By NATALIA TAHARA & MATTHEW FIORENTINI*

Entry from the “Dictionary of Marxism in America”

Life and political praxis

Emilio Frugoni (1880-1969) was born into a family with a Catholic background and originating from the urban middle classes, the son of Domingo Frugoni, an Italian immigrant and merchant, and Josefina Queirolo de Frugoni, a mixed-race woman (Creole). Still in the 16th century, at the age of XNUMX, Frugoni was already contributing to student newspapers influenced by the Colorado Party, such as The Debates e The hype.

The conflicts that marked the turn of the 20th century in Uruguay are the result of years of political polarization between the National Party (the of Blancos) and Colorado – both originating from the country's independence process. During the period that began around 1870 and lasted until 1904, the consolidation of the modern and capitalist Uruguayan national formation took place. It was in this scenario that Emilio Frugoni entered the world of politics – even having a brief participation in the civil war of 1897 and the revolution of 1904, in which he fought for the Colorado ranks.

During these years, alongside Enrique Rodó (exponent of Uruguayan national thought) and Carlos Reyles (writer and essayist), he promoted the Club Libertad that mobilized young people identified with the batllism, political movement of the Colorado José Batlle y Ordóñez, who governed Uruguay between 1903 and 1907, and between 1911 and 1915, implementing social reforms. The country was marked, since its independence (1828), by conflicts between the parties Blanco e Colorado, which functioned more as political fractions of the oligarchies than as political parties.

These clashes marked the entry of Uruguayan society into the 20th century, and were not just conflicts between caudillos, but the moment in which the construction of national projects began and the consolidation of the bases that would come to underpin bourgeois liberal democracy in the country.

Disenchanted with the traditional parties, Frugoni, still young, distanced himself from them. red, approaching the workers' movement – ​​with a socialist orientation. In 1904, shortly after the civil war, he joined the Socialist Workers Center, a group founded in 1896, which brought together followers of scientific socialism. In December of this year, in a public event held in the traditional Stella d'Italia Theatre, gave a lecture entitled “Socialist faith profession”, an event that expressed a decisive moment for Emilio Frugoni's intellectual production, as well as for the constitution of his interpretation of the social formation of Uruguay.

During this period, when he was studying Law and already had a certain prestige as a poet and polemicist among the intellectual circles of Montevideo, he participated in several literary competitions and taught at Faculty of Secondary Education (1905-1907); he was also a theater columnist for the periodicals New Diary (1906) and Day (1908-1911).

In 1910, he graduated in Law at Faculty of Law and Social Sciences – and, with other companions, founded the Socialist Party of Uruguay (PS). In this year's elections, Frugoni was elected deputy for Liberal-Socialist Coalition, becoming the first socialist deputy elected in Uruguay – and one of the first in Latin America.

Throughout his parliamentary career, he would hold the position five times (1911-1914, 1920-1921, 1928-1933, 1934-1939, 1940-1942), having initially become known for his critical stance towards the second term of Jose Batlle y Ordoñez (1911-1915) – despite having supported some of his reforms. He was also a member of the National Constituent Assembly, which operated from 1916 to 1917. During this sixteen-year period in parliament, he drafted bills on issues related to work, such as: salary adjustments; women's and children's work; night work; a forty-hour work week; and the right to housing for workers.

However, the outbreak of the Russian Revolution in 1917 had a decisive impact on the direction of the Socialist Party, as well as on the political trajectory of Emilio Frugoni. The arrival of the Bolsheviks to power in Russia divided the socialists, as well as the entire Uruguayan revolutionary movement, between those who supported the Russian experience and those who criticized or opposed it. Those groups that identified with the October Revolution led by Lenin were identified as “maximalists”, led by Eugenio Gómez; among the critics was Emilio Frugoni, who sympathized with the February revolutionaries and the Menshevik wing of the Russian Social Democratic Workers’ Party (RSDLP).

With the creation of the Communist International (CI) in 1919, a new controversy arose within the PS – this time around its membership in this organization – which would mark the debates of the party’s 21th Congress the following year. However, due to communication difficulties, the 1921 conditions required for parties to join the CI took a long time to reach Uruguay, which reopened the discussions that would guide the XNUMXth Extraordinary Congress of the PS in XNUMX. At that time, the party’s membership in the XNUMXrd International was approved by a large majority, and its subsequent name change – now known as Communist Party of Uruguay (PCU). Discrepancies with the new line adopted led to the departure of Emilio Frugoni, who in 1921 would re-found the Socialist Party, alongside a few companions.

Between 1926 and 1933, in parallel with his political activities, he became the first professor of the subject of Labor Legislation and Social Forecast and director of Faculty of Law and Social Sciences da University of the Republic (UDELAR), a time when he took part in debates about University Reform.

Due to his resistance to the coup d'état of President Gabriel Terra (March 1933), Frugoni was imprisoned in the Blandengues barracks (Montevideo), and a few days later deported to Buenos Aires. In Argentina, he was invited by the rector of the University of La Plata, José Peco, teaching a course on Marxism – which would give rise to one of his main works, Essays on Marxism (1936), the result of the publication of the compendium of contents of his classes. In 1934, he returned from exile to Uruguay, dedicating himself to the role of deputy, after having resigned from the position of director of the Faculty of Law and Social Sciences.

In the following decade, he was appointed diplomat in the Soviet Union, a position he held from 1944 to 1946; he would publish an article about his travel experience. The Red Sphinx (1948) and From Montevideo to Moscow (1945)

In the 1950s, faced with the crisis experienced by Uruguayan society as a reflection of the exhaustion of the project batllista and the changes in the dynamics of capitalism on a global level, the PS experienced a period of intense internal debates. In the search to understand the reality of the country, as well as the region and the planet, the “liberal socialist” perspective of Emilio Frugoni was losing ground to the “national socialism” – Leninist and anti-imperialist – of professor and historian Vivían Trías (1922-1980).

In 1959, Vivian Trías took over as Secretary General of the Socialist Party, removing Emilio Frugoni from the position he had held for years. An ideologue of the party for decades, Emilio Frugoni, now removed from his leadership roles and dissatisfied with the PS's policy, would finally leave the party in 1962, when he opposed the line adopted by the party – which at the time advocated rapprochement with the of Blancos (which would result in the creation of People's Union). The following year, Emilio Frugoni founded the Socialist Movement, a party in which he would serve until the end of his life.

In 1966, he even ran for election once again, in alliance with the PS; however, even though he had to sell his large library to finance his party's campaign, he had to face a tough defeat.

He died in 1969, at the age of 89, during a period of many setbacks for socialists in the country – and in the world –, when Uruguay was already facing the conservative escalation that would lead to the civil-military coup of 1973.

Contributions to Marxism

A prominent intellectual, but also a social and political activist, Emilio Frugoni stands out as one of the main figures in the founding process of Marxism in Uruguay, being one of the great promoters of the socialist political movement in the country. He was a poet, theater critic, professor of literature and law, and director of newspapers and magazines linked to the Socialist Party (PS) of his country.

Emilio Frugoni sought to provide answers to the main debates of his time, such as how to position oneself in the face of the First World War and the Russian Revolution, or what the paths for building socialism would be. The socialist leader was also called upon to contribute to discussions about the role of socialists in the Constituent Assembly of 1916-1917 and the new contours that the Uruguayan nation was assuming at the beginning of the XNUMXth century.

Faced with the revolutionary and popular perspective, Emilio Frugoni initially expressed his support for the Russian October Revolution. However, believing in an idealized model of democracy and disregarding the objective situation of external and internal aggression experienced by the revolutionaries, he would go on to defend a regime that he called “liberal socialist democracy”, criticizing the Bolsheviks and explicitly identifying with the Mensheviks and the February Revolution – according to a reformist and parliamentary perspective aligned with the Socialist International (SI).

Thus, he condemned Lenin's practices in overthrowing Kerensky and the provisional government, supporting Rosa Luxemburg by criticizing the new government's closure of the Constituent Assembly. Furthermore, among his disagreements with the Leninist conduct of the process, he disagreed with the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, because he understood that Russia's isolated exit from World War I would affect the rest of the European workers – who would continue to fight in a conflict that “was not theirs”. Although the author defined himself as a “Marxist”, but not as a “Leninist” – aligning himself with the perspective defended by the Socialist International –, he did not hesitate to disapprove of the vacillating stance of European social democracy in relation to World War I, a fact that led to its withdrawal from the Second International.

Regarding the Soviet experience, Emilio Frugoni's strongest criticisms are directed at the period led by Stalin – although he also criticizes aspects of Lenin's leadership (for having fought liberal elements of Russian “democracy”). He understood that, with the consolidation of Stalinism, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had become an “anti-libertarian” democracy, to the extent that the government began to consider that capitalist contradictions had been overcome (the Soviet nation being already socialist and on the path to communism), thus justifying a greater concentration of its power, in disregard of the working class's protagonism.

In this way, the course of the Revolution would have deviated from the conceptions of Marx and Engels (who attributed a temporary nature to what they called the “dictatorship of the proletariat”) – even moving away from what Lenin proposed, who argued that the period of dictatorship of the working class had the objective of overcoming class contradictions and bourgeois domination, but that, once this stage was overcome, it would resume its democratizing character. With this, the Uruguayan socialist affirms that Stalinism would be a “single-party dictatorship”, and no longer a “class dictatorship”, ceasing to be properly “democratic”.

This conviction allowed the socialist leader to engage in dialogue with anarchist groups – which had experienced moments of confrontation with the Bolsheviks. Consequently, Frugoni also rejected the PS’s accession to the IC, as it disagreed with the “21 conditions” required for its entry, since he understood that this was interference. external in the politics of the organizations that composed it.

Due to these issues, in several of his writings and speeches, Emilio Frugoni investigates aspects of the concept of socialism, in search of a more precise definition of this thought. To this end, he analyzes the roots of the idea, its philosophical antecedents and its essential features. He understands that “scientific socialism” – one of the names given to Marxism – is an “internationalist” thought, and not a “foreign” one, as certain reactive forces have accused it of being: an active movement in defense of the working class, guided by science, and whose aspiration is not only to provide a “more just” and “humane” society, but also to promote the “socialization of property”, or in other words, to make property “a right of society, not of the individual”.

Regarding the use of the term “socialism”, he points out several historical confusions and ambiguities that have arisen around this idea: which serves as a name for some parties, including representatives of bourgeois factions that only partially adopt what would be a minimum socialist program, but which do not act in the field of class struggle and remain attached to the defense of ownership of the means of production.

In this debate, Emilio Frugoni studied the historical antecedents of Marxist socialism, pointing out several of its precursors, from Jesus of Nazareth and the first Christian priests, to modern “utopian socialists”, among whom can be mentioned social reformers such as: François Babeuf, Charles Fourier, Saint Simon, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Louis Blanc, and many others who paved the way for the construction of “scientific socialism”, initiated by Marx and Engels – that is, a transformative thought that brings together the set of ideas, observation and scientific interpretation, with the struggle of the organized workers’ movement.

Based on Friedrich Engels, Emilio Frugoni also shows that the set of ideas that make up historical materialism is an intellectual reflection of the class struggle, as well as of the chaotic liberalism of production. In this sense, he understands that the working class must demand its freedoms in relation to political and democratic rights, the dignity of the human person, and combat capitalism – which is characterized by oppression and economic exploitation, by economic liberalism and by the idea that material enrichment is the primary objective of human existence.

Regarding the controversies of his time, Emilio Frugoni criticized the tactics of the Communist Parties, pointing out an exaggerated link to the guidelines coming from the Communist International and the USSR. He understood that it was essential to adapt socialism to the Uruguayan and Latin American reality. He followed the Mexican Revolution with enthusiasm, and it was during a trip to the United States that he became aware of the issues of Latin America as a whole – and that is where the Latin American Emilio Frugoni was born.

During his Argentine exile, he published the book Essays on Marxism (1936), in which he discusses the materialist conception of history. His intention here was to highlight the importance of the “spiritual factor” in Karl Marx’s theory, pointing out that the “economic factor” was decisive, but not exclusive, in explaining society. For Emilio Frugoni, socialism is a movement of yearnings, aspirations and desires for social and human justice. For him, socialism gains a perspective of building a “more harmonious society”, organized on the basis of collective ownership of the means of production.

That is, in his conception, socialism is a set of wills and at the same time an incessant, methodical and sensible movement, with a high legal ideal, towards social forms that would achieve “integral justice”. This “justice” would be a value – the core of an intellectual ethic that he projects in principles, ideals and strategy –, a guide that would normatively orient the political conduct of society, realizing itself in history through social transformation. Or in other words, he idealizes a logical rationality that would lead human beings to a kind of general will – a step towards what he calls “revolutionary evolution”.

Despite these abstract propositions – marked by an evolutionary scientism –, Emilio Frugoni also defends more solid agendas, such as actions to raise political awareness among the population. He claims that it is possible and necessary not to demean or brutalize the spirit of the masses, seeking ways to educate them and increase their knowledge through science. He considers that the action of socialists is not directed against individuals, but against institutions – since it is not a class action against individuals, but a class action against class.

In this sense, it rejects practices that place the individual above class, values ​​the autonomy of workers and disapproves of the cult of personality (as an “elitist” idea). It considers that the role of socialists consists of converting the proletariat into a “big brain”, understanding that the struggle of workers was based on ideas – not restricted to economic issues. It understands, therefore, that in order to be effectively socialist, a necessary condition is to defend a class party that promotes the political organization of workers, with the aim of taking power and, thus, socializing the means of production.

In his role as a socialist leader, he defended the participation of workers in the decisions of public companies. As a parliamentarian (he served five terms, between 1911 and 1942), he presented projects that aimed to guarantee the institutionalization of struggles in a democratic sense; he proposed the creation of laws that guaranteed the right to strike for public employees, and the creation of tripartite councils in which government, companies and unions could negotiate wages (these councils would be the embryo of Salary Advice, created in the 1940s). It also legislated on issues such as: combating alcoholism, progressive taxation, protection for farmers, legal equality between men and women, general retirement, creation of schools and agrarian reform.

As leader of the Socialist Party for decades, he understood that socialism should always be guided by democratic practices, accepting certain ideas of so-called liberal democracy. A reformist, he was an opponent of the guerrilla perspective or the armed path to socialism, advocating a “revolutionary evolution” that would occur, in his view, only through liberal institutionality.

He understood that socialism would be the result of reforms: the cultural, political and civilizational elevation of workers and of Uruguayan society as a whole in the process of struggle between the classes – always according to the reformist, so-called “democratic” perspective. Based on this understanding, he defended the abolition of the Army and the repressive forces of the State, seen as enemies of the full use of “democratic rationality” (as a socialist parliamentarian, in 1920, he presented a bill proposing the abolition of the Army, Navy and Military Justice).

In his view, socialist society should be understood as a reflection of the elevation of consciousness and the full exercise of human rationality; therefore, the existence of armies or any repressive forces became distortions, contradictory to the ideals of socialism.

According to philosopher Arturo Ardao, Emilio Frugoni managed to be, at the same time, and with great unity, a “man of science”, “of art” and “of action”. In The American Sensibility (1929) – a theatrical serial that consecrated the memory of Florencio Sánchez (Uruguayan journalist and playwright) on the occasion of his death – Emilio Frugoni considers that the distinction between men in art is made by sensitivity, just as it is opinion that differentiates men in politics.

The Uruguayan Marxist is identified by many authors as a thinker who combined the perspective of historical materialism with an idealist vision of socialism; nevertheless, he is recognized for having constructed a concrete political and intellectual elaboration, based on the worldview of the workers and the popular classes.

Comment on the work

Emilio Frugoni's work is quite extensive. Known as “the Poet”, he wrote on a wide range of themes and genres. His first writings, written while still a teenager, dealt with themes of love; they were published in student magazines in which he participated (in the late 1890s): The Debates, and The hype (under the pseudonym Imulio Ergonif).

Throughout his life, he would collaborate with several periodicals, such as: The New Magazine (1902), dedicated to the arts; The Socialist (1906, 1911-1915, 1940); Justice (1906-1921); The New Spirit (1908); Germinal (1921-1922), socialist debate magazine; The Sun (1922-1939, 1940-1943), periodical of the new Socialist Party founded by him in the 1920s; Affirmation (1941-1942), magazine of ideas and ideals; and El País (1944), in which he published travel chronicles.

In his famous speech “Socialist faith profession” (1904) – later published in part in the journal Day –, Emilio Frugoni discusses the problem of large estates, defining them as a “barrier” that stands in the way of “progress”. The work is also recognized for the development of his tactical thinking and proposals regarding the electoral participation of Uruguayan socialists – since he advocated the creation of a common electoral formula between socialists and colorados.

Among his many books dedicated to socialist thought, one that stands out is Essays on Marxism (Montevideo: Claudio García Edit., 1936), composed of three essays in which he discusses concepts of Marxism. The first essay is “The determinism of the ham”, in which he investigates how the issue of hunger is related to knowledge and intelligence, since the satisfaction of physical, biological needs is the foundation for the full development of consciousness.

The second essay, “The spiritual factor in historical materialism”, part of a series of lectures that the author gave during his exile in Argentina; there, he develops Marx's ideas, especially regarding the concept of history, rejecting the mechanistic and fatalistic character sometimes attributed to historical materialism. In the last essay, entitled “The fine ideals in the materialist conception of history”, highlights on the one hand the function of the spirit as will, intelligence and moral conscience in a process of “social evolution”, and on the other the role of ideals – in a debate that deals with one of the fundamental notions of Marxism, “class consciousness”.

Furthermore, from Emilio Frugoni's essay books, we highlight the following: Socialism, batllism and nationalism (Montevideo: Talleres Apolo, 1928), in which he develops the relationship between Uruguayan national thought and socialism; American sensitivity (Montevideo: Maximino García, 1929), with formulations on the existence of a Latin American aesthetic; Socialism is not violence, not spoils, not distribution (Montevideo: Taller Edit. Apolo, 1931), a work in which he seeks to distinguish “socialists” from “communists”; Genesis, essence and foundations of socialism (Buenos Aires: Editorial Americalee, 1934), in which he provides a history of the evolution of socialist ideas up to the development of scientific socialism; The woman before the right (Montevideo: Edit. Indo-Americana, 1940), in which he supports legal equality between genders; and The three dimensions of democracy (Buenos Aires: Edit. Claridad, 1944), which brings reflections on the centrality of the democratic question in the struggle for the emancipation of the people.

He also published two works from his time in the Soviet Union: From Montevideo to Moscow: travel chronicles on diplomatic mission (Buenos Aires: Claridad, 1945), with chronicles of the trip; and The Red Sphinx (Buenos Aires: Claridad, 1948), in which he presents his interpretations of the Soviet revolutionary experience under Stalin's command.

A little later, they came to light: the book of praise (Montevideo: Afirmación, 1953), compendium of articles, speeches and excerpts from books; and Americanist meditation (Montevideo: Ediciones Continente, 1959), with interpretations about the Latin American question.

In addition to these works, among his political and social writings and speeches published as pamphlets, inserts or compiled in books, the following are mentioned: Taxes from a sociological point of view (Montevideo: Puentearesano Center Library, 1915); night work (Montevideo: Centro Socialista, 1916), one of his most famous lectures; The new fundamentals (Montevideo: Maximino Garcia, 1919), lecture on the secret vote, women's political rights, citizenship of foreigners, the concept of Constitution and municipal autonomy; The Mexico lesson (Montevideo: UDELAR, 1928), compilation of university conferences; What is and what the Socialist Party wants (Montevideo: Editorial Apollo, 1931), pamphlet intended for party discussion; and The Machete Revolution (Buenos Aires: Claridad, 1934), a critique of Gabriel Terra's dictatorship.

Finally, in the field of poetry, the socialist published: Under your window (Montevideo: Imprenta Vázquez y Torres, 1900); Of the most honest (Montevideo: Barreiro y Ramos Workshops, 1902); The eternal song (Montevideo: OM Bertani, 1907); The hymns (Montevideo: Renaissance, 1916); Montevideo poems (Montevideo: El Siglo Ilustrado, 1923); Light bugs (Montevideo: Editorial Apolo, 1925); The epic of the city (Montevideo: Maximino García, 1927); The Human Song (Montevideo/Buenos Aires: Ediciones de la Sociedad del Libro Rioplatense, 1936); The unanimous election (Buenos Aires: Editorial Losada, 1942); and the last Civil poems (Montevideo: Claudio García and Co., 1944).

On the web, some of his works can be read on portals such as: Anaphoras (https://anaforas.fic.edu.uy) to Internet Archive (https://archive.org).

*Natalia Tahara is a librarian. Graduated in Library Science from the School of Communication and Arts at the University of São Paulo.

*Matthew Fiorentini is a history teacher in the Rio Grande do Sul education system.

Originally published on the Núcleo Práxis-USP portal.

References

ACOSTA, Yamandu. Uruguayan thought: Latin American studies on the history of ideas and philosophy of practice. Montevideo: Nordan-Comunidad, 2012.

ARDAO, Arturo. Philosophy in Uruguay in the 20th century. Mexico: Economic Culture Fund, 1956, p. 134-138. Available: www.autoresdeluruguay.uy.

AZÚA, Real de. Anthology of contemporary Uruguayan essays: Frugoni. Montevideo: Universidad de la República (Departamento de Publicaciones), 1964.

CAETANO, Gerardo. “Emilio Frugoni and the Russian Revolution in Uruguay”. Prismas – Revista de Historia Intelectual de la Univ. Nac. de Quilmes, v. 21, no. 2, 2017.

CHIFFLET, Guillermo. From the discussion comes the light: Emilio Frugoni, challenge and reference. Montevideo: Letraeñe Editions, 2007.

ESPASANDÍN Cárdenas, C. “Marxismo and feminine condition in Uruguayan socialism of the Novecients”. Clacso (IX Latin American and Caribbean Conference on Social Sciences), Mexico, 2022. Disp: https://conferenciaclacso.org

FERNÁNDEZ, Gustavo. “Origins of the Uruguayan trade union movement”. Left Hemisphere, Sep. 2017. Disp: www.hemisferioizquierdo.uy

JAURENA, Eduardo. Frugoni: a life consecrated to the ideal: and an ideal to the service of workers. Montevideo: CISA, 1950. Available: www.autoresdeluruguay.uy

MILLER, Juan Edmundo. El Sembrador (Emilio Frugoni): biographical summary of “the great traitor”. Montevideo: Record, 1973. Available: http://www.autoresdeluruguay.uy.

SOCIALIST PARTY OF URUGUAY. Emilio Frugoni. Disp: https://ps.org.uy.

SANTOS, Maxi. “Don Emilio: ethics, party and homeland”. El Sol (Socialist Party of Uruguay), n. 7, Sep, 2020. Available: https://ps.org.uy.

REIS, Mateus Fávaro. “Latin Americanism and Pan-Americanism in Interwar Uruguay”. ANPHLAC Magazine, n. 15, Jul-Dec. 2013. Disp.: http://revista.anphlac.org.br.

the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE