On 20 April 1922 the Congress of the yellow International Trade Unions of Amsterdam began in Rome, warmly welcomed by the CGL and the Socialist Party, and with contempt by the PCdI.

On November 21, the Second Congress of the Profintern began its work. If the delegates were fewer than at the First Congress, this does not mean that the influence of the Profintern had decreased. Lozovsky, secretary of the Profintern, said that the proletarians who joined or were influenced by the ISR were between 12 and 15 million; a figure similar to that of Amsterdam, with the difference that a third of the latter’s members sympathized with Moscow, while in the Profintern no one sympathized with Amsterdam.

The main problem to be addressed was the organic relationship between the Comintern and Profintern, rejected by the anarcho-syndicalist component. To avoid further splits, the Profintern abolished the article in the Statute that subordinated the trade union International to the political International. The Italian Left had opposed this position, which emerged at the concurrent Fourth Congress of the CI: at this Congress, while advancing valid positions on many issues, and after having labeled the Social Democrats and the Amsterdam International traitors, agreements with it were nevertheless sought. The Italian Left immediately disagreed, rightly arguing that the Amsterdam International was not a trade union organization, but a political one, at the service of the bourgeoisie.

The attempts to reach an agreement with Amsterdam were followed by the United Fronts with the supposedly workers’ parties, up to the Workers’ Governments, and then workers and peasants themselves. The attempt to win the working masses over to one’s side by any means was due more to desperation than anything else, but it was unfortunately foreseeable, and foreseen by us, that, especially with the end of the ascendant moment of the revolution, the unnatural united front with the union leaders and reformist politicians could only lead to the abandonment of classist and communist positions.

Such ambiguities, and worse, are also present in the “Theses of the Fourth Congress on the tactics of the Comintern”, dated December 5, 1922: «The Communists are even prepared to negotiate with the traitorous leaders of the Social Democrats and with those of Amsterdam (…) The true success of the United Front comes “from below” (…) However, the communists cannot give up negotiating (…) even with the leaders of the opposing parties».

At the opening of the Fifth Congress of the Communist International, in June 1924, the delegates, in the name of the United Front and proletarian unity, unexpectedly found themselves faced with the proposal to dissolve the Profintern and join Amsterdam. There was still talk of treason by the Amsterdam leaders, but at the same time giving emphasis on the emergence of a left-wing current within it. It was stated that the international unity of the trade union movement "would be re-established by convening a World Congress to which all unions affiliated with either the Amsterdam International or the Red International of Trade Unions would be represented. represented on a proportional basis".

The new trade union approach expressed in the Fifth Congress of the IC was re-proposed at the Third Congress of the Profintern, which opened on 8 July 1924, with the manifest disagreement of the Italian Left, which in the Theses presented in Lyon in 1926, at the point 8, writes: «The Amsterdam International office was to be considered and treated not as an organism of the proletarian masses but as a counter-revolutionary political organ of the League of Nations (…) However, the usefulness of a united front tactic on a global basis with all the trade union bodies, including those adhering to Amsterdam, cannot be excluded».

The merger between the two Internationals was rejected by Amsterdam. But in April 1925 Representatives of the Russian and British trade unions met in London, forming an "Anglo-Russian Committee". Its creation was presented by Zinoviev as proof of the correctness of the United Front tactic.

Stalin declared in July 1926: "If the reactionary trade unions are willing to form with the revolutionary trade unions of our country a coalition against the counter-revolutionary imperialists of their country, why should this bloc not be approved? It was easy for Trotsky to reply that "if the reactionary unions were capable of fighting against their imperialists they would not be reactionary".

In 1926 the General Council of the British Trade Unions was forced by proletarian pressure, following the coal mine lockout, to call a strike. The strike was soon sabotaged by union bosses, but the International and the Profintern nevertheless continued to participate in the Committee. As late as April 1927, the Russian delegates of this committee, who had already recognized the General Council of the British Trade Unions as "the sole representative and spokesman of the trade union movement in England", pledged "not to diminish the authority" of the leaders. trade unionists and to "not concern themselves with the internal affairs of the English unions".

The “Appeal of the Executive Committees of the IC and the ISR to all sections and all workers”, of May 9, 1926, reiterates this attitude, condemned by us, on the British workers’ struggle: "The Executive Committees of the IC and the ISR urge all sections to make every effort to ensure unity of action. To this end, meetings with representatives of other parties and organizations are recommended".

In the “Theses of the Seventh Plenum on trustification, rationalization and “Tasks of Communists in the Trade Unions”, dated the 16th of December 1926, at points 10, 12 and 13 we read: «10. (…) The failure of the general strike and the united front of the Amsterdam International with the General Council for the sabotage of the strike of the miners has resulted in the consolidation of the top organisation of the Amsterdam International (…) The General Council is now promoting exactly the same policy as the Amsterdam International, and in this sense it can safely be said that the failure of the general strike has been advantageous for the Amsterdam International to the same extent that the turn to the right of the trade union apparatus in any country is advantageous for those who defend the interests of the reactionary European bureaucracy and bourgeoisie (…) «12. The crisis of the Anglo-Russian Committee has provided a pretext for our adversaries to talk about the failure of unity and the united front tactic (…) «13. Starting from the consistent application of the united front tactic, the CC of the VKP(b) and the Presidium of the Communist International have spoken out against the tactic of dissolving the Anglo-Russian Committee (…)». The alliance with the Amsterdam International is then reaffirmed, and the consequent defense of the indefensible Anglo Russian Committee.