bilan, as such a task would require extensive and rigorous research. The aim here is simply to highlight the significance of Bilan’s publication during that bleak counter-revolutionary period — although even this emphasis will inevitably remain incomplete and partial.

Emphasising the importance of Bilan’s publication does not imply any kind of religious reverence for it; rather, it reflects a dialectical understanding of the conditions of that particular phase of the counter-revolution. In that bleak period, when almost everyone was in retreat and the last glimmers of critical thought were fading, there were comrades who, in the very heart of darkness, raised the torch of proletarian and internationalist positions. Those who defended these positions in the aftermath of the historic defeat of the working class were fully aware that they did not possess answers to all the problems confronting the proletariat. A significant portion of these questions could only be clarified through the course of the class struggle itself, and through the experience and debates of communists within that struggle. It was with this perspective and horizon that Bilan wrote in the introduction to its first issue:

“In undertaking the publication of this bulletin, our fraction does not believe it can offer definitive solutions to the grave problems facing the proletariats of all countries.”

These comrades, following the historic defeat of the working class and the massacre of its vanguard—whether at the hands of Stalinism or under the banner of Social Democracy—strove to defend proletarian aims and principles. Our aim is not merely to pay tribute to the communists who remained steadfast in the harshest of circumstances, but to highlight the valuable lessons they left behind—lessons that the working class must draw upon in its future struggles.

In 1922, Mussolini was appointed Prime Minister following the ‘March on Rome’; this marked the beginning of a fascist regime that would last until 1943. The year 1926 was a turning point in the history of the Italian communists. In January of that year, during the Lyon Congress, Gramsci threatened all party officials that if they did not vote for his theses, they would lose their positions and party privileges—an action that led to the isolation of the Party’s left wing.

The fundamental question is: how was it possible, and indeed how did they dare, to issue such a threat within a party in which the left wing held considerable influence? This was only made possible through the intervention of the Communist International — which was itself on a path of decline — an intervention that combined heavy pressure on party officials with manoeuvres aimed at the organised manipulation of votes. This process relied on electoral fraud and the exploitation of the mechanisms of the fascist regime, and perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the principal architect of it was the Communist International itself. Their reliance on the postal service in a country governed by a fascist regime gave Gramsci and Togliatti’s leadership the confidence that they could maintain full control over the voting outcome. Consequently, although the left wing still enjoyed significant influence within the party at the time, it ultimately failed to secure even ten per cent of the votes. In a letter dated 20 August 1925, the Presidium of the Communist International wrote, among other things:

“To organise federal congresses in such a way that the large federations that are with the CC and where Bordiga has less influence speak first. Also to publish, and use before the federal congresses, the votes of the cells in the large factories where we have an overwhelming majority.”[1]

The very regulations governing the conduct of federal and regional congresses, as well as the methods for selecting and appointing delegates, had in practice become a wholly partisan mechanism and an instrument for the organised exclusion of the left wing — a mechanism that, in effect, amounted to outright fraud against this fraction. At point 1 of the Executive Committee’s circular, it was stated:

“All comrades must be informed that those who are unable to attend the aforementioned meeting [where delegates and theses are voted on, note] and intend to vote for the extreme left theses must communicate this in writing to the responsible organs, which are required to notify the federal congress. For all those who are absent and do not send any communication, their vote shall be considered as given to the theses presented by the Central Committee.”[2]

Following this event, Bordiga, at the Sixth Enlarged Executive Sessions of the Communist International, held between 17 February and 15 March 1926, defended the communist positions with courage, sharp insight, and Marxist clarity—a defence so internationalist that it even took Stalin by surprise during the in-person session. The presence of revolutionary communists was intolerable to the Stalinists: they were first removed from key responsibilities within the Italian party and then expelled from the party altogether—a process that was effectively completed in 1930, with the expulsion of Bordiga.

Following their expulsion from the party and the intensification of fascist repression, some members of the left wing were exiled to France and Belgium. In 1928, in Pantin, in the suburbs of Paris, the Communist Left Fraction of the Italian Communist Party was established. From the beginning of 1929, this fraction published the magazine Prometeo in Italian, and from 1933 it also began publishing the journal Bilan in French.

The first issue of Bilan was published in November 1933. In its inaugural issue, the magazine set out its purpose as follows:

“We intend to make the journal an organ for political clarification and for understanding the particularly complex social situation at present.”

Bilan based its mission on a set of key objectives: first, the resolute defence of proletarian positions and the development of the revolutionary theory of the working class; second, the analysis of the global situation of the proletariat and the examination of the capitalist crisis; and third, active participation in the struggle against the deviations and betrayals of the Comintern and of parties entirely under Stalinist control. Overall, Bilan sought to create the theoretical and political conditions necessary for the working-class revolutionary movement to advance once more.

One of the central themes of Bilan was the examination of defeats and the lessons to be drawn from the experiences of the labour movement. In other words, the journal sought to produce a ‘balance sheet’ of the working-class movement—that is, to learn from its defeats and, on that basis, to lay the theoretical foundations for the next stages of struggle. For this reason, the journal was named Bilan.

A particularly important issue in this context was the October Revolution and the problems arising from its isolation, the class character of the Soviet state, and the consequences that followed. It was natural that the comrades did not have ready-made or predetermined answers—and could not have them—since some questions could only be resolved in the course of the class struggle itself, through the discussions and even debates of communists within that struggle.

In its first issue, Bilan published an article on the occasion of the sixteenth anniversary of the Russian Revolution, emphasising its internationalist stance. The journal stressed the concept of a worldwide communist revolution and reminded readers that Lenin and the Bolsheviks had always relied on the prospect of a global revolution. During the civil war and the policy of ‘War Communism’ in the Soviet Union, the country became a focal point for the forces of the proletariat across the world.

However, after 1921 and the defeat of revolutionary waves in European countries, the Russian proletariat was forced to adopt the defensive policy of the NEP. Despite its limitations and dangers, this policy remained within the framework of a global revolutionary analysis. Yet, following the defeat of the German workers in 1923, the connection of the proletariat of the Soviet Union with the world revolution was severed, paving the way for the emergence of the theory of ‘Socialism in One Country’. This separation from the global proletariat led the Russian Communist Party into isolation and caused it to focus on domestic economic and industrial development, without regard for the interests of the proletariat in other countries. Over time, this process resulted in the Soviet state becoming a partner of global capitalism.

Bilan did not adopt a sectarian approach and welcomed all forms of criticism, including serious critiques of its own positions. For example, in issue 33, an article entitled ‘The Nature and Development of the Russian Revolution’ was published, which in fact constituted a critique of Bilan’s theses. This critique emphasised that Bilan replaces class struggle with party struggle, which could have the following consequences:

• The working class can become conscious only through the party;
• Without the party, the working class effectively disappears or is absorbed into capitalism;
• The dictatorship of the proletariat becomes synonymous with the dictatorship of the party.

The critic acknowledged that the Russian Revolution was part of the global struggle of the working class, but emphasised that it was the result of a combination of specific domestic and international conditions, and that Bilan unrealistically downplayed the role of domestic Russian factors. Furthermore, Bilan’s claim that the Russian Revolution was merely the ‘forerunner’ of a world revolution, without similar revolutions occurring in other countries, is mistaken.

According to the critic, the Russian Revolution initially failed in building socialism due to backward domestic conditions, and this failure inevitably led to a nationalist turn and, ultimately, to the emergence of ‘Stalinism’. Therefore, Bilan’s explanation, which attributes the failure solely to the ‘absence of the correct party’, is considered superficial and un-Marxist.

Hennaut continued his critique in issue 34, publishing an article entitled ‘Formal Democracy and Socialist Democracy’. The article emphasises that superficial interpretations of Luxemburg’s critique of the Russian Revolution have resulted in a misrepresentation and distortion of her views.

Luxemburg opposed limiting the role of the working masses in the revolution and disregarding proletarian democracy. In her view, a proletarian revolution cannot be carried out by the party or by an elite on behalf of the working class; only the active and direct participation of the entire working class can guarantee a genuine revolution.

Hennaut also notes that when a revolution occurs at a national level without international support, the party’s dictatorship can replace proletarian democracy and lead to the suppression of the masses.

In issue 35, Bilan responded to Hennaut’s critique by publishing an article entitled ‘The Nature and Development of the Russian Revolution: A Response to Comrade Hennaut’. In this article, Bilan addresses Hennaut’s criticisms of the Russian Revolution and Marxist concepts. Bilan’s response can be summarised as follows:

1. Reliance on Marxist principles and historical experience: Discussions of revolutions must be grounded in fundamental Marxist principles and historical experience, rather than focusing solely on particular chapters or limited evidence.
2. The international character of revolution: Revolution and the struggle of the proletariat are inherently international, and their success or failure cannot be attributed solely to the domestic conditions of a single country. For example, the Russian Revolution must be examined in an international context, not merely through the lens of the ‘factory councils’ or domestic economic management.
3. Misinterpretation of the theory of factory committees: The theory of factory committees presented in the critique departs from Marxism, as it seeks to maintain the position of the proletariat through legal reforms or state structures, whereas Marxist principles emphasise the fundamental contradiction between the state and the proletariat.
4. The role of the Communist Party: The Communist Party is a tool for developing the political consciousness and leadership of the proletariat, but it should not directly manage production or society. Preserving class institutions and the working class’s freedom of action is essential, even after victory.
5. Lessons of the Russian Revolution:
   • The productive structure must be reorganised to meet the needs of the proletariat rather than generate profit.
   • The proletariat must preserve all its class institutions and maintain freedom of action in struggle.
   • The party of the class must be the central axis for guiding and developing the political consciousness of the proletariat.
   • Class struggle and international experience are key to the success of the revolution.
6. Evaluation of Hennaut’s critique: Bilan regards Hennaut’s critique as limited, impractical, and based on idealist assumptions, emphasising that the proletariat’s struggle for victory requires a class party and accurate historical analysis, rather than reliance on legal instruments or economic management.
7. Comparison of Lenin’s and Luxemburg’s views: Bilan holds that both currents form part of the global experience of the proletariat and should not be treated as absolutely opposed to one another.
8. Final summary: The solution to the problems arising from the degeneration of the Soviet Union lies in continuing the global struggle of the proletariat and drawing on historical experience, not in returning to local or limited ideas.

A short-lived attempt to engage with the Left-Trotskyist opposition revealed the fundamental difference in orientation between the two currents. Trotskyism saw itself merely as an opposition struggling to ‘reform’ the Stalinist parties, whereas the Communist Left fraction pursued a more radical objective, fighting for the complete destruction of the counter-revolutionary Stalinist current. The difference in the programmatic principles of the two currents made any joint collaboration practically impossible.

In the face of the threat of Hitlerite fascism, Trotsky supported the creation of a broad ‘Workers’ United Front’ between the Stalinists and Social Democracy. In his view, yesterday’s counter-revolution — Social Democracy — and today’s counter-revolution — Stalinism — could form a united front to halt the advance of fascism. What Trotsky failed to grasp, however, was a proper class analysis; he suggested that the Stalinist bourgeoisie and the Social Democratic bourgeoisie could unite against the fascist bourgeoisie. Unfortunately, Trotsky did not live to witness the consequences of these positions.

In this ‘United Front’, which included both yesterday’s and today’s counter-revolutionaries, Trotsky saw a force capable of halting the advance of fascism. However, in this perspective, the class nature of the bourgeoisie was overlooked. He ignored a fundamental reality: the struggle against fascism is meaningless for the proletariat if it is separated from the general class struggle against the bourgeoisie and the capitalist system. In other words, Trotsky turned a blind eye to the class basis of the proletariat’s struggle.

At the same time, Bilan took a position entirely opposed to the anti-fascist united fronts that were formed under the guise of a ‘democratic struggle’. Bilan argued that the only genuine front for the proletariat was an independent communist organisation, not a bourgeois coalition. From Bilan’s perspective, the anti-fascist war could merely serve as a means of drawing the working class into imperialist wars, and therefore a resolute defence of fundamental internationalist principles was essential.

The Communist Left fraction in exile played a crucial role in providing a living and critical analysis of the Comintern, grounded in the real experiences and defeats of the proletariat. This critique not only exposed the betrayals of Stalinism but also laid the foundation for the enrichment and advancement of communist thought. Bilan, as the primary instrument of this fraction, emphasised the fundamental principles of Marxism — namely class struggle — and presented the working class as the historical subject of the communist revolution. Through its Marxist analyses, Bilan illuminated both the theoretical and practical path of the proletariat during the harsh, dark, and black years of the counter-revolution. The magazine also demonstrated that class struggle could only be realised through independent organisation and class consciousness. By maintaining continuous critical engagement, the fraction expanded the theoretical and practical boundaries of the communist movement and highlighted the importance of political independence and internationalism. In this way, the fraction’s activities in exile and the publication of Bilan played an indispensable role in sustaining and consolidating communist traditions. The final issue of Bilan was published in 1938, and upon its cessation, October magazine replaced it, presenting itself as the international office of the Communist Left fractions:

“It is at the moment when the avant-garde revolutionary groups commemorate the passing of three great masters — Lenin, Luxemburg, Liebknecht — that our effort of four years ago achieves its first result. Bilan will disappear to make way for the Review of the International Bureau of the Left Fractions: OCTOBER.

…

Bilan can step aside in its own time: many issues remain unresolved, and much is still insufficient. Yet, although our efforts may have been limited, they were the only ones that sought to rise to the historical level of the events. The distinction between us and all the forces of capitalism — socialists, centralists, Trotskyists, and all manner of misleaders — reflects precisely the distinction in conditions and demonstrates that we have reached a critical point on the current path. From the devastation of imperialist war, proletarian reactions can emerge; reactions that require a first international centre to guide workers in different countries towards laying the foundations of communist parties: an international centre that tills the ideological ground so that the first post-war Bilan may be sown there and assist in the formation of Left fractions.

Bilan disappears. Long live the Review of the International Bureau of Left Fractions!”

Bilan had expressed the hope that the course of the Second World War, like the First World War, would witness the emergence of proletarian uprisings, and that Communist Left fractions would be established across the world. Unfortunately, neither the proletarian uprisings occurred, nor were Communist Left fractions formed during or after the war. Although the fraction and Bilan ultimately dissolved, giving way to October magazine — which published only five issues — the role and influence of Bilan extended far beyond its own time.

Bilan shone like a torch in the heart of darkness, offering a clear horizon towards a revolutionary future. The theoretical legacy of this magazine remains alive: an emphasis on class consciousness, organisational independence, critique of Stalinist parties, analysis of imperialist wars, examination of fascism and anti-fascism, attention to the national question and the Palestine–Israel crisis, and dozens of other issues — all form part of this valuable legacy. These experiences are not only instructive but also provide guidance and inspiration for future generations of the proletariat in their class struggles and in pursuing the path of the communist revolution. Bilan demonstrated that even in the darkest of times, the duty of communists is to defend proletarian positions and remain faithful to communist ideals. Today, we owe part of our teachings and insights to Bilan and the tireless efforts of the Communist Left fraction.

 A&J

18 November 2025

 

Notes:

[1] Quoted in La liquidazione della sinistra del PCd’I, edizioni L’internazionale, p.240.

[2] Quoted in La liquidazione …, p. 247. 

Download as PDF