An article by one of our comrades published in issue 20 of Bilan will enable comrades to rediscover, in detail, the antecedents to the current conflict which sees Italian imperialism against the semi-patriarchal and semi-feudal regime of Ethiopia. The persistence of an area not directly controlled by one or the other European imperialism is by no means due to the fact that France, England, or Italy (to limit ourselves to the capitalisms most interested in this region of tropical Africa) had not conceived plans of conquest of Ethiopia. Between 1860 and 1900, each in turn, these three powers attempted to occupy the highlands of Abyssinia, and if they renounced it, this was solely on the impossibility of achieving their goal without having to face a war against the rival imperialism. If England had at first let Italy take possession of the sea outlet of Massawa, this was solely because that action weakened the resistance then being put up by the dervishes in the Upper Nile to the victorious British conquest. But afterwards, when it was not possible to proceed, without a world war, to a modification of the zones of influence established in Africa, Italy and France especially had to abandon the conquest enterprise each time: In 1898 the Marchand mission at Fashoda in the Upper Nile had to give up in the face of British threats, and if in 1896 Italy could venture towards Adwa this was only possible because England was already certain of the defeat of the Italian army, a rout which represents an exception in the entire history of imperialist colonial banditry. Everywhere, the prior military reverses were followed by a victory that the bourgeoisie could achieve thanks to the possibility it had of arming its ‘civilising’ armies to the teeth.

This was not the case in Abyssinia for two essential reasons: firstly the awakening of the Italian proletariat which struck down Crispi’s [Prime Minister of Italy 1893-1896 – ed.] hands, and secondly the sure entry into the field of British imperialism if it did not feel sufficiently guaranteed by the resistance of the army commanded by Menelik. We do not make a simple hypothesis here but note this historical fact of the events of the year following Fashoda, where England intervened directly when France, a power far stronger than Italy and assured by favourable internal conditions not upset by strong proletarian agitation, went on the attack.

Ethiopia, on the other hand, had a geological and economic constitution that was to allow what has been called its independence. Lacking large mineral reservoirs, and sprawling over infertile land, it had been able to preserve an economic structure where not only industry had not been able to make its revolutionary intervention, but the very forms of serfdom economy had been able to make little inroads; the primitive elements of tribal formations had been able to persist in giving life to an empire that was in reality nothing more than a confederation of states where the land was subject to communal distribution in accordance with the changing seasons.

But strategically speaking, much more so than economically speaking, Abyssinia has always awakened the appetites of three rival imperialisms that could not win its conquest without a war among them. The fact that in the last slaughter France, Italy, and England participated in the same constellation probably explains why even today Ethiopia is the only state not subjected to direct imperialist control (not to mention Liberia, of extremely secondary importance and of little strategic value).

We wanted to report these precedents solely to make it clear that we are in no way dealing with a particular exigency of fascism, or with a manifestation of that warlike spirit which, according to the socialist and centrist traitors who seem to want to meet in Basle, would be the exclusive prerogative of fascists. The liberal Giolitti was at the head of the government when Italian capitalism went on to conquer Tripolitania, and from that moment on, the premise of the current events was laid; to extend the conquered areas with a view also to their connection. At Versailles, Italy could not obtain this result because of England’s possessions in Africa, it then tried to achieve it by peaceful manoeuvres aimed at drawing Ethiopia under its control, to finally arrive at the frontal attack of these days. If in Mussolini’s place had been Nitti, Sforza, or perhaps a government of the type that the centrists in France claim, the problem would only have changed in form. We would not have had the imperial-style drunkenness of fascism, but the kowtowing to the need for civilisation that would have accompanied the saturnalia of capitalism, as for example, the English arch-democrats did in the carnage against the Boers.

This is therefore not a ‘fascist’ war but a capitalist war, against which only the Italian and international proletariat can rise to support the oppressed masses of Abyssinia who, due to an extremely laggard economy, have not yet come to the realisation of the need to break the regime that oppresses them.

On the other hand, even a quick analysis of the concrete conditions in which the Italian plan of expansion is currently taking place will allow us to see a clear confirmation of the position we defend, and which concludes in opposing the formulation of ‘fascist war’ with the other of ‘capitalist war’. It is completely correct that socialism and centrism in Italy find themselves in conditions more or less analogous to those experienced by the Italian proletariat, i.e. they cannot affirm their political positions, nor can they determine political movements of opposition to the current government. What about elsewhere, then? In Russia, for example, no doubt about it: centrism dominates unchallenged, and not only is it capable of violently breaking up any opposition movement, but it can even go so far as to set an example to democratic or fascist governments in all other countries by legally murdering political refugees who do not want to bow down and become instruments of centrist policy. In what positions does the Russian proletariat find itself? In those of enthusiastic support for the ‘proletarian victories’ consisting in the entry of the U.S.S.R. into the League of Nations, in the conclusion of the Franco-Soviet pact. Has a single voice been raised in Russia to stimulate an international action by the proletariat to oppose the plan of Italian imperialism? None, but on the contrary, powerful mass mobilisations to applaud Litvinov and Stalin, who evidently go from victory to victory when it comes to boldly and shamefully entering into the arena of world capitalism.

And in France? Just read the Populaire or the Humanité: ‘Fascism does not pass’, ‘the Popular Front inflicts a defeat upon fascism every day’. For us (our readers know this) if these socialist and centrist victories are possible and real, this depends solely on the fact that the political function that capitalism has entrusted to fascism in Italy and Germany, can be entrusted in France to radicals, socialists, and centrists: the only capitalist objective is that of the destruction of the proletariat, and on this path socialists and centrists have worked miracles since Stalin’s declaration and hosanna to the Republic that has murdered tens of thousands in the Commune and which crushes with ruthless violence every attempt of the exploited in the colonies. But if these victories are so real, how is it possible that they have no influence on the events in Ethiopia? What is the conduct of the French government, of this same government that must yield to the influence of the ‘Popular Front’? What is more, if it is a ‘fascist war’, why not set up an action by the French proletariat with a view to workers’ agitation in all countries? The answer is very simple: such an action would be contrary to the interests of French capitalism, which gives a free hand to Italian capitalism hoping to have in return its support in the policy directed against German imperialism’s plan of revanche. It is not ruled out, indeed, in the opinion of the writer of these lines it is certain that Italy will not enter the war alongside France, but the problem is this: the French government on which ‘formidable’ pressure can be exerted by the Popular Front, which has numerous ministers in the person of radicals who have recently entered into the alliance with centrists and socialists, this government has blown up the Eden [Anthony Eden, British Foreign Secretary 1935-1938 – ed.] project, through which English imperialism was trying to contain the Italian expansion plan. If we go a little further we see that the Franco-Italian agreement of last January is the one that allowed the Italian offensive to be unleashed: now this pact has been approved by the French socialists who militate in the same Social-Democratic International where the Italian ‘anti-fascists’, who have taken the initiative of convoking sportsmen, schoolchildren, women, fighters, and proletarians to the Basle Congress, sit.

Recently, at the League of Nations, the Abyssinia question was raised and England hoped to be able to reach a compromise that would prevent Italian action from developing. Laval, who was returning from Moscow, has taken the initiative for the compromise. Litvinov presided and the problem was as follows: Italy accepted the arbitration procedure on condition of maintaining mobilisation and continuing to send troops to Africa. An agenda consecrating this Italian demand, while leaving Abyssinia the possibility of appointing non-Ethiopian delegates, was voted for unanimously, under the presidency – we repeat – of the one whom Humanité always puts forward, with good reason moreover, as ‘our comrade Litvinov’.

This quick analysis allows us to ascertain the situation in which the working masses find themselves: influenced by centrists and socialists who link the proletariat around positions that correspond to the interests of world capitalism. This explains why Italian capitalism can proceed undisturbed in its plan of expansion in Abyssinia. The only opposition it can encounter is from the capitalism of another country. We have already indicated how in Rome in January and later in Stresa, Italian capitalism bought French acquiescence. With regard to England it could offer nothing immediately while there are profound reasons why a compromise between the two brigands is not possible. But problems of this kind resolve themselves on a level where the interests of the Italian proletariat as well as those of the exploited Abyssinians come into play, but in the sense of a life-and-death struggle against the workers. Ultimately these problems pose themselves on this basis: if you go too far I will stop you by force, which in concrete terms means that Ethiopia could become the prodrome of the world war. Will history repeat itself? The butchery of 1914 was preceded by the warnings that were represented by the Libyan and Balkan enterprise of Italian capitalism. In the current brazier of world conflicts, will Italy still have this role of vanguard of world capitalism?

Apart from these considerations, on which, moreover, any prediction is a gamble, the fact remains that the Italian enterprise is based on the Laval-Mussolini pact, which is established in accordance with the plan of revanche of German capitalism, which moreover has already given an initial response through the naval pact with England. The proletariat of all countries has been enmeshed in the plan of the League of Nations by centrism and socialism while the Basle Congress is being prepared. This bacchanal will swell up to the point of exasperation the wineskin of the drunken traitors, who will have no limits in their inebriations of demagogy which world capitalism will admire exultant: never before will its cause have found so much enthusiasm; in order to better prepare the scene, Litvinov will perhaps be called again to preside over the League of Nations session where the rights of the proletariat to be slaughtered for the interests of the fatherland will be consecrated.

The fraction of the left, because it poses the problem on the basis of the interests of the Italian proletariat and of all countries, as well as of those of the exploited of Abyssinia, must expose its militants to defeat in meetings where the centrists and socialists want to develop their work of corruption and betrayal unchecked. Our voice will probably be stifled today but it will resound tomorrow, giving consciousness to the violence of the masses who will once again be thrown by events into the arena of revolutionary struggles for the communist victory and the liquidation of all traitors.