Speech Delivered on July 5, 1928

The first thing we have to consider, comrades, is the size of the draft programme of the Comintern.40 Some say that the draft programme is too large, too ponderous. They demand that it be compressed to a half or a third. They demand that some general formulas should be given in the programme and nothing more, and that these formulas be called a programme. I think that these demands are devoid of foundation. Those who demand that the programme be compressed to a half or even a third do not understand the tasks that confronted those who drew up the draft. The point is that the programme of the Comintern cannot be the programme of any one national party, or, say, a programme for only the “civilised” nations. The programme must cover all the Communist Parties of the world, all nations, all peoples, both white and black. That is the basic and characteristic feature of the draft programme. But how is it possible to cover the basic needs and basic lines of work of all the sections of the Comintern, both Eastern and Western, if the programme is compressed to a half or a third? Let the comrades try to solve this insoluble problem. That is why I think that to compress the programme to a half or a third would mean converting it from a programme into a mere list of abstract formulas without any value for the sections of the Comintern. Those who drew up the programme were faced with a double problem: on the one hand, to cover the chief and basic features of all the Communist Parties of the world, and, on the other hand, to do so in such a way that the various propositions of the programme should not be empty formulas, but should provide practical guiding principles for the most diverse countries and peoples, for the most diverse Communist Parties and communist groups. You must agree that it is quite impossible to solve this double problem in a brief and concise draft.

What is most curious is that the very comrades who propose that the programme be compressed to a half or even a third, also put forward proposals which would tend to expand the present draft programme to twice, if not three times its size. In point of fact, if we are to give in the draft programme lengthy formulations on the trade unions, on the co-operatives, on culture, on the European national minorities and so on, is it not obvious that the effect of this cannot be to compress the programme? The size of the present draft would have to be doubled, if not trebled.

The same thing must be said of those comrades who demand either that the programme be a concrete instruction for the Communist Parties, or that it explain every possible thing, down to the individual propositions in it. In the first place, it is wrong to say that the programme must be only an instruction, or mainly an instruction.

That is wrong. That cannot be demanded of a programme, to say nothing of the fact that the result would be to enlarge the size of the programme incredibly. In the second place, a programme cannot explain every possible thing, down to its individual declarative or theoretical propositions. That is the business of commentaries to the programme. A programme must not be confused with a commentary. The second question concerns the structure of the programme and the order of arrangement of the individual chapters within the draft programme. Some comrades demand that the chapter on the ultimate aim of the movement, on communism, be transferred to the end of the programme. I think that this demand also is devoid of foundation. Between the chapter on the crisis of capitalism and the chapter on the transition period, there is in the draft programme a chapter on communism, on the communist economic system. Is this arrangement of chapters correct? I consider that it is quite correct. You cannot speak of the transition period without first speaking of the economic system, in this case the communist economic system, the transition to which the programme proposes. We speak of the transition period, the transition from capitalism to another economic system. But a transition to what, to what system exactly—that is what must be first discussed before proceeding to describe the transition period itself. The programme should proceed from the unknown to the known, from the less known to the better known. To speak of the crisis of capitalism and then of the transition period, without first speaking of the system to which the transition is to be made, would confuse the reader and infringe an elementary requirement of pedagogy, one that is at the same time a requirement for the structure of the programme. Well, the programme should make it easier for the reader in leading him from the less known to the better known, and not make it more difficult for him.

Other comrades think that the paragraph on Social-Democracy ought not to be included in the second chapter of the draft programme, which deals with the first phase of the proletarian revolution and with the partial stabilisation of capitalism. They think that they are thereby raising a question of the structure of the programme. That is not so, comrades. Actually, it is a political question that confronts us here. To delete the paragraph on Social-Democracy from the second chapter would be to commit a political mistake in regard to one of the basic questions of the reasons for the partial stabilisation of capitalism. It is not a matter here of the structure of the programme, but of the appraisal of the political situation in the period of partial stabilisation, an appraisal of the counter-revolutionary role of Social-Democracy as one of the factors of this stabilisation. These comrades cannot but know that we cannot dispense with a paragraph on Social-Democracy in the chapter on the partial stabilisation of capitalism, because this stabilisation itself cannot be explained without describing the role of Social-Democracy as one of the major factors of the stabilisation. Otherwise, we should also have to exclude from this chapter the paragraph on fascism, and transfer it, like the paragraph on Social-Democracy, to the chapter on parties. But to exclude
these two paragraphs—on fascism and on Social-Democracy—from the chapter dealing with the partial stabilisation of capitalism would mean to disarm ourselves and deprive ourselves of all possibility of explaining the capitalist stabilisation. Obviously, we cannot agree to that.

The question of NEP and war communism. NEP is a policy of the proletarian dictatorship which is designed to overcome the capitalist elements and to build a socialist economy by utilising the market and through the market, and not by direct products-exchange, without a market and apart from the market. Can capitalist countries, even the most highly developed, dispense with NEP in the transition from capitalism to socialism? I do not think that they can. In one degree or another, the New Economic Policy, with its market connections, and the utilisation of these market connections, will be absolutely essential for every capitalist country in the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat. We have comrades who deny this proposition. But what does denying this proposition mean?

It means, in the first place, to hold that immediately after the proletariat has come to power we shall have ready to function 100 per cent a machinery of distribution and supply between town and country, between industry and small-scale production, which will make it possible to establish at once direct products-exchange, without a market, without commodity circulation, and without a money economy. The matter has only to be raised to realise how utterly absurd such an assumption is.

It means, in the second place, to hold that after the seizure of power by the proletariat the proletarian revolution must adopt the course of expropriating the middle and petty bourgeoisie, must take upon its shoulders the incredible burden of finding work and assuring means of subsistence for an artificially created army of millions of new unemployed. The matter has only to be raised to realise how ridiculous and foolish it would be for the proletarian dictatorship to adopt such a policy. One of the good things about NEP is that it relieves the proletarian dictatorship of these and similar difficulties. But it follows from this that NEP is an inevitable phase of the socialist revolution in all countries. Can the same thing be said of war communism? Can it be said that war communism is an inevitable phase of the proletarian revolution? No, it cannot. War communism is a policy forced upon the proletarian dictatorship by a situation of war and intervention; it is designed for the establishment of direct products-exchange between town and country, not through the market but apart from the market, chiefly by measures of an extra-economic and partially military character, and aims at organising such a distribution of products as can ensure the supply of the revolutionary armies at the front and of the workers in the rear. Obviously, if there had not been a situation of war and intervention, there would have been no war communism. Consequently, it cannot be asserted that war communism is an economically inevitable phase of development of the proletarian revolution.

It would be incorrect to think that the proletarian dictatorship in the U.S.S.R. began its economic work
with war communism. Some comrades incline towards this opinion. But it is a wrong opinion. On the contrary, the proletarian dictatorship in our country began its constructive work not with war communism, but with the proclamation of the principles of what is called the New Economic Policy. Everyone is familiar with Lenin’s pamphlet, The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Power,41 which was published in the beginning of 1918, and in which Lenin first substantiated the principles of the New Economic Policy. True, this policy was temporarily interrupted by the conditions of intervention, and it was only three years later, when war and intervention had been ended, that it had to be resumed. But the fact that the proletarian dictatorship in the U.S.S.R. had to return to the principles of the New Economic Policy, which had already been proclaimed at the beginning of 1918—this fact plainly shows where the proletarian dictatorship must begin its constructive work on the day following the revolution, and on what it must base its constructive work—if, of course, it is economic considerations we have in mind. Sometimes war communism is confused with the civil war, and the two are identified. That, of course, is incorrect. The seizure of power by the proletariat in October 1917 was undoubtedly a form of civil war. But it would be wrong to say that we began to apply war communism in October 1917. It is quite possible to conceive a state of civil war in which the methods of war communism are not applied, in which the principles of the New Economic Policy are not abandoned, as was the case in our country in the early part of 1918, before the intervention.

Some say that the proletarian revolutions will take place in isolation from one another, and that therefore not a single proletarian revolution will be able to escape intervention, and hence war communism. That is not true. Now that we have succeeded in consolidating Soviet power in the U.S.S.R., now that the Communist Parties in the principal capitalist countries have grown and the Comintern has increased in strength, there cannot and should not be isolated proletarian revolutions. We must not overlook such factors as the increasing acuteness of the crisis of world capitalism, the existence of the Soviet Union, and the growth of communism in all countries. (A voice: “But the revolution in Hungary was isolated.”) That was in 1919.42 Now we are in 1928. It suffices to recall the revolution in Germany in 1923,43 when the proletarian dictatorship in the U.S.S.R. was getting ready to render direct assistance to the German revolution, to realise how utterly relative and conditional the arguments of some comrades are. (A voice: “The isolated revolution in Germany— the isolation between France and Germany.”) You are confusing spatial remoteness with political isolation. Spatial remoteness is, of course, a factor. Nevertheless, it should not be confused with political isolation. And what about the workers in the interventionist countries?—do you think they will remain silent if there is intervention in a German revolution, say, and will not strike at the interventionists from the rear? And what about the U.S.S.R. and its proletariat?— do you think that the proletarian revolution in the U.S.S.R. will look calmly on at the misdeeds of the interventionists?

To injure the interventionists, it is by no means essential to establish spatial connection with the revolutionary country. It is enough to sting the interventionists at those points in their own territory which are most vulnerable to make them sense the danger and comprehend the full reality of proletarian solidarity. Suppose that we offended bourgeois Britain in the Leningrad area and caused her serious damage. Does it follow that Britain would necessarily take revenge on us in Leningrad? No, it does not. She might take revenge on us somewhere else, in Batum, Odessa, Baku, or Vladivostok, say. The same is true of the forms of assistance and support rendered by the proletarian dictatorship to a proletarian revolution in one of the countries of Europe, say, against imperialist interventionists. But while it cannot be admitted that intervention, and hence war communism, must necessarily occur in all countries, it can and should be admitted that they are more or less probable. Therefore, while not agreeing with the arguments of these comrades, I do agree with their conclusion, namely, that the formula in the draft programme which speaks of the possibility, in definite international conditions, of war communism in countries where a proletarian revolution has taken place, might be replaced by a formula saying that intervention and war communism are more or less probable. The question of the nationalisation of the land. I do not agree with those comrades who propose that the formula on the nationalisation of the land in the case of capitalistically developed countries should be altered, and who demand that in such countries the nationalisation of all the land should be proclaimed on the first day of the proletarian revolution.

Nor do I agree with those comrades who propose that nothing at all should be said about the nationalisation of all the land in the capitalistically developed countries. In my opinion, it would be better to speak, as the draft programme does, of the eventual nationalisation of all the land, with an addition to the effect that the right of the small and middle peasants to use of the land will be guaranteed.

Those comrades are mistaken who think that the more capitalistically developed a country is, the easier it will be to nationalise all the land in that country. On the contrary, the more capitalistically developed a country is, the more difficult will it be to nationalise all the land, because the stronger are the traditions of private ownership of the land in that country, and the harder, therefore, will it be to combat those traditions. Read Lenin’s theses on the agrarian question at the Second Congress of the Comintern,44 where he explicitly warns against hasty and incautious steps in this direction, and you will understand how mistaken the assertions of these comrades are. In the capitalistically developed countries private ownership of the land has existed for centuries, which cannot be said of the countries less developed capitalistically, where the principle of private ownership of the land has not yet become deeply rooted in the peasantry. Here, in Russia, the peasants at one time even used to say that the land belonged to no man, that it was God’s land. This, in fact, explains why as early as 1906, in expectation of a bourgeois-democratic revolution in our country,

Lenin put forward the slogan of the nationalisation of all the land, with the proviso that the small and middle peasants should be guaranteed the use of the land, considering that the peasants would understand this and reconcile themselves to it.

Is it not noteworthy, on the other hand, that in 1920, at the Second Congress of the Comintern, Lenin himself warned the Communist Parties of the capitalistically developed countries not to put forward immediately the slogan of nationalising all the land, since the peasants of these countries, imbued as they are with the private property instinct, would not stomach such a slogan at once. Can we ignore this difference and refuse to pay heed to Lenin’s recommendations? Obviously, we cannot.

The question of the inner substance of the draft programme. It appears that certain comrades consider that in its inner substance the draft programme is not quite international, because, they say, it is “too Russian” in character. I have not heard such objections put forward here. But it appears that such objections exist in some circles round about the Comintern.

What can have furnished grounds for such an opinion? Is it, perhaps, the fact that the draft programme contains a special chapter on the U.S.S.R.? But what can there be bad in that? Is our revolution, in its character, a national and only a national revolution, and not pre-eminently an international revolution? If so, why do we call it a base of the world revolutionary movement, an instrument for the revolutionary development of all countries, the motherland of the world proletariat?

There were people among us—our oppositionists, for instance—who considered that the revolution in the U.S.S.R. was exclusively or mainly a national revolution. It was on this point that they came to grief. It is strange that there are people round about the Comintern, it appears, who are prepared to follow in the footsteps of the oppositionists.

Perhaps our revolution is, in type, a national and only a national revolution? But our revolution is a Soviet revolution, and the Soviet form of proletarian state is more or less obligatory for the dictatorship of the proletariat in other countries. It is not without reason that Lenin said that the revolution in the U.S.S.R. had ushered in a new era in the history of development, the era of Soviets. Does it not follow from this that, not only as regards its character but also as regards its type, our revolution is pre-eminently an international revolution, one that presents a pattern of what, in the main, a proletarian revolution should be in any country?

Undoubtedly, the international character of our revolution imposes upon the proletarian dictatorship in the U.S.S.R. certain duties towards the proletarians and oppressed masses of the whole world. This was what Lenin had in mind when he said that the proletarian dictatorship in the U.S.S.R. exists in order to do everything possible for the development and victory of the proletarian revolution in other countries. But what follows from this? It follows, at least, that our revolution is part of the world revolution, a base and an instrument of the world revolutionary movement. Undoubtedly, too, not only has the revolution in
the U.S.S.R. duties towards the proletarians of all countries, duties which it is discharging, but the proletarians of all countries have certain fairly important duties towards the proletarian dictatorship in the U.S.S.R. These duties consist in supporting the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. in its struggle against internal and external enemies, in war against a war designed to strangle the proletarian dictatorship in the U.S.S.R., in advocating that imperialist armies should directly go over to the side of the proletarian dictatorship in the U.S.S.R. in the event of an attack on the U.S.S.R. But does it not follow from this that the revolution in the U.S.S.R. is inseparable from the revolutionary movement in other countries, that the triumph of the revolution in the U.S.S.R. is a triumph for the revolution throughout the world?

Is it possible, after all this, to speak of the revolution in the U.S.S.R. as being only a national revolution, isolated from and having no connection with the revolutionary movement throughout the world? And, on the other hand, is it possible, after all this, to understand anything at all about the world revolutionary movement, if it is considered out of connection with the proletarian revolution in the U.S.S.R.? What would be the value of the programme of the Comintern, which deals with the world proletarian revolution, if it ignored the fundamental question of the character and tasks of the proletarian revolution in the U.S.S.R., its duties towards the proletarians of all countries, and the duties of the proletarians of all countries towards the proletarian dictatorship in the
U.S.S.R.?

That is why I think that the objections concerning the “Russian character” of the draft programme of the Comintern bear the stamp—how shall I put it mildly?— well, a bad stamp, an unpleasant flavour.

Let us pass to a few separate remarks.

I consider that those comrades are right who suggest amending the sentence on page 55 of the draft programme which speaks of the labouring sections of the rural population “who follow the proletarian dictatorship.” This sentence is an obvious misunderstanding, or perhaps it is a proof-reader’s error. It should be amended.

But these comrades are quite wrong when they propose the inclusion in the draft programme of all the definitions of the dictatorship of the proletariat given by Lenin. (Laughter.) On page 52 we have the following definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat, taken in the main from Lenin:

“The dictatorship of the proletariat is the continuation of its class struggle in new conditions. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a stubborn struggle—bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, educational and administrative—against the forces and traditions of the old society, against the external capitalist enemies, against the remnants of the exploiting classes at home, against the shoots of a new bourgeoisie that spring from the soil of commodity production which has not yet been eliminated.”45

The draft programme contains also a number of other definitions of the dictatorship, corresponding to the particular tasks of the dictatorship at various stages of the proletarian revolution. I think that this is quite
sufficient. (A voice: “One of Lenin’s formulations has been omitted.”) Lenin has whole pages on the dictatorship of the proletariat. If they were all to be included in the draft programme, I am afraid it would be increased to at least three times its size.

Incorrect, too, is the objection raised by some comrades to the thesis on the neutralisation of the middle peasantry. In his theses at the Second Congress of the Comintern, Lenin explicitly states that on the eve of the seizure of power and in the first stage of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the capitalist countries the Communist Parties cannot count on anything more than neutralising the middle peasantry. Lenin explicitly states that only after the dictatorship of the proletariat has been consolidated can the Communist Parties count on organising a stable alliance with the middle peasant. Clearly, when compiling the draft programme, we could not ignore this directive of Lenin’s, to say nothing of the fact that it coincides exactly with the experience of our revolution. Incorrect, too, is the comment on the national question made by a number of comrades. These comrades have no grounds for asserting that the draft programme ignores the national factors in the revolutionary movement. The question of the colonies is fundamentally a national one. Imperialist oppression, oppression in the colonies, national self-determination, the right of nations and colonies to secession, etc., are given sufficient prominence in the draft programme.

If it is the national minorities in Central Europe that these comrades have in mind, this may be mentioned in the draft programme, but I am opposed to the national question in Central Europe being given separate treatment in it. Lastly, as to the remarks made by a number of comrades on the statement that Poland is a country representing the second type of development towards proletarian dictatorship. These comrades think that the classification of countries into three types—countries with a high capitalist development (America, Germany, Britain), countries with an average capitalist development (Poland, Russia before the February Revolution, etc.), and colonial countries—is wrong. They maintain that Poland should be included in the first type of countries, that one can speak only of two types of countries—capitalist and colonial. That is not true, comrades. Besides capitalistically developed countries, where the victory of the revolution will lead at once to the proletarian dictatorship, there are countries which are little developed capitalistically, where there are feudal survivals and a special agrarian problem of the anti-feudal type (Poland, Rumania, etc.), countries where the petty bourgeoisie, especially the peasantry, is bound to have a weighty word to say in the event of a revolutionary upheaval, and where the victory of the revolution, in order to lead to a proletarian dictatorship, can and certainly will require certain intermediate stages, in the form, say, of a dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. In our country, too, there were people, such as Trotsky, who before the February Revolution said that the peasantry was not of serious consequence, and that the slogan of the moment was “no tsar, but a workers’ government.” You know that Lenin emphatically dissociated himself from this slogan and objected to any underestimation of the role and importance of the petty bourgeoisie, especially of the peasantry. There were some in our country at that time who thought that after the overthrow of tsarism the proletariat would at once occupy the predominating position. But how did it turn out in reality? It turned out that immediately after the February Revolution the vast masses of the petty bourgeoisie appeared on the scene and gave predominance to the petty-bourgeois parties, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks. The Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks, who had been tiny parties until then, “suddenly” became the predominating force in the country. Thanks to what? Thanks to the fact that the vast masses of the petty bourgeoisie at first supported the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks. This, incidently, explains why the proletarian dictatorship was established in our country as a result of the more or less rapid growing over of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a socialist revolution. There is scarcely reason to doubt that Poland and Rumania belong to the category of countries which will have to pass, more or less rapidly, through certain intermediate stages on the way to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

That is why I think that these comrades are mistaken when they deny that there are three types of revolutionary movement on the way towards the dictatorship of the proletariat. Poland and Rumania are representative of the second type.

These, comrades, are my remarks on the draft programme of the Comintern.

As to the style of the draft programme, or of certain individual formulations, I cannot affirm that in this respect the draft programme is perfect. It is to be presumed that some things will have to be improved, more precisely defined, that the style, perhaps, will have to be simplified, and so on. But that is a matter for the Programme Commission of the Sixth Congress of the Comintern.46