Report Delivered on December 7

I

PRELIMINARY REMARKS

Comrades, permit me to make a few preliminary remarks before passing to the substance of the question. 1. Contradictions of Inner-Party Development The first question is that of the struggle within our Party, a struggle which did not begin yesterday and which has not ceased.

If we take the history of our Party from the moment of its inception in 1903 in the form of the Bolshevik group, and follow its successive stages down to our day, we can say without exaggeration that the history of our Party has been the history of a struggle of contradictions within the Party, the history of the overcoming of these contradictions and of the gradual strengthening of our Party on the basis of overcoming them. Some might think that the Russians are excessively pugnacious, that they love debating and multiply differences, and that it is because of this that the development of their Party proceeds through the overcoming of inner Party contradictions. That is not true, comrades. It is not a matter of pugnacity, but of the existence of disagreements based on principle, which arise in the course of the Party’s development, in the course of the class struggle of the proletariat. The fact of the matter is that contradictions can be overcome only by means of a struggle for definite principles, for definite aims of the struggle, for definite methods of waging the struggle leading to the desired aim. One can, and should, agree to any compromise with dissenters in the Party on questions of current policy, on questions of a purely practical nature. But if these questions are connected with disagreements based on principle, no compromise, no “middle” line can save the situation. There can be no “middle” line in questions of principle. Either one set of principles or another must be made the basis of the Party’s work. A “middle” line in matters of principle is the “line” of stuffing people’s heads with rubbish, of glossing over disagreements, a “line” leading to the ideological degeneration of the Party, to the ideological death of the Party.

How do the Social-Democratic parties of the West exist and develop nowadays? Have they inner-party contradictions, disagreements based on principle? Of course, they have. Do they disclose these contradictions and try to over come them honestly and openly in sight of the mass of the party membership? No, of course not. It is the practice of the Social-Democrats to cover up and conceal these contradictions and disagreements. It is the practice of the Social-Democrats to turn their conferences and congresses into an empty parade of ostensible well-being, assiduously covering up and slurring over internal disagreements. But nothing can come of this except stuffing people’s heads with rubbish and the ideological impoverishment of the party. This is one of the reasons for the decline of West-European Social-Democracy, which was once revolutionary, and is now reformist.

We, however, cannot live and develop in that way, comrades. The policy of a “middle” line in matters of principle is not our policy. The policy of a “middle” line in matters of principle is the policy of decaying and degenerating parties. Such a policy cannot but lead to the conversion of the party into an empty bureaucratic apparatus, running idle and divorced from the masses of the workers. That path is not our path. Our Party’s whole past confirms the thesis that the history of our Party is the history of the overcoming of inner-Party contradictions and of the constant strengthening of the ranks of our Party on the basis of overcoming them. Let us take the first period, the Iskra period, or the period of the Second Congress of our Party, when the disagreements between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks first appeared within our Party and when the top leadership of our Party in the end split into two sections: the Bolshevik section (Lenin), and the Menshevik section (Plekhanov, Axelrod, Martov, Zasulich, Potresov). Lenin then stood alone. If you only knew how much howling and shouting there was then about the “irreplaceables” who had left Lenin! But experience of the struggle and the history of the Party showed that this divergence was based on principle, that it was an essential phase for the birth and development of a really revolutionary and really Marxist party. The experience of the struggle at that time showed, firstly, that the important thing was not quantity, but quality, and, secondly, that the important thing was not formal unity, but that unity should be based on principle. History showed that Lenin was right and the “irreplaceables” were wrong. History showed that if these contradictions between Lenin and the “irreplaceables” had not been overcome, we should not today have a genuine revolutionary party. Let us take the next period, the period of the eve of the 1905 Revolution, when the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks confronted each other still within one party as two camps with two absolutely different platforms, when the Bolsheviks stood on the verge of a formal splitting of the Party, and when, in order to uphold the line of our revolution, they were compelled to convene a special congress of their own (the Third Congress). To what did the Bolshevik section of the Party owe the fact that it then gained the upper hand, that it won the sympathy of the majority of the Party? To the fact that it did not slur over disagreements based on principle and fought to overcome them by isolating the Mensheviks. I might refer, further, to the third stage in the development of our Party, the period following the defeat of the 1905 Revolution, the 1907 period, when a section of the Bolsheviks, the so-called “Otzovists,” headed by Bogdanov, forsook Bolshevism. This was a critical period in the life of our Party. It was the period when a number of Bolsheviks of the old guard deserted Lenin and his party. The Mensheviks loudly asserted that the Bolsheviks were done for. But Bolshevism was not done for, and in the course of about a year and a half experience of the struggle showed that Lenin and his party were right in fighting to overcome the contradictions within the Bolshevik ranks. These contradictions were overcome not by slurring over them, but by bringing them into the open and by a struggle, to the benefit and advantage of our Party.

I might refer, further, to the fourth period in the history of our Party, the 1911-12 period, when the Bolsheviks rebuilt the Party, which had almost been shattered by tsarist reaction, and expelled the Liquidators. Here, too, as in the previous periods, the Bolsheviks proceeded to rebuild and strengthen the Party, not by slurring over the disagreements with the Liquidators on matters of principle, but by bringing them into the open and overcoming them.

I might point, next, to the fifth stage in the development of our Party, the period preceding the October Revolution of 1917, when a section of the Bolsheviks, headed by well-known leaders of the Bolshevik Party, wavered and were against undertaking the October uprising, considering it an adventure. We know that this contradiction, too, the Bolsheviks overcame not by slurring over the disagreements, but by an open struggle for the October Revolution. Experience of the struggle showed that if we had not overcome those disagreements we might have placed the October Revolution in a critical position. I might point, lastly, to subsequent periods in the development of our inner-Party struggle—the period of the Brest Peace, the 1921 period (the trade-union discussion), and the other periods, with which you are familiar and on which I shall not dilate here. It is well known that in all these, as in earlier periods, our Party grew and became strong by overcoming internal contradictions. What follows from this?

It follows that the C.P.S.U.(B.) grew and became strong by overcoming inner-Party contradictions. It follows that the overcoming of inner-Party disagreements by means of struggle is a law of development of our Party.

Some may say that this may be a law for the C.P.S.U.(B.), but not for other proletarian parties. That is not true. This law is a law of development for all parties of some size, whether the proletarian Party of the U.S.S.R. or the proletarian parties of the West. Whereas in a small party in a small country it is possible in one way or another to slur over disagreements, covering them up by the prestige of one or several persons, in the case of a big party in a big country development through the overcoming of contradictions is an inevitable element of party growth and consolidation. So it was in the past. So it is today.

I should like here to refer to the authority of Engels, who, together with Marx, directed the proletarian parties of the West for several decades. The matter concerns the eighties of the last century, when the Anti-Socialist Law was in force in Germany, when Marx and Engels were in exile in London, and when the Sozialdemokrat,3 the illegal German Social-Democratic organ published abroad, in fact guided the work of German Social-Democracy. Bernstein was then a revolutionary Marxist (he had not yet managed to go over to the reformists), and Engels maintained a lively correspondence with him on the most burning problems of German Social-

Democratic policy. Here is what he wrote to Bernstein at that time (1882):

“It seems that every workers’ party in a big country can develop only by inner struggle, in full conformity with the laws of dialectical development in general. The German Party has become what it is in a struggle between the Eisenachers and the Lassalleans, in which the fight itself played a major role. Unity became possible only when the gang of rascals deliberately reared by Lassalle to serve him as a tool had played itself out, and even so our side showed much too much haste in agreeing to unity. In France, the people who, although they have sacrificed the Bakuninist theory, continue to employ Bakuninist methods of struggle and at the same time want to sacrifice the class character of the movement to their own special ends, must also first play themselves out before unity can again become possible. To preach unity under such circumstances would be sheer folly. Moral preaching is of no avail against infantile diseases, which under present circumstances have to be gone through” (see Marx-Engels Archives, Book I, pp. 324-254).

For, Engels says in another place (1885):

“In the long run the contradictions are never slurred over, but always fought out” (ibid., p. 371).

It is to this, above all, that we must attribute the existence of contradictions within our Party and the development of our Party by overcoming these contradictions through struggle. 2. Sources of Contradictions Within the Party Where do these contradictions and disagreements stem from, what is their source?

I think that the source of the contradictions within the proletarian parties lies in two circumstances.

What are these circumstances?

They are, firstly, the pressure exerted by the bourgeoisie and bourgeois ideology on the proletariat and its party in the conditions of the class struggle—a pressure to which the least stable strata of the proletariat, and, hence, the least stable strata of the proletarian party, not infrequently succumb. It must not be thought that the proletariat is completely isolated from society, that it stands outside society. The proletariat is a part of society, connected with its diverse strata by numerous threads. But the party is a part of the proletariat. Hence the Party cannot be exempt from connections with, and from the influence of, the diverse sections of bourgeois society. The pressure of the bourgeoisie and its ideology on the proletariat and its party finds expression in the fact that bourgeois ideas, manners, customs and sentiments not infrequently penetrate the proletariat and its party through definite strata of the proletariat that are in one way or another connected with bourgeois society.

They are, secondly, the heterogeneity of the working class, the existence of different strata within the working class. I think that the proletariat, as a class, can be divided into three strata.

One stratum is the main mass of the proletariat, its core, its permanent part, the mass of “pure-blooded” proletarians, who have long broken off connection with the capitalist class. This stratum of the proletariat is the most reliable bulwark of Marxism.

The second stratum consists of newcomers from nonproletarian classes—from the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie or the intelligentsia. These are former members of other classes who have only recently merged with the proletariat and have brought with them into the working class their customs, their habits, their waverings and their vacillations. This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for all sorts of anarchist, semi-anarchist and “ultra-Left” groups.

The third stratum, lastly, consists of the labour aristocracy, the upper stratum of the working class, the most well-to-do portion of the proletariat, with its propensity for compromise with the bourgeoisie, its predominant inclination to adapt itself to the powers that be, and its anxiety to “get on in life.” This stratum constitutes the most favourable soil for outright reformists and opportunists. Notwithstanding their superficial difference, these last two strata of the working class constitute a more or less common nutritive medium for opportunism in general—open opportunism, when the sentiments of the labour aristocracy gain the upper hand, and opportunism camouflaged with “Left” phrases, when the sentiments of the semi-middle-class strata of the working class which have not yet completely broken with the petty-bourgeois environment gain the upper hand. The fact that “ultra-Left” sentiments very often coincide with the sentiments of open opportunism is not at all surprising. Lenin said time and again that the “ultra-Left” opposition is the reverse side of the Right-wing, Menshevik, openly opportunist opposition. And that is quite true. If the “ultra-Lefts” stand for revolution only because they expect the victory of the revolution the very next day, then obviously they must fall into despair and be disillusioned in the revolution if the revolution is delayed, if the revolution is not victorious the very next day.

Naturally, with every turn in the development of the class struggle, with every sharpening of the struggle and intensification of difficulties, the differences in the views, customs and sentiments of the various strata of the proletariat must inevitably make themselves felt in the shape of definite disagreements within the party, and the pressure of the bourgeoisie and its ideology must inevitably accentuate these disagreements by providing them with an outlet in the form of a struggle within the proletarian party.

Such are the sources of inner-Party contradictions and disagreements.

Can these contradictions and disagreements be avoided? No, they cannot. To think that these contradictions can be avoided is self-deception. Engels was right when he said that in the long run it is impossible to slur over contradictions within the party, that they must be fought out.

This does not mean that the party must be turned into a debating society. On the contrary, the proletarian party is, and must remain, a militant organisation of the proletariat. All I want to say is that one cannot brush aside and shut one’s eyes to disagreements within the party if they are disagreements over matters of principle. All I want to say is that only by fighting for the Marxist line based on principle can a proletarian party be protected from the pressure and influence of the bourgeoisie. All I want to say is that only by overcoming inner-Party contradictions can we succeed in making the Party sound and strong.

II

SPECIFIC FEATURES OF THE OPPOSITION

IN THE C.P.S.U.(B.)

Permit me now to pass from the preliminary remarks to the question of the opposition in the C.P.S.U.(B.). First of all, I should like to mention certain specific features of our inner-Party opposition. I am referring to its external features, those which strike the eye, and shall leave aside for the present the substance of the disagreements. I think these specific features may be reduced to three principal ones. There is, firstly, the fact that the opposition in the C.P.S.U.(B.) is a combined opposition and not “simply” some kind of opposition. There is, secondly, the fact that the opposition tries to camouflage its opportunism with “Left” phrases, making a parade of “revolutionary” slogans. There is, thirdly, the fact that the opposition, because of its amorphousness as regards principles, every now and again complains that it has been misunderstood—that in point of fact the opposition leaders constitute a faction of “the misunderstood.” (Laughter.)

Let us begin with the first specific feature. How are we to explain the fact that our opposition comes forward as a combined opposition, as a bloc of all the various trends previously condemned by the Party, and, moreover, that it comes forward not “simply,” but with Trotskyism at its head?

It is to be explained by the following circumstances: Firstly, by the fact that all the trends united in the bloc-the Trotskyists, the “New Opposition,” the remnants of “Democratic Centralism,”5 the remnants of the “Workers’ Opposition”6 —are all more or less opportunist trends, which have either been fighting Leninism since their inception or have begun to fight it latterly. It stands to reason that this common feature could not but facilitate their uniting into a bloc for the purpose of fighting the Party.

Secondly, by the fact that the present period is a crucial one, and that this crucial period has again faced us point blank with the basic questions of our revolution; and since all these trends differed, and continue to differ, with our Party over various questions of the revolution, it is natural that the character of the present period, which sums up and strikes the balance of all our disagreements, should impel all these trends into one bloc, a bloc opposed to the basic line of our Party. It stands to reason that this circumstance could not but facilitate the uniting of the diverse opposition trends into one common camp.

Thirdly, by the fact that the mighty strength and solidarity of our Party, on the one hand, and the weakness of all the opposition trends without exception and their divorce from the masses, on the other hand, could not but render the disunited struggle of these trends against the Party manifestly hopeless, in view of which the opposition trends inevitably had to take the course of uniting their forces, so as to compensate for the weakness of the individual groups by combining them, and thus increase the opposition’s chances, if only in appearance. Well, and how are we to explain the fact that the opposition bloc is headed precisely by Trotskyism? Firstly, by the fact that Trotskyism represents the most consummate opportunist trend of all the existing opposition trends in our Party (the Fifth Congress of the Comintern was right in characterising Trotskyism as a petty-bourgeois deviation).

Secondly, by the fact that not a single other opposition trend in our Party is able to camouflage its opportunism with “Left” and r-r-r-revolutionary phrases so cunningly and skilfully as Trotskyism. (Laughter.) This is not the first occasion in the history of our Party that Trotskyism has come forward at the head of the opposition trends against our Party. I should like to refer to the well known precedent in the history of our Party dating back to 1910-14, when a bloc of anti-Party opposition trends, headed by Trotsky, was formed in the shape of the so-called August Bloc. I should like to refer to this precedent, because that bloc represents as it were the prototype of the present opposition bloc. At that time Trotsky united against the Party the Liquidators (Potresov, Martov and others), the Otzovists (“Vperyodists”) and his own group. Now he has attempted to unite in an opposition bloc the “Workers’ Opposition,” the “New Opposition” and his own group. We know that Lenin fought the August Bloc for three years. Here is what Lenin wrote of the August Bloc on the eve of its formation:

“We therefore declare in the name of the Party as a whole that Trotsky is conducting an anti-Party policy—that he is breaking Party law and embarking on the path of adventurism and a split. . . . Trotsky keeps silent about this undeniable truth, because the real aims of his policy cannot stand the truth. But the real aims are becoming ever clearer and more obvious even to the least far-sighted Party members. These real aims are an anti-Party bloc of the Potresovs and Vperyodists, which bloc Trotsky is supporting and organising. . . . This bloc, of course, will support Trotsky’s ‘fund,’ and the anti-Party conference he is convening, because both the Potresovs and the Vperyodists are getting here what they want: freedom for their factions and their consecration, a cover for their activity, and lawyer-like advocacy of it in the eyes of the workers.

“Well then, precisely from the standpoint of ‘fundamental principles,’ we cannot but regard this bloc as adventurism in the most precise meaning of the term. To say that he sees in Potresov and the Otzovists genuine Marxists, real champions of the principles of Social-Democracy, Trotsky does not dare. The essence of the position of an adventurer is that he has permanently to be evasive. . . . Trotsky’s bloc with Potresov and the Vperyodists is adventurism precisely from the standpoint of ‘fundamental principles.’ That is no less true from the standpoint of the Party’s political tasks. . . . The experience of the year since the plenum has shown in practice that it is precisely the Potresov groups and the Vperyod faction that embody this bourgeois influence on the proletariat. . . . Thirdly and lastly, Trotsky’s policy is adventurism in the organisational sense, for, as we have already pointed out, it tears down Party legality and, by organising a conference in the name of one group abroad (or in the name of a bloc of two anti-Party factions-the Golosists and Vperyodists), it is directly making for a split” (see Vol. XV, pp. 65, 67-70).* That is what Lenin said about the first bloc of anti-Party trends headed by Trotsky. The same must be said in substance, but still more emphatically, of the present bloc of anti-Party trends, also headed by Trotsky.

These are the reasons why our opposition now comes forward in the shape of a united opposition, and not “simply,” but with Trotskyism at its head.

* References in Roman numerals to Lenin’s works here and elsewhere are to the third edition of the Works.—Tr.

That is how matters stand as regards the first specific feature of the opposition. Let us pass to the second specific feature. I have already said that the second specific feature of the opposition is its strenuous effort to camouflage its opportunist deeds with “Left,” “revolutionary” phrases. I do not consider it possible to dwell here on the facts that show the constant divergence between “revolutionary” words and opportunist deeds in the practice of our opposition. It is sufficient to examine, for example, the theses on the opposition adopted by the Fifteenth Conference of the C.P.S.U.(B.)8 to understand how this camouflage works. I should like merely to quote a few instances from the history of our Party which indicate that all the opposition trends in our Party in the period since the seizure of power have endeavoured to camouflage their non-revolutionary deeds with “revolutionary” phrases, invariably criticising the Party and its policy from the “Left.” Let us take, for example, the “Left” Communists who came out against the Party in the period of the Brest Peace (1918). We know that they criticised the Party from the “Left,” attacking the Brest Peace and characterising the Party’s policy as opportunist, unproletarian and one of compromise with the imperialists. But it proved in practice that, in attacking the Brest Peace, the “Left” Communists were preventing the Party from securing a “respite” in which to organise and consolidate Soviet power, that they were helping the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, who were then opposed to the Brest Peace, and were facilitating the efforts of imperialism, which was endeavouring to crush the Soviet power at its very inception.

Let us take the “Workers’ Opposition” (1921). We know that it also criticised the Party from the “Left,” “fulminating” against the policy of NEP and “pulverising” to “dust and ashes” Lenin’s thesis that the restoration of industry must begin with the development of agriculture, which provides the raw materials and food that are prerequisites for industry, “pulverising” this thesis of Lenin’s on the grounds that it ignored the interests of the proletariat and was a peasant deviation. But it proved in practice that, had it not been for the NEP policy, had it not been for the development of agriculture, which provides the raw materials and food that are prerequisites for industry, we should have had no industry at all, and the proletariat would have remained declassed. Moreover, we know in which direction the “Workers’ Opposition” began to develop after this—to the Right or to the Left.

Let us, lastly, take Trotskyism, which for several years now has been criticising our Party from the “Left” and which at the same time, as the Fifth Congress of the Comintern correctly put it, is a petty-bourgeois deviation. What can there be in common between a petty-bourgeois deviation and real revolutionary spirit? Is it not obvious that “revolutionary” phrases are here merely a camouflage for a petty-bourgeois deviation? There is no need to mention the “New Opposition,” whose “Left” cries are designed to conceal the fact that it is a captive of Trotskyism.

What do all these facts show?

That “Left” camouflage of opportunist actions has been one of the most characteristic features of all the various opposition trends in our Party during the period since the seizure of power.

What is the explanation of this phenomenon? The explanation lies in the revolutionary spirit of the proletariat of the U.S.S.R., the profound revolutionary traditions that are deep-seated in our proletariat. The explanation lies in the downright hatred in which anti-revolutionary and opportunist elements are held by the workers of the U.S.S.R. The explanation lies in the fact that our workers will simply not listen to an open opportunist, and that therefore the “revolutionary” camouflage is a bait designed to attract, if only by its outward appearance, the attention of the workers and to inspire them with confidence in the opposition. Our workers, for instance, cannot understand why the British workers to this day have not thought of drowning such traitors as Thomas, of throwing them down a well. (Laughter.) Anyone who knows our workers will easily realise that individuals and opportunists like Thomas would simply not be tolerated by the Soviet workers. Yet we know that not only are the British workers not preparing to drown Messieurs the Thomases, but they even re-elect them to the General Council and re-elect them not just simply, but with acclamation. Obviously, such workers do not need a revolutionary camouflage for opportunism, since they are not averse to accepting opportunists into their midst as it is.

And what is the explanation of this? The explanation lies in the fact that the British workers have no revolutionary traditions. These revolutionary traditions are now coming into being. They are coming into being and developing, and there is no reason to doubt that the British workers are being tempered in revolutionary battle. But as long as these are lacking, the difference between the British and the Soviet workers remains. This, in fact, explains why it is risky for the opportunists in our Party to approach the workers of the U.S.S.R. without some “revolutionary” camouflage.

There you have the reasons for the “revolutionary” camouflage of the opposition bloc.

Finally, as regards the third specific feature of the opposition. I have already said that it consists in the amorphousness as regards principle of the opposition bloc, in its unprincipledness, in its amoebic character, and in the consequent continual complaints of the opposition leaders that they have been “misunderstood,” “misrepresented,” fathered with what they “did not say” and so on. They are truly a faction of “the misunderstood.” The history of proletarian parties tells us that this feature (“they have misunderstood us!”) is the most common and wide-spread feature of opportunism in general. You must know, comrades, that exactly the same thing “happened” with the well-known opportunists Bernstein, Vollmar, Auer and others in the ranks of German Social-Democracy at the end of the 1890’s and the beginning of the 1900’s, when German Social-Democracy was revolutionary, and when these arrant opportunists complained for many years that they were “misunderstood” and “misrepresented.” We know that the German revolutionary Social-Democrats at that time called the Bernstein faction the faction of “the misunderstood.” Thus it cannot be regarded as an accident that the opposition bloc has to be assigned to the category of “misunderstood” factions. Such are the chief specific features of the opposition bloc.

III

THE DISAGREEMENTS IN THE C.P.S.U.(B.)

Let us pass to the substance of the disagreements. I think that our disagreements could be reduced to a few basic questions. I shall not deal with these questions in detail, because time is short and my report is long enough as it is. There is all the more reason for not doing so, because you have material on the questions of the C.P.S.U.(B.), material which suffers, it is true, from certain errors of translation, but which on the whole gives a correct idea of the disagreements in our Party.

1. Questions of Socialist Construction

First question. The first question is that of the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country, the possibility of victoriously building socialism. It is not a matter, of course, of Montenegro or even Bulgaria, but of our country, the U.S.S.R. It is a matter of a country where imperialism existed and was developing, where there is a certain minimum of large-scale industry and a certain minimum of proletariat, and where there is a party which leads the proletariat. And so, is the victory of socialism possible in the U.S.S.R., can socialism be built in the U.S.S.R. on the basis of the internal forces of our country and on the basis of the potentialities at the disposal of the proletariat of the U.S.S.R.?

But what does building socialism mean, if this formula is translated into concrete class language? Building socialism in the U.S.S.R. means overcoming our, Soviet, bourgeoisie by our own efforts in the course of a struggle. Hence the question amounts to this: is the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. capable of overcoming its own, Soviet bourgeoisie? Consequently, when it is asked whether socialism can be built in the U.S.S.R., what is meant is this: is the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. by its own efforts capable of overcoming the bourgeoisie of the U.S.S.R.? That, and that alone, is how the question stands as regards solving the problem of building socialism in our country.

The Party answers this question in the affirmative, because it holds that the proletariat of the U.S.S.R., the proletarian dictatorship in the U.S.S.R., by its own efforts is capable of overcoming the bourgeoisie of the
U.S.S.R.

If this were incorrect, if the Party had no justification for asserting that the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. is capable of building a socialist society, despite the relative technical backwardness of our country, then the Party would have no justification for remaining in power any longer, it would have to surrender power in one way or another and to pass to the position of an- opposition party.

For, one thing or the other:
either we can engage in building socialism and, in the final analysis, build it completely, overcoming our “national” bourgeoisie-in which case it is the duty of the Party to remain in power and direct the building of socialism in our country for the sake of the victory of socialism throughout the world; or we are not in a position to overcome our bourgeoisie by our own efforts—in which case, in view of the absence of immediate support from abroad, from a victorious revolution in other countries, we must honestly and frankly retire from power and steer a course for organising another revolution in the U.S.S.R. in the future.

Has a party the right to deceive its class, in this case the working class? No, it has not. Such a party would deserve to be hanged, drawn and quartered. But just because our Party has no right to deceive the working class, it would have to say frankly that lack of confidence in the possibility of completely building socialism in our country would lead to our Party retiring from power and passing from the position of a ruling party to that of an opposition party.

We have won the dictatorship of the proletariat and have thereby created the political basis for the advance to socialism. Can we by our own efforts create the economic basis of socialism, the new economic foundation necessary for the building of socialism? What is the economic essence and economic basis of socialism? Is it the establishment of a “paradise” on earth and universal abundance? No, that is the philistine, petty-bourgeois idea of the economic essence of socialism. To create the economic basis of socialism means welding agriculture and socialist industry into one integral economy, subordinating agriculture to the leadership of socialist industry, regulating relations between town and country on the basis of an exchange of the products of agriculture and industry, closing and eliminating all the channels which facilitate the birth of classes and, above all, of capital, and, in the long run, establishing such conditions of production and distribution as will lead directly and immediately to the abolition of classes.

Here is what Comrade Lenin said on this score in the period when we introduced NEP, and when the question of laying a socialist foundation for the national economy confronted the Party in all its magnitude: “Replacement of the surplus-appropriation system by a tax, its significance in principle: transition from ‘War’ Communism to a correct socialist foundation. Neither the surplus-appropriation system, nor a tax, but the exchange of the products of large-scale (‘socialised’) industry for peasant products-such is the economic essence of socialism, its basis” (see Vol. XXVI, pp. 311-12).

That is how Lenin understood the question of creating the economic basis of socialism.

But in order to weld agriculture with socialised industry, it is necessary, in the first place, to have an extensive network of bodies for the distribution of products, an extensive network of co-operative bodies, both of consumer co-operatives and of agricultural, producer co-operatives. That was precisely what Lenin had in mind when he said in his pamphlet On Co-operation: “Co-operation, under our conditions, very often entirely coincides with socialism” (see Vol. XXVII, p. 396). And so, can the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. by its own efforts build the economic basis of socialism, in the conditions of the capitalist encirclement of our country?

The Party replies to this question in the affirmative (see resolution of the Fourteenth Conference of the R.C.P.(B.)9). Lenin replies to this question in the affirmative (see, for instance, his pamphlet On Co-operation). All the experience of our constructive work furnishes an affirmative answer to this question, because the share of the socialist sector in our economy is growing from year to year at the expense of that of private capital, both in the sphere of production and in the sphere of distribution, while the role of private capital as compared with that of the socialist elements in our economy is declining from year to year.

Well, and how does the opposition reply to this question?

It replies to this question in the negative. It follows that the victory of socialism in our country is possible, that the possibility of building the economic basis of socialism may be regarded as assured. Does this mean that such a victory can be termed a full victory, a final victory of socialism, one that would guarantee the country that is building socialism against all danger from abroad, against the danger of imperialist intervention and the consequent danger of restoration? No, it does not. While the question of completely building socialism in the U.S.S.R. is one of overcoming our own, “national,” bourgeoisie, the question of the final victory of socialism is one of overcoming the world bourgeoisie. The Party says that the proletariat of one country is not in a position to overpower the world bourgeoisie by its own efforts. The Party says that for the final victory of socialism in one country it is necessary to overcome, or at least to neutralise, the world bourgeoisie. The Party says that such a task is within the power only of the proletariat of several countries. Consequently, the final victory of socialism in a particular country signifies the victory of the proletarian revolution in, at least, several countries. This question does not give rise to any special disagreement in our Party, and therefore I shall not dwell on it, but would refer those who are interested to the materials of the Central Committee of our Party which were distributed the other day to the members of the Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I.

2. Factors of the “Respite”

Second question. The second question concerns problems of the conditions of the present international position of the U.S.S.R., the conditions of that period of “respite” during which the work of building socialism in our country began and developed. We can and must build socialism in the U.S.S.R. But in order to build socialism, we must first exist. There must be a “respite” from war, there must be no attempts at intervention, there must have been won a certain minimum of international conditions which are necessary in order that we may exist and build socialism.

On what, it may be asked, does the present international position of the Republic of Soviets rest, what determines the present “peaceful” period of development of our country in its relation to the capitalist countries, what is the basis of that “respite,” or of that period of “respite,” which has been won, which renders immediate attempts at serious intervention on the part of the capitalist world impossible, and which creates the necessary external conditions for the building of socialism in our country, seeing that it has been proved that the danger of intervention exists and will continue to exist, and that this danger can be eliminated only as a result of the victory of the proletarian revolution in a number of countries?

The present period of “respite” is based on at least four fundamental facts.

Firstly, on the contradictions within the imperialist camp, which are not becoming weaker and which render a plot against the Republic of Soviets difficult. Secondly, on the contradictions between imperialism and the colonial countries, on the growth of the liberation movement in the colonies and dependent countries.

Thirdly, on the growth of the revolutionary movement in the capitalist countries and the growing sympathy of the proletarians of all countries for the Republic of Soviets. The proletarians of the capitalist countries are not yet able to support the proletarians of the U.S.S.R. with an outright revolution against their own capitalists. But the capitalists of the imperialist states are already unable to march “their” workers against the proletariat of the U.S.S.R., because the sympathy of the proletarians of all countries for the Republic of Soviets is growing, and is bound to grow from day to day. And to go to war nowadays without the workers is impossible.

Fourthly, on the strength and might of the proletariat of the U.S.S.R., on its achievements in socialist construction, and on the strength of organisation of its Red Army.

The combination of these and similar conditions gives rise to that period of “respite” which is the characteristic feature of the present international position in the Republic of Soviets.

3. The Unity and Inseparability of the “National” and International Tasks of the Revolution

Third question. The third question concerns problems of the “national” and international tasks of the proletarian revolution in a particular country. The Party holds that the “national” and international tasks of the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. merge into the one general task of emancipating the proletarians of all countries from capitalism, that the interests of the building of socialism in our country wholly and completely merge with the interests of the revolutionary movement of all countries into the one general interest of the victory of the socialist revolution in all countries. What would happen if the proletarians of all countries did not sympathise with and support the Republic of Soviets? There would be intervention and the Republic of Soviets would be smashed. What would happen if capital succeeded in smashing the Republic of Soviets? There would set in an era of the blackest reaction in all the capitalist and colonial countries, the working class and the oppressed peoples would be seized by the throat, the positions of international communism would be lost. What will happen if the sympathy and support that the Republic of Soviets enjoys among the proletarians of all countries grows and intensifies? It will radically facilitate the building of socialism in the U.S.S.R. What will happen if the achievements of socialist construction in the U.S.S.R. continue to grow? It will radically improve the revolutionary position of the proletarians of all countries in their struggle against capital, will undermine the position of international capital in its struggle against the proletariat, and will greatly heighten the chances of the world proletariat. But it follows from this that the interests and tasks of the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. are interwoven and inseparably connected with the interests and tasks of the revolutionary movement in all countries, and, conversely, that the tasks of the revolutionary proletarians of all countries are inseparably connected with the tasks and achievements of the proletarians of the U.S.S.R. in the field of socialist construction.

Hence to counterpose the “national” tasks of the proletarians of a particular country to the international tasks is to commit a profound political error. Hence anyone who depicts the zeal and fervour displayed by the proletarians of the U.S.S.R. in the struggle on the front of socialist construction as a sign of “national isolation” or “national narrow-mindedness,” as our oppositionists sometimes do, has gone out of his mind or fallen into second childhood.

Hence affirmation of the unity and inseparability of the interests and tasks of the proletarians of one country and the interests and tasks of the proletarians of all countries is the surest way to the victory of the revolutionary movement of the proletarians of all countries. Precisely for this reason, the victory of the proletarian revolution in one country is not an end in itself, but a means and an aid for the development and victory of the revolution in all countries.

Hence building socialism in the U.S.S.R. means furthering the common cause of the proletarians of all countries, it means forging the victory over capital not only in the U.S.S.R., but in all the capitalist countries, for the revolution in the U.S.S.R. is part of the world revolution—its beginning and the base for its development. 4. Concerning the History of the Question of Building Socialism

Fourth question. The fourth question concerns the history of the question under discussion. The opposition asserts that the question of the building of socialism in one country was first raised in our Party in 1925. At all events, Trotsky bluntly declared at the Fifteenth Conference: “Why is theoretical recognition of the building of socialism in one country demanded? Where does this perspective come from? How is it that nobody raised this question before 1925?”

It follows, then, that before 1925 this question was not raised in our Party. It follows that this question was raised in the Party only by Stalin and Bukharin, and that it was in 1925 that they raised it. Is that true? No, it is not.

I affirm that the question of the building of a socialist economy in one country was first raised in the Party by Lenin as early as 1915. I affirm that Lenin was opposed at that time by none other than Trotsky. I affirm that since then, that is, since 1915, the question of the building of a socialist economy in one country was repeatedly discussed in our press and in our Party.

Let us turn to the facts.

a) 1915. Lenin’s article on “The United States of Europe Slogan” in the Central Organ of the Bolsheviks (Sotsial-Demokrat 10). Here is what Lenin says in that article:

“As a separate slogan, however, the slogan of a United States of the World would hardly be a correct one, firstly, because it merges with socialism; secondly, because it may give rise to a wrong interpretation in the sense of the impossibility of the victory of socialism in a single country and about the relation of such a country to the rest.

“Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country taken separately. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and having organised its own socialist production,* would stand up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world, attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, raising revolts in those countries against the capitalists, and in the event of necessity coming out even with armed force against the exploiting classes and their states.” . . . For “the free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states” (see Vol. XVIII, pp. 232-33).

And here is Trotsky’s rejoinder, made in the same year, 1915, in Nashe Slovo,11 which Trotsky directed: “’Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism.’ From this the Sotsial-Demokrat (the central organ of the Bolsheviks in 1915, where Lenin’s article in question was published.—J. St.) draws the conclusion that the victory of socialism is possible in one country, and that therefore there is no reason to make the dictatorship of the proletariat in each separate country contingent upon the establishment of a United States of Europe. . . . That no country in its struggle must ‘wait’ for others, is an elementary thought which it is useful and necessary to reiterate in order that the idea of concurrent international action may not be replaced by the idea of temporising international inaction. Without waiting for the others, we begin and continue the struggle nationally, in the full confidence that our initiative will give an impetus to the struggle other countries; but if this should not occur, it would be hopeless to think—as historical experience and theoretical considerations testify—that, for example, a revolutionary Russia could hold out in the face of a conservative Europe, or that a socialist Germany could exist in isolation in a capitalist world. To accept the perspective of a social revolution within national bounds is to fall a prey to that very national narrow-mindedness which constitutes the essence of social-patriotism”* (Trotsky, The Year 1917, Vol. III, Part I, pp. 89-90). You see that the question of “organising socialist production” was raised by Lenin as far back as 1915, on the eve of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia, at the time of the imperialist war, when the question of the growing over of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a socialist revolution was on the order of the day.

You see that at that time Comrade Lenin was controverted by none other than Trotsky, who obviously knew that Lenin in his article was speaking of the “victory of socialism” and of the possibility of “organising socialist production in one country.”

You see that the charge of “national narrow-mindedness” was raised for the first time by Trotsky already in 1915, and that this charge was levelled not against Stalin or Bukharin, but against Lenin.

Now it is Zinoviev who every now and again puts forward the ludicrous charge of “national narrow-mindedness.” But he apparently does not realise that in so doing he is repeating and reviving Trotsky’s thesis, directed against Lenin and his Party.

b) 1919. Lenin’s article “Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.” Here is what Lenin says in that article:

“In spite of the lies and slanders of the bourgeoisie of all countries and of their open or masked henchmen the ‘Socialists’ of the Second International), one thing remains beyond dispute, viz., that from the point of view of the basic economic problem of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the victory of communism over capitalism in our country is assured. Throughout the world the bourgeoisie is raging and fuming against Bolshevism and is organising military expeditions, plots, etc., against the Bolsheviks, just because it fully realises that our success in reconstructing the social economy is inevitable, provided we are not crushed by military force. And its attempts to crush us in this way are not succeeding”* (see Vol. XXIV, p. 510)

* My italics.—J. St.

You see that in this article Lenin speaks of the “economic problem of the dictatorship of the proletariat,” of “reconstructing the social economy” with a view to the “victory of communism.” And what does the “economic problem of the dictatorship of the proletariat” and “reconstructing the social economy” mean under the dictatorship of the proletariat? It means nothing else than the building of socialism in one country, our country. c) 1921. Lenin’s pamphlet, The Tax in Kind.12 The well known proposition that we can and must lay “a socialist foundation for our economy” (see The Tax in Kind).

d) 1922. Lenin’s speech in the Moscow Soviet, where he says that “we have dragged socialism into everyday life,” and that “NEP Russia will become socialist Russia” (see Vol. XXVII, p. 366). Trotsky’s rejoinder to this in his “Postscript” to the Peace Programme in 1922, without any direct indication that he is polemising against Lenin. Here is what Trotsky says in the “Postscript”: “The assertion reiterated several times in the Peace Programme that a proletarian revolution cannot culminate victoriously within national bounds may perhaps seem to some readers to have been refuted by the nearly five years’ experience of our Soviet Republic. But such a conclusion would be unwarranted. The fact that the workers’ state has held out against the whole world in one country, and a backward country at that, testifies to the colossal might of the proletariat, which in other, more advanced, more civilised countries will be truly capable of performing miracles. But while we have held our ground as a state politically and militarily, we have not arrived, or even begun to arrive, at the creation of a socialist society. The struggle for survival as a revolutionary state has resulted in this period in an extreme decline of productive forces; yet socialism is conceivable only on the basis of their growth and development. The trade negotiations with bourgeois countries, the concessions the Genoa Conference and the like constitute all too graphic evidence of the impossibility of isolated building of socialism within the framework of national states. . . . Real progress of a socialist economy in Russia will become possible only after the victory of the proletariat in the major European countries”* (Trotsky, The Year 1917, Vol. III, Part I, pp. 92-93).

Who is Trotsky controverting when he speaks here of “the impossibility of isolated building of socialism within the framework of national states”? Not, of course, Stalin or Bukharin. Trotsky is here controverting Comrade Lenin, and controverting him on the basic question and no other—the possibility of “socialist construction within the framework of national states.” e) 1923. Lenin’s pamphlet On Co-operation, which was his political testament. Here is what Lenin wrote in this pamphlet:

“As a matter of fact, state power over all large-scale means of production, state power in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of this proletariat with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured leadership of the peasantry by the proletariat, etc.—is not this all that is necessary for building a complete socialist society from the co-operatives, from the co-operatives alone, which we formerly looked down upon as huckstering and which from a certain aspect we have the right to look down upon as such now, under NEP? Is this not all that is necessary for building a complete socialist society? This is not yet the building of socialist society, but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for this building”* (see Vol. XXVII, p. 392).

* My italics.—J. St.

It could hardly be put more clearly, one would think.

From what Trotsky says it follows that “socialist construction within the framework of national states” is impossible. Lenin, however, affirms that we, that is, the proletariat of the U.S.S.R., have now, in the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, “all that is necessary and sufficient” “for building a complete socialist society.” The antithesis of views is absolute.

Such are the facts.

You thus see that the question of the building of socialism in one country was raised in our Party as early as 1915, that it was raised by Lenin himself, and that he was controverted on this issue by none other than Trotsky, who accused Lenin of “national narrow-mindedness.” You see that since then and down to Comrade Lenin’s death this question was not removed from the order of the day of our Party’s work.

You see that in one form or another this question was several times raised by Trotsky in the shape of a veiled but quite definite controversy with Comrade Lenin, and that every time Trotsky handled the question not in the spirit of Lenin and Leninism, but in opposition to Lenin and Leninism. You see that Trotsky is telling a downright untruth when he asserts that the question of the building of socialism in one country was not raised by anybody prior to 1925.

5. The Special Importance of the Question of Building Socialism in the U.S.S.R.

at the Present Moment

Fifth question. The fifth question concerns the problem of the urgency of the task of building socialism at the present moment. Why has the question of building socialism assumed a specially urgent character just now, just in this recent period? Why is it that, whereas in 1915, 1918, 1919, 1921, 1922, 1923, for instance, the question of building socialism in the U.S.S.R. was discussed only occasionally, in individual articles, in 1924, 1925, 1926 it has assumed a very prominent place in our Party activity? What is the explanation of that?

In my opinion, the explanation lies in three chief causes.

Firstly, in the fact that in the last few years the tempo of the revolution in other countries has slowed down, and what is called a “partial stabilisation of capitalism” has set in. Hence the question: is not the partial stabilisation of capitalism tending to diminish or even to nullify the possibility of building socialism in our country? Hence the enhanced interest in the fate of socialism and socialist construction in our country.

Secondly, in the fact that we have introduced NEP, have permitted private capital, and have to some extent retreated in order to regroup our forces and later on pass to the offensive. Hence the question: may not the introduction of NEP tend to diminish the possibility of socialist construction in our country? This is another source of the growing interest in the possibility of socialist construction in our country.

Thirdly, in the circumstance that we have won the Civil War, driven out the interventionists and won a “respite” from war, that we have assured ourselves peace and a peaceful period, offering favourable conditions for putting an end to economic disruption, restoring the country’s productive forces, and setting about building a new economy in our country. Hence the question: in what direction must we conduct the building of our economy—towards socialism, or in some other direction? Hence the question: if we are to conduct our building towards socialism, are there grounds for counting on being able to build socialism under the conditions of NEP and the partial stabilisation of capitalism? Hence the tremendous interest displayed by the entire Party and the entire working class in the fate of socialist construction in our country. Hence the annual computations of all sorts of factors made by the organs of the Party and the Soviet government with a view to enhancing the relative importance of the socialist forms of economy in the spheres of industry, trade and agriculture.

There you have the three chief causes which indicate that the question of building socialism has become a most urgent one for our Party and our proletariat, as well as for the Comintern.

The opposition considers that the question of building socialism in the U.S.S.R. is only of theoretical interest. That is not true. It is a profound error. Such an attitude to the question can only be attributed to the fact that the opposition is completely divorced from our practical Party work, our work of economic construction and our co-operative affairs. Now that we have put an end to economic disruption, have restored industry, and have entered a period of the reconstruction of our entire national economy on a new technical basis, the question of building socialism has assumed immense practical importance. What should we aim at in our work of economic construction, in what direction should we build, what should we build, what should be the perspective of our constructive work?—these are all questions, without the settlement of which honest and thoughtful business executives cannot take a step forward if they want to adopt a really enlightened and considered attitude to the work of construction. Are we building in order to manure the soil for a bourgeois democracy, or in order to build a socialist society?—this is now the root question of our constructive work. Are we in a position to build a socialist economy now, under the conditions of NEP and the partial stabilisation of capitalism?— this has now become one of the cardinal questions for our Party and Soviet work.

Lenin answered this question in the affirmative (see, for example, his pamphlet On Co-operation). The Party has answered this question in the affirmative (see the resolution of the Fourteenth Conference of the R.C.P.(B.)). And what about the opposition? I have already said that the opposition answers this question in the negative. I have already said in my report at the Fifteenth Conference of the C.P.S.U.(B.), and I am obliged to repeat it here, that only quite recently, in September 1926, Trotsky, the leader of the opposition bloc, declared in his message to the oppositionists that he considers the “theory of socialism in one country” a “theoretical justification of national narrow-mindedness”

(see Stalin’s report at the Fifteenth Conference of the
C.P.S.U.(B.)13).

Compare this quotation from Trotsky (1926) with his article of 1915 where, polemising with Lenin on the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country, he for the first time raised the question of the “national narrow-mindedness” of Comrade Lenin and the Leninists— and you will realise that Trotsky still adheres to his old position of Social-Democratic negation as regards the building of socialism in one country.

That is precisely why the Party affirms that Trotskyism is a Social-Democratic deviation in our Party. 6. The Perspectives of the Revolution

Sixth question. The sixth question concerns the problem of the perspectives of the proletarian revolution. In his speech at the Fifteenth Party Conference, Trotsky said: “Lenin considered that we cannot possibly build socialism in 20 years, that in view of the backwardness of our peasant country we shall not build it even in 30 years. Let us take 30-50 years as a minimum.”

I must say here, comrades, that this perspective, invented by Trotsky, has nothing in common with Comrade Lenin’s perspective of the revolution in the U.S.S.R. A few minutes later, Trotsky himself in his speech began to challenge this perspective. But that is his affair. I, however, must declare that neither Lenin nor the Party can be held responsible for this perspective invented by Trotsky or for the conclusions that follow from it. The fact that Trotsky, having fabricated this perspective, later on in his speech began to challenge his own fabrication, only goes to show that Trotsky has got himself completely muddled and has put himself in a ridiculous position. Lenin did not say that “we cannot possibly build socialism” in 30 or 50 years. In point of fact, what Lenin said was this:

“Ten or 20 years of correct relations with the peasantry, and victory on a world scale is assured (even if the proletarian revolutions, which are growing, are delayed); otherwise, 20-40 years of the torments of white guard terrorism” (see Vol. XXVI, p. 313). From this proposition of Lenin’s can the conclusion be drawn that we “cannot possibly build socialism in 20-30 or even 50 years”? No. From this proposition only the following conclusions can be drawn:
a) given correct relations with the peasantry, we are assured of victory (i.e., the victory of socialism) in 10-20 years;
b) this victory will not only be a victory for the U.S.S.R.; it will be a victory “on a world scale”; c) if we do not secure victory in this period, it will mean that we have been smashed, and that the regime of the dictatorship of the proletariat has been replaced by a regime of whiteguard terrorism, which may last 20-40 years.

Of course, one may agree or not agree with this proposition of Lenin’s and the conclusions that follow from it. But to distort it, as Trotsky does, is impermissible. And what does victory “on a world scale” mean? Does it mean that such a victory is equivalent to the victory of socialism in one country? No, it does not. In his writings, Lenin strictly distinguishes between the victory of socialism in one country and victory “on a world scale.” When Lenin speaks of victory “on a world scale,” he means to say that the success of socialism in our country, the victory of socialist construction in our country, will have such tremendous international significance that that victory cannot be confined to our country, but is bound to call forth a powerful movement towards socialism in all capitalist countries, and that, moreover, if it does not coincide in time with the victory of the proletarian revolution in other countries, it must at any rate usher in a powerful movement of the proletarians of other countries towards the victory of the world revolution.

Such is the perspective of the revolution as Lenin saw it, if we mean by this the perspective of the victory of the revolution, which, of course, is what we in our Party have in mind.

To confuse this perspective with Trotsky’s perspective of 30-50 years is to slander Lenin. 7. How the Question Really Stands

Seventh question. Suppose we grant this, the opposition says to us, but with whom, in the final analysis, is it better to maintain an alliance—with the world proletariat, or with the peasantry of our country; to whom should we give preference—to the world proletariat or the peasantry of the U.S.S.R.? In so doing, matters are depicted as if the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. stands confronted by two allies—the world proletariat, which is prepared to overthrow its bourgeoisie at once, but is awaiting our preferential consent; and our peasantry, which is prepared to assist the proletariat of the U.S.S.R., but is not quite certain that the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. will accept its assistance. That, comrades, is a childish way of presenting the question. It is one that bears no relation either to the course of the revolution in our country or to the correlation of forces on the front of the struggle between world capitalism and socialism. Excuse me for saying so, but only schoolgirls can present the question in that way. Unfortunately, matters are not as some oppositionists depict them. Furthermore, there is no reason to doubt that we would gladly accept assistance from both parties, if it depended only on us. No, that is not the way the question stands in reality.

The way the question stands is this: since the tempo of the world revolutionary movement has slowed down and socialism is not yet victorious in the West, but the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. is in power, is strengthening its power year by year, is rallying the main mass of the peasantry around it, is already registering substantial achievements on the front of socialist construction, and is successfully strengthening ties of friendship with the proletarians and oppressed peoples of all countries— are there any grounds for denying that the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. can overcome its bourgeoisie and continue the victorious building of socialism in our country, notwithstanding the capitalist encirclement? That is how the question stands now, provided, of course, we proceed not from fancy, as the opposition bloc does, but from the actual correlation of forces on the front of the struggle between socialism and capitalism.

The reply of the Party to this question is that the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. is, in these circumstances, capable of overcoming its own, “national,” bourgeoisie and of successfully building a socialist economy. The opposition, however, says:

“Without direct state* support from the European proletariat, the working class of Russia will not be able to maintain itself in power and to transform its temporary rule into a lasting socialist dictatorship” (see Trotsky, Our Revolution, p. 278). What is the significance of this quotation from Trotsky, and what does “state support from the European proletariat” mean? It means that, without the preliminary victory of the proletariat in the West, without the preliminary seizure of power by the proletariat in the West, the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. will not only be incapable of overcoming its bourgeoisie and of building socialism, but will even be incapable of maintaining itself in power.

That is how the question stands, and that is where the root of our disagreements lies.

How does Trotsky’s position differ from that of Otto Bauer, the Menshevik?

Unfortunately, not at all.

8. The Chances of Victory

Eighth question. Suppose we grant this, the opposition says, but which has the greater chance of victory— the proletariat of the U.S.S.R., or the world proletariat?

* My italics.—J. St.

“Is it conceivable,” Trotsky said in his speech at the Fifteenth Conference of the C.P.S.U.(B.), “that in the next 30-50 years European capitalism will continue to decay, but the proletariat will prove incapable of making a revolution? I ask: why should I accept this assumption, which can only be said to be an assumption of unjustified and gloomy pessimism regarding the European proletariat? . . . I affirm that I see no theoretical or political justification for believing that it will be easier for us to build socialism together with the peasantry, than for the European proletariat to take power” (see Trotsky’s speech at the Fifteenth Conference of the C.P.S.U.(B.)).

Firstly, the perspective of stagnation in Europe “in the next 30-50 years” must be rejected unreservedly. No one compelled Trotsky to proceed from this perspective of the proletarian revolution in the capitalist countries of the West, which has nothing in common with the perspective our Party envisages. Trotsky has fettered himself with this fictitious perspective, and he must himself answer for the consequences of such an operation. I think that this period must be reduced by at least half, if the actual perspective of the proletarian revolution in the West is borne in mind. Secondly, Trotsky decides without reservation that the proletarians of the West have a much greater chance of overcoming the world bourgeoisie, which is now in power, than the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. has of overcoming its own, “national,” bourgeoisie, which has already been smashed politically, has been cast out of the key positions in the national economy, and, economically, is compelled to retreat under the pressure of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist forms of our economy. I consider that such a way of presenting the question is incorrect. I consider that, in putting the question in that way, Trotsky completely betrays himself. Did not the Mensheviks tell us the same thing in October 1917, when they cried from the house-tops that the proletarians of the West had a far greater chance of overthrowing the bourgeoisie and seizing power than the proletarians of Russia, where technical development was weak and the proletariat numerically small? And is it not a fact that, in spite of the lamentations of the Mensheviks, the proletarians of Russia in October 1917 proved to have had a greater chance of seizing power and overthrowing the bourgeoisie than the proletarians of Britain, France or Germany? Has not the experience of the revolutionary struggle throughout the world demonstrated and proved that the question cannot be put in the way that Trotsky puts it?

Who has the greater chance of a speedy victory is a question that is not decided by contrasting the proletariat of one country with the proletariat of other countries, or the peasantry of our country with the proletariat of other countries. Such contrasting is mere childishness. Who has the greater chance of a speedy victory is a question that is decided by the real international situation, by the real correlation of forces on the front of the struggle between capitalism and socialism. It may happen that the proletarians of the West will defeat their bourgeoisie and seize power before we succeed in laying a socialist foundation for our economy. That is by no means excluded. But it may happen that the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. will succeed in laying a socialist foundation for our economy before the proletarians of the West overthrow their bourgeoisie. That is not excluded either.

The question of the chances of a speedy victory is one the decision of which depends upon the real situation on the front of the struggle between capitalism and socialism, and upon it alone.

9. Disagreements over Political Practice

Such are the bases of our disagreements.

From these bases spring disagreements over political practice, both in the fields of foreign and home policy, and in the purely Party field. These disagreements form the subject of the ninth question.

a) The Party, proceeding from the fact of the partial stabilisation of capitalism, considers that we are in a period between revolutions, that in the capitalist countries we are moving towards revolution and the principal task of the Communist Parties is to establish a path to the masses, to strengthen connections with the masses, to win the mass organisations of the proletariat and prepare the broad mass of the workers for the coming revolutionary clashes.

The opposition, however, having no faith in the internal forces of our revolution, and fearing the fact of the partial stabilisation of capitalism as capable of destroying our revolution, considers (or considered) it possible to deny the fact of the partial stabilisation of capitalism, considers (or considered) the British strike a sign that the stabilisation of capitalism has ended; and when it turns out that stabilisation is a fact nevertheless—so much the worse for the facts, the oppositiondeclares, and that it is possible, therefore, to skip overthe facts, and in this connection it demonstratively comes out with noisy slogans for a revision of the united front tactics, for a rupture with the trade-union movement in the West, and so on.

But what does disregarding the facts, disregarding the objective course of things, mean? It means abandoning science for quackery. Hence the adventurist character of the policy of the opposition bloc.

b) The Party, proceeding from the fact that industrialisation is the principal means of socialist construction, and that the principal market for socialist industry is the home market of our country, considers that the development of industrialisation must be based upon a steady improvement of the material conditions of the main mass of the peasantry (to say nothing of the workers), that a bond between industry and peasant economy, between the proletariat and the peasantry, with the leadership of the proletariat in the bond, is, as Lenin expressed it, the “alpha and omega of Soviet power”15 and of the success of our constructive work, and that therefore our policy in general, and our taxation policy and price policy in particular, must be so constructed as to answer to the interests of this bond.

The opposition, however, having no faith in the possibility of drawing the peasantry into the work of building socialism and obviously believing that it is permissible to carry out industrialisation to the detriment of the main mass of the peasantry, is inclined towards capitalist methods of industrialisation, is inclined to regard the peasantry as a “colony,” as an object of “exploitation” by the proletarian state, and proposes such methods of industrialisation (increased taxation of the peasantry, higher wholesale prices for manufactured goods, etc.) as are calculated only to disrupt the bond between industry and peasant economy, undermine the economic position of the poor and middle peasantry, and shatter the very foundations of industrialisation. Hence the opposition’s attitude of disapproval towards the idea of a bloc between the proletariat and the peasantry, and the hegemony of the proletariat in this bloc—an attitude characteristic of Social-Democracy. c) We proceed from the fact that the Party, the Communist Party, is the principal instrument of the dictatorship of the proletariat, that the leadership of one party, which does not and cannot share this leadership with other parties, constitutes that fundamental condition without which no firm and developed dictatorship of the proletariat is conceivable. In view of this, we regard the existence of factions within our Party as impermissible, for it is selfevident that the existence of organised factions within the Party must lead to the splitting of the united Party into parallel organisations, to the formation of embryos and nuclei of a new party or parties in the country, and, hence, to the disintegration of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The opposition, however, while not contesting these propositions openly, nevertheless in its practical work proceeds from the necessity of weakening the unity of the Party, the necessity of freedom of factions within the Party, and therefore—the necessity of creating the elements of a new party.

Hence the splitting policy in the practical work of the opposition bloc.

Hence the outcry of the opposition against the “regime” in the Party, an outcry which, in point of fact, is a reflection of the protests of the non-proletarian elements in the country against the regime of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Hence the question of two parties.

Such, comrades, is the sum and substance of our disagreements with the opposition.

IV

THE OPPOSITION AT WORK

Let us pass now to the question how these disagreements have manifested themselves in practical work. Well then, what did our opposition look like in actual fact in its practical work, in its struggle against the Party?

We know that the opposition was operating not only in our Party, but in other sections of the Comintern as well, for instance in Germany, France, etc. Therefore, the question must be put in this way: what in actual fact did the practical work of the opposition and its followers look like both in the C.P.S.U.(B.) and in other sections of the Comintern? a) The practical work of the opposition and its followers in the C.P.S.U.(B.). The opposition began its “work” by levelling very grave charges against the Party. It declared that the Party “is sliding into opportunism.” The opposition asserted that the Party’s policy “runs counter to the class line of the revolution.” The opposition asserted that the Party is degenerating and moving towards a Thermidor. The opposition declared that our state is “far from being a proletarian state.” All this was affirmed either in open declarations and speeches of representatives of the opposition (at the July Plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission in 1926), or in secret documents of the opposition disseminated by its supporters. But, in levelling these grave charges against the Party, the opposition created the basis for the organisation of new, parallel units within the Party, for the organisation of a new, parallel Party centre, for the formation of a new party. One of the supporters of the opposition, Mr. Ossovsky, bluntly declared in his articles that the existing party, our Party, defends the interests of the capitalists, and that in view of this a new party, a “purely proletarian party,” must be formed, existing and functioning side by side with the present party. The opposition may say that it is not answerable for Ossovsky’s attitude. But that is not true. It is fully and entirely answerable for the “doings” of Mr. Ossovsky. We know that Ossovsky openly declared himself a supporter of the opposition, and the opposition never once attempted to contest this. We know, further, that at the July Plenum of the Central Committee Trotsky defended Ossovsky against Comrade Molotov. We know, lastly, that despite the unanimous opinion of the Party against Ossovsky, the opposition voted in the Central Committee against Ossovsky’s expulsion from the Party. All this indicates that the opposition assumed moral responsibility for Ossovsky’s “doings.” Conclusion: the practical work of the opposition in the C.P.S.U.(B.) manifested itself in the attitude of Ossovsky, in his view that a new party must be formed in our country, parallel with and opposed to the
C.P.S.U.(B.).

Indeed, it could not be otherwise. For either one thing or the other:
either the opposition, when levelling these grave charges against the Party, did not itself mean them seriously and levelled them only as a demonstration—in which case it was misleading the working class, which is a crime;
or the opposition meant, and still means, its charges seriously—in which case it should have steered a course, as indeed it did, towards the rout of the leading cadres of the Party and the formation of a new party. Such was the complexion of our opposition as displayed in its practical work against the C.P.S.U.(B.) by October 1926.

b) The practical work of the opposition’s followers in the German Communist Party. Proceeding from the charges levelled against the Party by our opposition, the “ultra-Lefts” in Germany, headed by Herr Korsch, drew “further” conclusions and dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s. We know that Korsch, that ideologist of the German “ultra-Lefts,” asserts that our socialist industry is a “purely capitalist industry.” We know that Korsch dubs our Party a “kulakised” party, and the Comintern an “opportunist” organisation. We know, further, that, in view of this, Korsch preaches the necessity for a “new revolution,” directed against the existing regime in the U.S.S.R.

The opposition may say that it is not answerable for Korsch’s attitude. But that is not true. The opposition is fully and entirely answerable for the “doings” of
Herr Korsch. What Korsch says is a natural conclusion from the premises preached by the leaders of our opposition to their supporters in the shape of the charges against the Party. Because, if the Party is sliding into opportunism, if its policy diverges from the class line of the revolution, if it is degenerating and moving towards a Thermidor, and our state is “far from being a proletarian state,” only one inference can be drawn from this, namely, the necessity for a new revolution, a revolution against the “kulakised” regime. Apart from this, we know that the German “ultra-Lefts,” including the Weddingites,16 voted against the expulsion of Korsch from the party, thereby assuming moral responsibility for Korsch’s counter-revolutionary propaganda. Well, and who does not know that the “ultra-Lefts” support the opposition in the C.P.S.U.(B.)?

c) The practical work of the opposition’s followers in France. The same must be said of the opposition’s followers in France. I am referring to Souvarine and his group, who run a notorious magazine in France. Proceeding from the premises provided by our opposition in its charges against the Party, Souvarine draws the conclusion that the chief enemy of the revolution is the Party bureaucracy, the top leadership of our Party. Souvarine asserts that there is only one “salvation”—a new revolution, a revolution against the top leadership in the Party and the government, a revolution, primarily, against the Secretariat of the C.C., C.P.S.U.(B.). There, in Germany, a “new revolution” against the existing regime in the U.S.S.R. Here, in France, a “new revolution” against the Secretariat of the C.C. Well, and how is this new revolution to be organised? Can it be organised without a separate party adapted to the aims of the new revolution? Of course not. Hence the question of creating a new party. The opposition may say that it is not answerable for Souvarine’s writings. But that is not true. We know, firstly, that Souvarine and his group are supporters of the opposition, especially its Trotskyist section. We know, secondly, that only quite recently the opposition was planning to instal M. Souvarine on the editorial board of the central organ of the French Communist Party. True, that plan failed. That, however, was not the fault but the misfortune of our opposition. Thus it follows that the opposition in its practical work, taking the opposition not in the form in which it depicts itself, but in the form in which it manifests itself in the course of work both in our country, the U.S.S.R., and in France and Germany—it follows, I say, that the opposition in its practical work is directly facing the question of routing the existing cadres of our Party and forming a new party.

V

WHY THE ENEMIES OF THE DICTATORSHIP

OF THE PROLETARIAT PRAISE THE OPPOSITION

Why do the Social-Democrats and the Cadets praise the opposition?

Or, in other words, whose sentiments does the opposition reflect? You have probably observed that the so-called “Russian question” has of late become a burning question of the Social-Democratic and bourgeois press in the West. Is this accidental? Of course not. The progress of socialism in the U.S.S.R. and the development of the communist movement in the West cannot but inspire profound alarm in the ranks of the bourgeoisie and its agents in the working class—the Social-Democratic leaders. The dividing line between revolution and counter-revolution nowadays lies between the bitter hatred of some and the comradely friendship of others for the proletarian Party of the U.S.S.R. The cardinal international significance of the “Russian question” is now a fact with which the enemies of communism cannot but reckon. Around the “Russian question” two fronts have formed: the front of the enemies of the Republic of Soviets, and the front of its devoted friends. What do the enemies of the Republic of Soviets want? They are out to create among the broad masses of the population the ideological and moral prerequisites for a fight against the proletarian dictatorship. What do the friends of the Republic of Soviets want? They are out to create among the broad strata of the proletariat the ideological and moral prerequisites for supporting and defending the Republic of Soviets. Let us now examine why the Social-Democrats and Cadets among the Russian bourgeois emigres praise our opposition.

Here, for instance, is what Paul Levi, a well-known Social-Democratic leader in Germany, says: “We were of the opinion that the special interests of the workers—in the final analysis, the interests of socialism—run counter to the existence of peasant ownership, that the identity of interests of workers and peasants is only an illusion, and that as the Russian revolution developed this contradiction would become acute and more apparent. We considered the idea of community of interests another form of the idea of coalition. If Marxism has any shadow of justification at all, if history develops dialectically, then this contradiction was bound to shatter the coalition idea, just as it has already been shattered in Germany. . . . To us who observe developments in the U.S.S.R. from farther away, from Western Europe, it is clear that our views coincide with the views of the opposition. . . . The fact is there: an independent, anti-capitalist movement under the banner of the class struggle is again beginning- in Russia” (Leipziger Volkszeitung, July 30, 1926). That there is confusion in this quotation regarding the “identity” of the interests of the workers and peasants is obvious. But that Paul Levi is praising our opposition for its struggle against the idea of a bloc of the workers and peasants, the idea of an alliance of the workers and peasants, is likewise indubitable. Here is what the not unnotorious Dan, leader of the “Russian” Social-Democrats, leader of the “Russian” Mensheviks who advocate the restoration of capitalism in the U.S.S.R., has to say about our opposition: “By their criticism of the existing system, which repeats the Social-Democratic criticism almost word for word, the Bolshevik opposition is preparing minds . . . for the acceptance of the positive platform of Social-Democracy.” And further:

“Not only among the mass of the workers, but among communist workers as well, the opposition is rearing the shoots of ideas and sentiments which, if skilfully tended, may easily bear Social-Democratic fruit” (Sotsialistichesky Vestnik, No. 17-18). Clear, I think.

And here is what Posledniye Novosti,17 central organ of Milyukov’s counter-revolutionary bourgeois party, says of our opposition:

“Today, the opposition is undermining the dictatorship, every new publication of the opposition utters more and more ‘terrible’ words, the opposition itself is evolving in the direction of increasingly violent assaults on the prevailing system; and this for the time being is enough for us to accept it with gratitude as a mouthpiece for wide sections of the politically dissatisfied population” (Posledniye Novosti, No. 1990). And further:

“The most formidable enemy of the Soviet power today is the one that creeps upon it unawares, grips it in its tentacles on all sides, and destroys it before it realises that it has been destroyed. It is precisely this role—inevitable and necessary in the preparatory period from which we have not yet emerged—that the Soviet opposition is performing” (Posledniye Novosti, No. 1983, August 27 of this year).

Comment, I think, is superfluous.

I confine myself to these quotations owing to shortness of time, although scores and hundreds like them might be cited.

That is why the Social-Democrats and the Cadets praise our opposition.

Is this accidental? No, it is not.

It will be seen from this that the opposition reflects not the sentiments of the proletariat of our country, but the sentiments of the non-proletarian elements who are dissatisfied with the dictatorship of the proletariat, incensed against the dictatorship of the proletariat, and are waiting with impatience for it to disintegrate and collapse.

Thus the logic of the factional struggle of our opposition has led in practice to the front of our opposition objectively merging with the front of the opponents and enemies of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Did the opposition want this? It is to be presumed it did not. But the point here is not what the opposition wants, but where its factional struggle objectively leads. The logic of the factional struggle is stronger than the wishes of particular individuals. And precisely because of this it has come to pass that the opposition front has in practice merged with the front of the opponents and enemies of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin taught us that the basic duty of Communists is to defend and consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat. But what has happened is that the opposition, because of its factional policy, has landed in the camp of the opponents of the dictatorship of the proletariat. That is why we say that the opposition has broken with Leninism not only in theory, but also in practice. Indeed, it could not be otherwise. The correlation of forces on the front of the struggle between capitalism and socialism is such that only one of two policies is now possible within the ranks of the working class: either the policy of communism, or the policy of Social-Democracy. The attempt of the opposition to occupy a third position, while spearheading the struggle against the C.P.S.U.(B.), was inevitably bound to result in its being thrown by the very course of the factional struggle into the camp of the enemies of Leninism.

And that is exactly what has happened, as the facts quoted show.

That is why the Social-Democrats and Cadets praise the opposition.

VI

DEFEAT OF THE OPPOSITION BLOC

I have already said that in their struggle against the Party the opposition operated by means of very grave charges against the Party. I have said that, in their practical work, the opposition came to the very verge of the idea of a split and the formation of a new party. The question therefore arises: how long did the opposition succeed in maintaining this splitting attitude? The facts show that it succeeded in maintaining this attitude for only a few months. The facts show that by the beginning of October of this year the opposition was compelled to acknowledge its defeat and to retreat. What brought about the retreat of the opposition? In my opinion, the retreat of the opposition was brought about by the following causes.

Firstly, by the fact that in the U.S.S.R. the opposition found itself without a political army. It may very well be that the building of a new party is an entertaining occupation. But if, after a discussion, it turns out that there is nobody to build a new party from, then obviously retreat is the only way out.

Secondly, by the fact that in the course of the factional struggle all sorts of sordid elements, both in our country, the U.S.S.R., and abroad, attached themselves to the opposition, and that the Social-Democrats and Cadets began to praise it for all they were worth, shaming and disgracing it in the eyes of the workers with their kisses. The opposition was left with the choice: either to accept these praises and kisses of the enemy as their due, or to make an abrupt turn and retreat, so that the sordid appendages that had attached themselves to the opposition should mechanically fall away. By retreating, and acknowledging its retreat, the opposition confessed that the latter way out was for it the only acceptable one. Thirdly, by the fact that the situation in the U.S.S.R. proved to be better than the opposition had assumed, and the mass of the Party membership proved to be more politically conscious and united than it might have seemed to the opposition at the beginning of the struggle. Of course, if there had been a crisis in the country, if discontent had been mounting among the workers, and if the Party had displayed less solidarity, the opposition would have taken a different course and not have decided to retreat. But the facts have shown that the calculations of the opposition came to naught in this field also.

Hence the defeat of the opposition.

Hence its retreat.

The opposition’s defeat passed through three stages.

The first stage was the opposition’s “statement” of October 6, 1926. In this document the opposition renounced the theory and practice of freedom of factions and factional methods of struggle, and publicly and unequivocally admitted its errors in this sphere. But that was not all that the opposition renounced. By dissociating itself in its “statement” from the “Workers’ Opposition” and the Korsches and Souvarines of every brand, the opposition thereby renounced those ideological positions it had held which had recently brought it close to those trends.

The second stage was the opposition’s virtual renunciation of the charges it had recently been levelling against the Party. It must be admitted and, having admitted it, it must be stressed that the opposition did not venture to repeat its charges against the Party at the Fifteenth Conference of the C.P.S.U.(B.). If one compares the minutes of the July Plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission with the minutes of the Fifteenth Conference of the C.P.S.U.(B.), one cannot help noting that at the Fifteenth Conference not a trace remained of the old charges of opportunism, Thermidorism, sliding away from the class line of the revolution, etc. Furthermore, bearing in mind the circumstance that a number of delegates questioned the opposition about its former charges, and that the opposition maintained a stubborn silence on this point, it must be admitted that the opposition has in fact renounced its former charges against the Party.

Can this circumstance be qualified as a virtual renunciation by the opposition of a number of its ideological positions? It can, and should be. It means that the opposition has deliberately furled its battle-standard in face of its defeat. It could not, indeed, be otherwise. The charges were levelled in the expectation of building a new party. But since these expectations fell to the ground, the charges had to fall to the ground too, at least for the time being.

The third stage was the complete isolation of the opposition at the Fifteenth Conference of the C.P.S.U.(B.). It should be remarked that at the Fifteenth Conference not a single vote was given to the opposition, and thus it found itself in complete isolation. Recall the hullabaloo raised by the Opposition towards the end of September of this year, when it launched the attack, the open attack on the Party, and compare this clamour with the fact that at the Fifteenth Conference the opposition found itself, so to speak, in the singular number—and you will realise that the opposition could not be wished a “better” defeat.

Can the fact be denied that the opposition has indeed renounced its charges against the Party, not having dared to repeat them at the Fifteenth Conference in spite of the demands of the delegates?

No, it cannot, because it is a fact.

Why did the opposition take this course; why did it furl its banner?

Because the unfurling of the ideological banner of the opposition necessarily and inevitably signifies the theory of two parties, the reanimation of all the various brands of Katzes, Korsches, Maslows, Souvarines and other sordid elements, the unleashing of the anti-proletarian forces in our country, the praises and kisses of the Social-Democrats and the bourgeois-liberal Russian émigrés.

The ideological banner of the opposition is fatal to the opposition—that is the point, comrades. Therefore, in order not to perish altogether, the opposition was forced to retreat and to cast away its banner.

That is the basic reason for the defeat of the opposition bloc.

VII

THE PRACTICAL MEANING AND IMPORTANCE

OF THE FIFTEENTH CONFERENCE

OF THE C.P.S.U.(B.)

I am concluding, comrades. It only remains for me to say a few words on the conclusions as regards the meaning and importance of the decisions of the Fifteenth Conference of the C.P.S.U.(B.).

The first conclusion is that the conference summed up the inner-Party struggle since the Fourteenth Congress, gave definite shape to the victory scored by the Party over the opposition and, by isolating the opposition, put an end to that factional orgy which the opposition had forced upon our Party in the previous period. The second conclusion is that the conference cemented our Party more solidly than ever before, on the basis of the socialist perspective of our constructive work, on the basis of the idea of the struggle for the victory of socialist construction against all opposition trends and all deviations in our Party.

The most urgent question in our Party today is that of the building of socialism in our country. Lenin was right when he said that the eyes of the whole world are upon us, upon our economic construction, upon our achievements on the front of constructive work. But in order to achieve successes on this front, the principal instrument of the dictatorship of the proletariat, our Party, must be ready for this work, must realise the importance of this task, and must be able to serve as the lever of the victory of socialist construction in our country. The meaning and importance of the Fifteenth Conference is that it gave definite shape to and crowned the arming of our Party with the idea of the victory of socialist construction in our country.

The third conclusion is that the conference administered a decisive rebuff to all ideological vacillations in our Party and thereby facilitated the full triumph of Leninism in the C.P.S.U.(B.).

If the Enlarged Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Comintern approves the decisions of the Fifteenth Conference of the C.P.S.U.(B.) and recognises the correctness of our Party’s policy towards the opposition—as I have no reason to doubt it will—this will lead to a fourth conclusion, namely, that the Fifteenth Conference has created certain by no means unimportant conditions essential for the triumph of Leninism throughout the Comintern, in the ranks of the revolutionary proletariat of all countries and nations. (Stormy applause. An ovation from the entire plenum.)

REPLY TO THE DISCUSSION

December 13

I

MISCELLANEOUS REMARKS

1. We Need Facts, Not Inventions and Tittle-Tattle

Comrades, before passing to the substance of the question, permit me to make a few factual corrections to statements of the opposition, statements which either distort the facts or are inventions or tittle-tattle. 1) The first question is that of the speeches of the opposition at the Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I. The opposition declared that it had decided to take the floor because the C.C., C.P.S.U.(B.) had not directly intimated that by doing so it might be violating the opposition’s “statement” of October 16, 1926, and that if the C.C. had forbidden it to speak, the opposition leaders would not have ventured to do so. The opposition further declared that in speaking here at the Enlarged Plenum it would take every precaution not to aggravate the struggle; that it would confine itself to mere “explanations”, that it had no thought of attacking the Party, God forbid; that it was not its intention, God forbid, to level any charges against the Party or to appeal against its decisions.

That is all untrue, comrades. It is totally at variance with the facts. It is hypocrisy on the part of the opposition. The facts have shown, and particularly the statement of Kamenev has shown, that the speeches of the opposition leaders at the Enlarged Plenum were not “explanations,” but an attack, an assault, on the Party. What does publicly accusing the Party of a Right deviation mean? It is an attack on the Party, a sortie against the Party.

Did not the C.C., C.P.S.U.(B.) indicate in its resolution that if the opposition were to take the floor it would aggravate the struggle, give an impetus to the factional conflict? Yes, it did. That was a warning to the opposition on the part of the C.C., C.P.S.U.(B.). Could the C.C. go farther than that? No, it could not. Why? Because the C.C. could not forbid the opposition to speak. Every member of the Party has the right to appeal against a Party decision to a higher body. The C.C. could not ignore this right of Party members. Hence, the C.C., C.P.S.U.(B.) did all that lay in its power to prevent a new aggravation of the struggle, a new intensification of the factional conflict. The opposition leaders, who are members of the C.C., must have known that their speeches were bound to take the form of an appeal against the decisions of their Party, the form of a sortie against the Party, an attack on the Party.

Consequently, the speeches of the opposition, especially Kamenev’s—which was not his own personal statement but that of the whole opposition bloc, because this speech, which he read from a manuscript, was signed by Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev—this speech of Kamenev’s represents a turning point in the development of the opposition bloc, away from the “statement” of October 16, 1926, in which the opposition renounced factional methods of struggle, and towards a new phase in the opposition’s existence, one in which they are reverting to factional methods of struggle against the Party.

Hence the conclusion: the opposition has violated its own “statement” of October 16, 1926, by reverting to factional methods of struggle.

Well then, let us say so frankly, comrades. There is no point in dissembling. Kamenev was right when he said that a cat should be called a cat. (Voices: “Quite right!” “And a swine, a swine.”)

2) Trotsky said in his speech that “after the February Revolution Stalin preached erroneous tactics, which Lenin characterised as a Kautskyan deviation.” That is not true, comrades. It is tittle-tattle. Stalin did not “preach” any Kautskyan deviation. That I had certain waverings after my return from exile, I have not concealed, and I wrote about them myself in my pamphlet On the Road to October. But who of us has not been subject to transitory waverings? As to Lenin’s position and his April Theses of 1917—which is what is meant here—the Party knows very well that at that time I stood in the same ranks as Comrade Lenin, against Kamenev and his group, who were at that time putting up a fight against Lenin’s theses. Those who are familiar with the minutes of the April Conference of our Party in 1917 cannot but know that I stood in the same ranks as Lenin and together with him fought the opposition of Kamenev.

The trick here is that Trotsky has confused me with Kamenev. (Laughter. Applause.)

It is true that at that time Kamenev was in opposition to Lenin, to his theses, to the majority of the Party, and expounded views which bordered on defencism. It is true that at that time, in March, for instance, Kamenev was writing articles of a semi-defencist character in Pravda, for which articles, of course, I cannot in any degree be held responsible.

Trotsky’s trouble is that he has confused Stalin with Kamenev.

Where Trotsky was then, at the time of the April Conference in 1917, when the Party was waging a fight against Kamenev’s group; which party he belonged to then—the Left-Menshevik or the Right-Menshevik—and why he was not in the ranks of the Zimmerwald Left,19 let Trotsky tell us himself, in the press if he likes. But that he was not at that time in our Party is a fact which Trotsky would do well to remember.

3) Trotsky said in his speech that “Stalin committed rather grave mistake on the national question.” What mistake, and under what circumstances, Trotsky did not say.

That is not true, comrades. It is tittle-tattle. I never have been in disagreement with the Party or with Lenin on the national question. What Trotsky is presumably referring to is an insignificant incident which happened before the Twelfth Congress of our Party, when Comrade Lenin rebuked me for conducting too severe an organisational policy towards the Georgian semi-nationalists, semi-Communists of the type of Mdivani—who was recently our trade representative in France—that I was “persecuting” them. Subsequent facts, however, showed that the so-called “deviationists,” people of the Mdivani type, actually deserved to be treated more severely than I, as one of the secretaries of the C.C. of our Party, treated them. Subsequent events showed that the “deviationists” were a degenerating faction of the most arrant opportunism. Let Trotsky prove that this is not so. Lenin was not aware of these facts, and could not be aware of them, because he was ill in bed and had no opportunity to follow events. But what bearing can this insignificant incident have on Stalin’s position based on principle? Trotsky is here obviously hinting in tittle-tattle fashion at certain “disagreements” between the Party and myself. But is it not a fact that the C.C. as a whole, including Trotsky, unanimously voted for Stalin’s theses on the national question? Is it not a fact that this vote took place after the Mdivani incident, and before the Twelfth Congress of our Party? Is it not a fact that the reporter on the national question at the Twelfth Congress was none other than Stalin? Where, then, are the “disagreements” on the national question, and why indeed did Trotsky desire to recall this insignificant incident?

4) Kamenev declared in his speech that the Fourteenth Congress of our Party committed an error in “opening fire against the Left”—that is, against the opposition. It appears that the Party fought, and continues to fight, the revolutionary core of the Party. It appears that our opposition is a Left, not a Right, opposition. That is all nonsense, comrades. It is tittle-tattle spread by our oppositionists. The Fourteenth Congress did not think of opening, and could not have opened, fire on the revolutionary majority. In point of fact, it opened fire on the Rights, on our oppositionists, who constitute a Right opposition, although draped in a “Left” toga. Naturally, the opposition is inclined to regard itself as a “revolutionary Left.” But the Fourteenth Congress of our Party found, on the contrary, that the opposition was only masking itself with “Left” phrases, but in point of fact was an opportunist opposition. We know that a Right opposition often masquerades in a “Left” toga in order to mislead the working class. The “Workers’ Opposition” likewise considered itself to be more to the Left than anyone else, but proved in reality to be more to the Right than anyone else. The present opposition also believes itself to be more to the Left than anyone else; but the practical activities and the whole work of the present opposition prove that it is a centre of attraction and a rallying point for all Right opportunist trends, from the “Workers’ Opposition” and Trotskyism to the “New Opposition” and the Souvarines of every brand.

Kamenev performed a “slight” piece of juggling with “Lefts” and “Rights.”

5) Kamenev quoted a passage from Lenin’s works to the effect that we had not yet completely laid a socialist foundation for our economy, and declared that the Party was committing an error in asserting that we had already completely laid a socialist foundation for our economy.

That is nonsense, comrades. It is petty tittle-tattle on Kamenev’s part. Never yet has the Party declared that it has already completely laid a socialist foundation for our economy. Whether we have or have not completely laid a socialist foundation for our economy is not the point at issue at all just now. That is not the point at issue just now. The only point at issue is, can we or can we not completely lay a socialist foundation for our economy by our own efforts? The Party affirms that we are in a position to completely lay a socialist foundation for our economy. The opposition denies this, and thereby slides into defeatism and capitulationism. That is the point at issue just now. Kamenev feels how untenable his position is and is trying to evade this issue. But he will not succeed.

Kamenev performed another “slight” piece of juggling. 6) Trotsky declared in his speech that he “anticipated Lenin’s policy in March-April 1917.” It thus follows that Trotsky “anticipated” Comrade Lenin’s April Theses. It follows that Trotsky had already in February-March 1917 independently arrived at the policy which Comrade Lenin advocated in his April Theses in April-May 1917.

Permit me to say, comrades, that this is stupid and unseemly boastfulness. Trotsky “anticipating” Lenin is a spectacle that can only evoke laughter. The peasants are quite right when they say in such cases: “This is comparing a fly to a watch tower.” (Laughter.) Trotsky “anticipating” Lenin. . . . Let Trotsky venture to come out and prove this in print. Why has he never tried to do so even once? Trotsky “anticipated” Lenin. . . . But, in that case, how is the fact to be explained that Comrade Lenin, from the first moment of his appearance in the Russian arena in April 1917, deemed it necessary to dissociate himself from Trotsky’s position?

How is the fact to be explained that the “anticipated” found it necessary to disavow the “anticipator”? Is it not a fact that Lenin declared on several occasions in April 1917 that he was totally at variance with Trotsky’s basic formula: “No tsar, but a workers’ government”? Is it not a fact that Lenin at that time repeatedly declared that he was totally at variance with Trotsky, who was trying to skip over the peasant movement, the agrarian revolution?

Where, then, is the “anticipation” here?

The conclusion is: we need facts, not inventions and tittle tattle, whereas the opposition prefers to operate with inventions and tittle-tattle. 2. Why the Enemies of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat Praise the Opposition

I said in my report that the enemies of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Menshevik and Cadet Russian émigrés, praise the opposition. I said that they praise the opposition for activity which tends to undermine the unity of the Party, and, hence, to undermine the dictatorship of the proletariat. I quoted a number of passages showing that it is precisely on this account that the enemies of the dictatorship of the proletariat praise the opposition, on account of the fact that the opposition by its activity unleashes the anti-proletarian forces in the country, is trying to discredit our Party and the proletarian dictatorship, and is thereby facilitating the work of the enemies of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

In reply to this, Kamenev (and Zinoviev too) referred at first to the Western capitalist press, which, it appears, praises our Party, and Stalin too, and later referred to the Smena-Vekhist Ustryalov, a representative of the bourgeois experts in our country, who expresses solidarity with the position of our Party. As regards the capitalists, there is a great difference of opinion among them about our Party. For instance, in the American press a little while ago they were praising Stalin because, they said, he would give them the opportunity of securing big concessions. But now, it turns out, they are scolding and abusing Stalin in every way, asserting that he has “deceived” them. A cartoon once appeared in the bourgeois press showing Stalin with a bucket of water, putting out the fire of revolution. But later another cartoon appeared in refutation of the first: it showed Stalin this time not with a bucket of water, but with a bucket of oil; and it turns out that Stalin is not putting out, but adding fuel to the fire of revolution. (Applause, laughter.)

As you see, over there, among the capitalists, there is considerable disagreement about the position of our Party, as well as about the position of Stalin. Let us pass to Ustryalov. Who is Ustryalov? Ustryalov is a representative of the bourgeois experts and of the new bourgeoisie generally. He is a class enemy of the proletariat. That is undeniable. But there are various kinds of enemies. There are class enemies who refuse to reconcile themselves to the Soviet regime and are out to overthrow it at any cost. But there are also class enemies who in one way or another have reconciled themselves to the Soviet regime. There are enemies who are trying to pave the way for the overthrow of the dictatorship of the proletariat. These are the Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries, Cadets and the like. But there are also enemies who co-operate with the Soviet regime and oppose those who stand for its overthrow, hoping that the dictatorship will gradually weaken and degenerate, and will then meet the interests of the new bourgeoisie. Ustryalov belongs to this latter category of enemies.

Why did Kamenev refer to Ustryalov? Maybe in order to show that our Party has degenerated, and that it is because of this that Ustryalov praises Stalin or our Party in general? It was not for that reason, apparently, because Kamenev did not venture to say so frankly. Why, then, did Kamenev refer to Ustryalov? Evidently, in order to hint at “degeneration.”

But Kamenev forgot to mention that this same Ustryalov praised Lenin even more. Everybody in our Party is familiar with Ustryalov’s articles in praise of Lenin. What is the explanation? Can it be that Comrade Lenin had “degenerated” or had begun to “degenerate,” when he introduced NEP? One has only to put this question to realise how utterly absurd the assumption of “degeneration” is. Well, then, why does Ustryalov praise Lenin and our Party, and why do the Mensheviks and Cadets praise the opposition? That is the question which has to be answered first of all, and which Kamenev does his best to evade.

The Mensheviks and Cadets praise the opposition because it undermines the unity of our Party, weakens the dictatorship of the proletariat, and thus facilitates the efforts of the Mensheviks and Cadets to overthrow the Soviet regime. The quotations prove that. Ustryalov, however, praises our Party because the Soviet government has permitted NEP, has permitted private capital, and has permitted bourgeois experts, whose assistance and experience the proletariat needs. The Mensheviks and Cadets praise the opposition because its factional activity is helping them in the work of paving the way for the overthrow of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But the Ustryalovs, knowing that the dictatorship cannot be overthrown, reject the idea of overthrowing the Soviet regime, try to secure a snug corner under the dictatorship of the proletariat and to ingratiate themselves with it—and they praise the Party because it has introduced NEP and, on certain conditions, has permitted the existence of the new bourgeoisie, which wants to utilise the Soviet regime for the furtherance of its own class aims, but which the Soviet regime is utilising for the furtherance of the aims of the proletarian dictatorship.

Therein lies the difference between the various class enemies of the proletariat of our country. Therein lies the root cause why the Mensheviks and Cadets praise the opposition, while Messieurs the Ustryalovs praise our Party. I should like to draw your attention to Lenin’s view on this subject.

“In our Soviet Republic,” Lenin says, “the social order is based on the collaboration of two classes: the workers and peasants, in which the ‘Nepmen,’ i.e., the bourgeoisie, are now permitted to participate on certain conditions” (Lenin, Vol. XXVII p. 405)

Well, it is because the new bourgeoisie is permitted a certain qualified collaboration—on certain conditions, of course, and under the control of the Soviet government—it is precisely because of this that Ustryalov praises our Party, hoping to make a foothold out of this permission and to utilise the Soviet regime to further the aims of the bourgeoisie. But we, the Party, calculate differently: we calculate to utilise the members of the new bourgeoisie, their experience and their knowledge, with a view to Sovietising, to assimilating, part of them, and to casting aside the other part who prove incapable of being Sovietised.

Is it not a fact that Lenin drew a distinction between the new bourgeoisie and the Mensheviks and Cadets, permitting and utilising the former, and proposing that the latter be arrested.

Here is what Comrade Lenin wrote on this score in his work The Tax in Kind:

“We should not be afraid of Communists ‘learning’ from bourgeois experts, including merchants, small capitalist co-operators, and capitalists. We should learn from them in the same way as we learnt from the military experts, though in a different form. The results of what is ‘learnt’ must be tested only by practical experience: do things better than the bourgeois experts at your side; try this way and that to secure an improvement in agriculture and industry, and to develop exchange between them. Do not grudge the price for ‘tuition’: no price for tuition will be too high if only we learn something” (Lenin, Vol. XXVI, p. 352). That is what Lenin said of the new bourgeoisie and the bourgeois experts, of whom Ustryalov is a representative. And here is what Lenin said about the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries:

“But those ‘non-party’ people who are in fact nothing more or less than Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries disguised in fashionable, non-party attire, à la Kronstadt, should be carefully kept in prison, or packed off to Berlin, to Martov, so that they may freely enjoy all the charms of pure democracy and freely exchange ideas with Chernov, Milyukov and the Georgian Mensheviks” (ibid., p. 352). That is what Lenin said.

Maybe the opposition does not agree with Lenin? Then let it say so frankly.

This explains why we arrest Mensheviks and Cadets but permit the new bourgeoisie on certain conditions and with certain limitations, in order, while combating them with measures of an economic nature and overcoming them step by step, to utilise their experience and knowledge for our work of economic construction. It therefore follows that our Party is praised by certain class enemies, like Ustryalov, because we have introduced NEP and permitted the bourgeoisie a certain qualified and limited collaboration with the existing Soviet system, our aim being to utilise the knowledge and experience of this bourgeoisie for our constructive work, which aim, as you know, we are not unsuccessfully achieving. The opposition, on the other hand, is praised by other class enemies, like the Mensheviks and Cadets, because its activity tends to undermine the unity of our Party, to undermine the dictatorship of the proletariat, and to facilitate the efforts of the Mensheviks and Cadets to overthrow the dictatorship. I hope the opposition will at last understand the profound difference between praise of the former kind and praise of the latter kind.

3. There Are Errors and Errors

The opposition spoke here of certain errors committed by individual members of the Central Committee. Certain errors, of course, have been committed. Nobody in our Party is absolutely “infallible.” Such people do not exist. But there are different kinds of errors. There are errors in which their authors do not persist, and which do not develop into platforms, trends or factions. Such errors are quickly forgotten. But there are errors of a different kind, errors in which their authors persist and from which develop factions, platforms and struggle within the Party. Such errors cannot be quickly forgotten. Between these two categories of errors a strict distinction must be made. Trotsky, for instance, says that at one time I committed an error in regard to the foreign trade monopoly. That is true. I did indeed propose, at a time when our procurement agencies were in a state of chaos, that one of our ports should be temporarily opened for the export of grain. But I did not persist in my error and, after discussing it with Lenin, at once corrected it. I could enumerate scores and hundreds of similar errors committed by Trotsky, which were later corrected by the Central Committee, and which he did not persist in. If I were to enumerate all the errors—very serious ones, less serious ones, and not very serious ones—which Trotsky has committed in the course of his work in the Central Committee, but which he did not persist in and which have been forgotten, I should have to deliver several lectures on the subject. But I think that in a political struggle, in a political controversy, it is not such errors that should be spoken about, but those which later developed into platforms and gave rise to a struggle within the Party.

But Trotsky and Kamenev touched upon precisely the kind of errors which did not develop into opposition trends and which were quickly forgotten. And since the opposition touched upon precisely such questions, permit me, in my turn, to recall certain errors of this kind which the opposition leaders committed. Perhaps this will serve as a lesson to them and they will not try to fasten upon already forgotten errors another time. There was a time when Trotsky asserted in the Central Committee of our Party that the Soviet regime hung by a thread, that it had “sung its swan song,” and that it had only a few months, if not weeks, to live. That was in 1921. It was a most dangerous error, testifying to Trotsky’s dangerous attitude of mind. But the Central Committee ridiculed him on account of it, and Trotsky did not persist in his error, it was forgotten. There was a time—it was in 1922—when Trotsky proposed that our industrial plants and trusts should be allowed to pledge state property, including fixed capital, as security for obtaining credits from private capitalists. (Comrade Yaroslavsky: “That is the road to capitulation.”) It probably is. At any rate, it would have been the pre-condition for the denationalisation of our industrial plants. But the Central Committee rejected the plan. Trotsky put up a fight, but later ceased to persist in his error, and it is now forgotten. There was a time—it was in 1922—when Trotsky proposed rigorous concentration of our industry, such a crazy concentration that it would infallibly have put about a third of our working class outside the gates of the mills and factories. The Central Committee rejected this proposal of Trotsky’s as something scholastic, crazy and politically dangerous. Trotsky several times intimated to the Central Committee that all the same this course would sooner or later have to be adopted. However, we did not adopt this course. (A voice from the audience: “It would have meant closing down the Putilov Works.”) Yes, that is what it would have come to. But subsequently Trotsky ceased to persist in his error, and it was forgotten.

And so on and so forth.

Or take Trotsky’s friends, Zinoviev and Kamenev, who are so fond of recalling that there was a time when Bukharin said “enrich yourselves” and who keep dancing around this phrase “enrich yourselves.” It was in 1922, when we were discussing the question of the Urquhart concession and the enslaving terms of this concession. Well then, is it not a fact that Kamenev and Zinoviev proposed that we should accept the enslaving terms of the Urquhart concession, and persisted in their proposal? However, the Central Committee turned down the Urquhart concession, Zinoviev and Kamenev ceased to persist in their error, and the error was forgotten.

Or take, for example, yet another of Kamenev’s errors, one which I am reluctant to mention, but which he compels me to recall because he bores us with his continual reminders of Bukharin’s error, an error which Bukharin long ago corrected and finished with. I am referring to an incident that happened after the February Revolution, when Kamenev was in exile in Siberia, when Kamenev joined with well-known Siberian merchants (in Achinsk) in sending a telegram of greetings to the constitutionalist Mikhail Romanov (Shouts: “Shame!”), that same Romanov in whose favour the tsar abdicated and to whom he transferred the “right to the throne.” That, of course, was a most stupid error, for which Kamenev received a severe drubbing from our Party at the time of the April Conference in 1917. But Kamenev acknowledged his error, and it was forgotten. Is there any need to recall errors of this kind? Of course not, because they were forgotten and finished with long ago. Why then do Trotsky and Kamenev keep shoving errors of this kind under the noses of their Party opponents? Is it not obvious that by doing so they only compel us to recall the numerous errors committed by the leaders of the opposition? And we are compelled to do so, if only to teach the opposition not to indulge in pin-pricks and tittle-tattle. But there are errors of a different kind, errors in which their authors persist and from which later factional platforms develop. These are errors of an entirely different order. It is the task of the Party to disclose such errors and overcome them. For overcoming such errors is the sole means by which to assert the principles of Marxism in the Party, to preserve the unity of the Party, to eliminate factionalism, and to create a guarantee against the repetition of such errors. Take, for example, Trotsky’s error at the time of the Brest Peace, an error which developed into a regular platform directed against the Party. Is it necessary to combat such errors openly and determinedly? Yes, it is.

Or take that other error of Trotsky’s, during the trade union discussion, an error which provoked an all-Russian discussion in our Party. Or, for example, the October error of Zinoviev and Kamenev, which created a crisis in the Party on the eve of the uprising of October 1917.

Or, for example, the present errors of the opposition bloc, which have evolved into a factional platform and a struggle against the Party.

And so on and so forth.

Is it necessary to combat such errors openly and determinedly? Yes, it is.

Can we keep silent about such errors, when it is a question of disagreements in the Party? Obviously not. 4. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat

According to Zinoviev

Zinoviev referred in his speech to the dictatorship of the proletariat, and claimed that Stalin, in his article “Concerning Questions of Leninism,” incorrectly explains the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. That is nonsense, comrades. Zinoviev is trying to blame others for his own sins. The fact of the matter is that Zinoviev distorts Lenin’s concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Zinoviev has two versions of the dictatorship of the proletariat, neither of which can be called Marxist, and which fundamentally contradict each other. First version. Proceeding from the correct proposition that the Party is the principal directing force in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat, Zinoviev arrives at the absolutely incorrect conclusion that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of the Party. In other words, Zinoviev identifies dictatorship of the Party with the dictatorship of the proletariat. But what does identifying dictatorship of the Party with the dictatorship of the proletariat mean? It means, firstly, placing the sign of equality between class and party, between the whole and a part of the whole, which is absurd and preposterous. Lenin never identified, and never could have identified, party and class. Between the Party and the class there is a whole series of non-Party mass organisations of the proletariat, and behind them stands the whole mass of the proletarian class. To ignore the role and importance of these non-Party mass organisations, and still more the whole mass of the working class, and to think that the Party can replace the non-Party mass organisations of the proletariat and the proletarian mass as a whole, means divorcing the Party from the masses, carrying bureaucratisation of the Party to an extreme point, converting the Party into an infallible force, and implanting “Nechayevism,”21 “Arakcheyevism”22 in the Party.

It goes without saying that Lenin has nothing in common with such a “theory” of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

It means, secondly, understanding dictatorship of the Party not in a figurative sense, not in the sense of the Party’s leadership of the working class, which is the way Comrade Lenin understood it, but in the strict meaning of the word “dictatorship,” that is, in the sense of the Party replacing leadership of the working class by the use of force against it. For what is dictatorship in the strict meaning of the word? Dictatorship, in the strict meaning of the word, is power based on the use of force; for without the element of force there is no dictatorship, understood in its strict meaning. Can the Party be a power based on the use of force in relation to its class, in relation to the majority of the working class? Obviously not. Otherwise, it would be a dictatorship not over the bourgeoisie, but over the working class.

The Party is the teacher, the guide, the leader of its class and not a power based on the use of force in relation to the majority of the working class. Otherwise, there would be no point in talking about the method of persuasion as the proletarian party’s principal method of work in the ranks of the working class. Otherwise, there would be no point in saying that the Party must convince the broad proletarian masses of the correctness of its policy, and that only when it performs this task can the Party consider itself a real mass party capable of leading the proletariat into battle. Otherwise, the Party would have to replace the method of persuasion by the method of ordering and threatening the proletariat, which is absurd and absolutely incompatible with the Marxist conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

That is the kind of nonsense to which Zinoviev’s “theory” leads, the theory which identifies dictatorship (leadership) of the Party with the dictatorship of the proletariat.

It goes without saying that Lenin has nothing in common with this “theory.”

It was against this nonsense that I objected when I opposed Zinoviev in my article “Concerning Questions of Leninism.”

It may not be superfluous to state that that article was written and sent to the press with the full agreement and approval of the leading comrades in our Party.

So much for Zinoviev’s first version of the dictatorship of the proletariat. And here is the second version. While the first version distorts Leninism in one way, the second version distorts it in an entirely different way, directly opposite to the first. This second version consists in Zinoviev defining the dictatorship of the proletariat not as the leadership of one class, the proletarian class, but as the leadership of two classes, the workers and the peasants. Here is what Zinoviev says on this score:

“The leadership, the helm, the direction of state affairs is now in the hands of two classes—the working class and the peasantry” (G. Zinoviev, The Worker-Peasant Alliance and the Red Army, Priboy Publishing House, Leningrad 1925, p. 4). Can it be denied that what exists now in our country is the dictatorship of the proletariat? No, it cannot. What does the dictatorship of the proletariat in our country consist in? According to Zinoviev, it consists, apparently, in the fact that the state affairs of our country are administered by two classes. Is this compatible with the Marxist conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat? Obviously not. Lenin says that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the rule of one class, the proletarian class. Under the conditions of the alliance of the proletariat and the peasantry, this monocracy of the proletariat finds expression in the fact that the directing force in this alliance is the proletariat, its party, which does not and cannot share the direction of state affairs with another force or another party. All that is so elementary and incontestable as hardly to need explaining. But it follows from what Zinoviev says that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the leadership of two classes. Why then should such a dictatorship not be called the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, instead of the dictatorship of the proletariat? And is it not clear that under Zinoviev’s conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat we ought to have the leadership of two parties, corresponding to the two classes standing at the “helm of state affairs”? What can there be in common between this “theory” of Zinoviev’s and the Marxist conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat? It goes without saying that Lenin has nothing in common with this “theory.” Conclusion: Quite obviously, both in the first and the second version of his “theory,” Zinoviev distorts Lenin’s teaching on the dictatorship of the proletariat. 5. Trotsky’s Oracular Sayings

I should like, further, to dwell on certain ambiguous statements made by Trotsky, statements which in point of fact were meant to mislead. I wish to mention only a few facts.

One fact. When asked what his attitude was towards his Menshevik past, Trotsky struck something of a pose and replied:

“The fact in itself that I joined the Bolshevik Party . . . this fact in itself shows that I deposited on the threshold of the Party everything that had until then separated me from Bolshevism.” What does “depositing on the threshold of the Party everything that separated” Trotsky “from Bolshevism” mean? Remmele was right when he interjected at this point: “How can such things be deposited on the threshold of the Party?” And, indeed, how can one deposit such refuse on the threshold of the Party? (Laughter.) That question was left unanswered by Trotsky.

Besides, what does Trotsky mean when he says that he deposited his Menshevik relics on the threshold of the Party? Did he deposit those things on the threshold of the Party as a reserve for future battles within the Party, or did he simply burn them? It looks as if Trotsky deposited them on the threshold of the Party as a reserve. For how otherwise can one explain Trotsky’s permanent disagreements with the Party, which began a little while after his entry into the Party and which have not ceased to this day?

Judge for yourselves. 1918—Trotsky’s disagreements with the Party over the Brest Peace, and the struggle within the Party. 1920-21—Trotsky’s disagreements with the Party over the trade-union movement, and the all-Russian discussion. 1923—Trotsky’s disagreements with the Party over fundamental questions of Party affairs and economic policy, and the discussion in the Party. 1924—Trotsky’s disagreements with the Party over the question of the appraisal of the October Revolution and over Party leadership, and the discussion in the Party. 1925-26—the disagreements of Trotsky and his opposition bloc with the Party over fundamental questions of our revolution and current policy.

Are not those too many disagreements for a man who had “deposited on the threshold of the Party everything that separated him from Bolshevism”? Can it be said that Trotsky’s permanent disagreements with the Party are a “haphazard happening,” and not a systematic phenomenon?

Hardly.

What, then, can be the purpose of this more than ambiguous statement of Trotsky’s?

I think that it had only one purpose: to throw dust in the eyes of his hearers and mislead them. Another fact. We know that Trotsky’s “theory” of permanent revolution is a question of no little importance from the viewpoint of the ideology of our Party, from the viewpoint of the perspectives of our revolution. We know that this “theory” had, and still has, pretensions to compete with the Leninist theory of the motive forces of our revolution. It is quite natural, therefore, that Trotsky has been asked repeatedly what his attitude is now, in 1926, to his “theory” of permanent revolution. And what answer did Trotsky give in his speech at the Comintern plenum? One that was more than equivocal. He said that the “theory” of permanent revolution has certain “defects,” that certain aspects of this “theory” have not been justified in our revolutionary practice. It follows that while certain aspects of this “theory” constitute “defects,” there are other aspects of this “theory” which do not constitute “defects” and should retain their validity. But how can certain aspects of the “theory” of permanent revolution be separated from others? Is not the “theory” of permanent revolution an integral system of views? Can the “theory” of permanent revolution be regarded as a box, two corners of which, say, have rotted, while the other two have remained whole and intact? And further, is it possible here for Trotsky to confine himself to a simple statement about “defects” in general, which commits him to nothing, without stating precisely which “defects” he has in mind, and precisely which aspects of the “theory” of permanent revolution he considers incorrect? Trotsky said that the “theory” of permanent revolution has certain “defects,” but precisely which “defects” he had in mind and precisely which aspects of this “theory” he considered incorrect—of this he did not say a word. Trotsky’s statement on this subject must therefore be regarded as an evasion of the question, as an attempt to parry it with equivocal talk about “defects” which commits him to nothing.

Trotsky behaved in this instance in the way certain astute oracles did in olden days, who parried inquirers with ambiguous answers like the following: “When crossing a river, a big army will be routed.” Which river would be crossed, and whose army would be routed was left for the hearers to interpret. (Laughter.)

6. Zinoviev in the Role of a Schoolboy

Quoting Marx, Engels, Lenin

I should like, further, to say a few words about Zinoviev’s peculiar manner of quoting the Marxist classics. The characteristic feature of this manner of Zinoviev’s is that he mixes up all periods and dates, piles them into one heap, severs individual propositions and formulas of Marx and Engels from their living connection with reality, converts them into worn-out dogmas, and thus violates the fundamental precept of Marx and Engels that “Marxism is not a dogma, but a guide to action.”

Here are a few facts:

1) First fact. Zinoviev quoted in his speech the passage from Marx’s pamphlet, The Class Struggles in France (1848-1850), which says that “the task of the worker (meaning the victory of socialism—J. St.) is not accomplished anywhere within national walls.”23 Zinoviev further quoted the following passage from Marx’s letter to Engels (1858):

“The difficult question for us is this: on the Continent the revolution is imminent and will also immediately assume a socialist character. Is it not bound to be crushed in this little corner, considering that in a far greater territory the movement of bourgeois society is still on the upgrade?”* (See K. Marx and F. Engels, Letters, pp. 74-75.24)

Zinoviev quotes these passages from Marx relating to the period of the forties and fifties of the last century and arrives at the conclusion that, by virtue of this, the question of the victory of socialism in individual countries has been answered in the negative for all times and periods of capitalism.

Can it be said that Zinoviev has understood Marx, his standpoint, his basic line, on this question of the victory of socialism in individual countries? No, it cannot. On the contrary, it is apparent from these quotations that Zinoviev has completely misunderstood Marx and distorted Marx’s basic standpoint.

Does it follow from these quotations from Marx that the victory of socialism in individual countries is impossible under any conditions of capitalist development? No, it does not. All that follows from Marx’s words is that the victory of socialism in individual countries is impossible only if “the movement of bourgeois society is still on the upgrade.” But if the movement of bourgeois society as a whole, by virtue of the course of things, changes its direction and begins to be on the downgrade—what then? It follows from Marx’s words that in such conditions the basis for denying the possibility of the victory of socialism in individual countries disappears.

Zinoviev forgets that these quotations from Marx relate to the period of pre-monopoly capitalism, when the development of capitalism as a whole was on the upgrade, when the growth of capitalism as a whole was not accompanied by a process of decay in such a capitalistically developed country as Britain, when the law of uneven development did not yet, and could not yet, represent such a mighty factor in the disintegration of capitalism as it came to be later, in the period of monopoly capitalism, the period of imperialism.

For the period of pre-monopoly capitalism, Marx’s statement that the basic task of the working class cannot be accomplished in individual countries is absolutely correct. As I already said in my report at the Fifteenth Conference of the C.P.S.U.(B.), in the old days, in the period of pre-monopoly capitalism, the question whether the victory of socialism was possible in individual countries was answered in the negative, and quite correctly. But now, in the present period of capitalism, when pre-monopoly capitalism has passed into imperialist capitalism—can it be said now that the development of capitalism as a whole is on the upgrade? No, it cannot. Lenin’s analysis of the economic essence of imperialism says that in the period of imperialism bourgeois society as a whole is on the downgrade. Lenin is quite right in saying that monopoly capitalism, imperialist capitalism, is moribund capitalism. Here is what Comrade Lenin says on this score:

“It is clear why imperialism is moribund capitalism, capitalism in transition to socialism: monopoly, which grows out of capitalism, is already capitalism dying out, the beginning of its transition to socialism. The tremendous socialisation of labour by imperialism (what the apologists—the bourgeois economists—call ‘interlocking’) means the same thing” (see Lenin, Vol. XIX, p. 302).

Pre-monopoly capitalism, whose development as a whole was on the upgrade, is one thing. Imperialist capitalism is another thing, when the world has already been divided up among capitalist groups, when the spasmodic character of capitalist development demands new redivisions of the already divided world through military clashes, when the conflicts and wars between imperialist groups springing from this soil weaken the capitalist world front, render it easily vulnerable and create the possibility of a breach of this front in individual countries. In the former case, under pre-monopoly capitalism, the victory of socialism in individual countries is impossible. In the latter case, in the period of imperialism, in the period of moribund capitalism, the victory of socialism in individual countries has now become possible. That is the point, comrades, and that is what Zinoviev refuses to understand.

You see that Zinoviev quotes Marx like a schoolboy, ignoring Marx’s standpoint and seizing upon individual quotations from Marx, which he applies not as a Marxist, but as a Social-Democrat. What does the revisionist manner of quoting Marx consist in? The revisionist manner of quoting Marx consists in replacing Marx’s standpoint by quotations from individual propositions of Marx, taken out of connection with the concrete conditions of a specific epoch.

What does the Zinoviev manner of quoting Marx consist in? The Zinoviev manner of quoting Marx consists in replacing Marx’s standpoint by the letter of the text, by quotations from Marx, severed from their living connection with the conditions of development of the eighteen-fifties and converted into a dogma.

Comment, I think, is superfluous.

2) Second fact. Zinoviev quotes the words of Engels from “The Principles of Communism”25 (1847) to the effect that the workers’ revolution “cannot take place in one country alone,” compares these words of Engels’ with my statement at the Fifteenth Conference of the C.P.S.U.(B.) to the effect that we had already fulfilled nine-tenths of the twelve requirements enumerated by Engels, and from this draws two conclusions: firstly, that the victory of socialism in individual countries is impossible, and, secondly, that in my statement I had painted too rosy a picture of present-day conditions in the U.S.S.R.

As to the quotations from Engels, it must be said that Zinoviev here commits the same error in interpreting quotations as he did in the case of Marx. Clearly, in the period of pre-monopoly capitalism, in the period when the development of bourgeois society as a whole was on the upgrade, Engels had to give a negative answer to the question of the possibility of the victory of socialism in individual countries. Mechanically to extend Engels’ proposition, made in reference to the old period of capitalism, to the new period of capitalism, the imperialist period, is to distort the standpoint of Engels and Marx for the sake of the letter, for the sake of an isolated quotation taken out of connection with the actual conditions of development in the period of pre-monopoly capitalism. As I already said in my report at the Fifteenth Conference of the C.P.S.U.(B.), in its time this formula of Engels’ was the only correct one. But, after all, it should be realised that one cannot put on a par the period of the forties of the last century, when there could be no question of moribund capitalism, and the present period of capitalist development, the period of imperialism, when capitalism as a whole is moribund capitalism. Is it so difficult to understand that what was then considered impossible has now, under the new conditions of capitalism, become possible and necessary?

You see that here too, in relation to Engels, as in relation to Marx, Zinoviev has remained true to his revisionist manner of quoting the Marxist classics. As to Zinoviev’s second conclusion, he has directly distorted what Engels said about his 12 requirements, or measures, for the workers’ revolution. Zinoviev tries to make out that Engels in his 12 requirements gives a comprehensive programme of socialism, right down to the abolition of classes, the abolition of commodity production and, hence, the abolition of the state. That is quite untrue. It is a complete distortion of Engels. There is not a single word in Engels’ 12 requirements either about the abolition of classes, or about the abolition of commodity economy, or about the abolition of the state, or about the abolition of all forms of private property. On the contrary, Engels’ 12 requirements presume the existence of “democracy” (by “democracy” Engels at that time meant the dictatorship of the proletariat), the existence of classes and the existence of commodity economy. Engels explicitly says that his 12 requirements envisage a direct “assault on private property” (and not its complete abolition) and “ensuring the existence of the proletariat” (and not the abolition of the proletariat as a class). Here are Engels’ words:

“The proletarian revolution, which in all probability is coming, will only gradually remodel present society, and only after that can it abolish private property, when the necessary quatity of means of production has been created. . . . First of all it will establish a democratic system and thereby, directly or indirectly, the political rule of the proletariat. . . . Democracy would be quite useless to the proletariat if it were not used forthwith as a means of carrying out further measures for launching a direct assault on private property and safeguarding the existence of the proletariat.* The chief of these measures, which already necessarily follow from the existing conditions, are as follows. . . .” And then comes the enumeration of the 12 requirements or measures referred to (see Engels, “The Principles of Communism”).

You thus see that what Engels had in mind was not a comprehensive programme of socialism, envisaging the abolition of classes, the state, commodity production, etc., but the first steps of the socialist revolution, the first measures necessary for a direct assault on private property, for ensuring the existence of the working class, and for consolidating the political rule of the proletariat.

There is only one conclusion: Zinoviev distorted Engels when he interpreted the latter’s 12 requirements as a comprehensive programme of socialism. What did I say in my reply to the discussion at the Fifteenth Conference of the C.P.S.U.(B.)? I said that in our country, the U.S.S.R., nine-tenths of Engels’ requirements, or measures, representing the first steps of the socialist revolution, had already been realised.

Does this mean that we have already realised socialism?

Quite clearly, it does not.

* All italics mine.—J. St.

Hence, true to his manner of quoting, Zinoviev performed a “slight” piece of juggling with my statement at the Fifteenth Conference of the C.P.S.U.(B.). That is what Zinoviev’s specific manner of quoting Marx and Engels leads him to.

Zinoviev’s manner of quoting reminds me of a rather amusing anecdote about the Social-Democrats which was related by a Swedish revolutionary syndicalist in Stockholm. It was in 1906, at the time of the Stockholm Congress of our Party. This Swedish comrade in his story hit off very amusingly the pedantic manner in which some Social-Democrats quote Marx and Engels, and listening to him, we, the congress delegates, split our sides with laughter. This is the anecdote. It was at the time of the sailors’ and soldiers’ revolt in the Crimea. Representatives of the navy and army came to the Social-Democrats and said: “For some years past you have been calling on us to revolt against tsarism. Well, we are now convinced that you are right, and we sailors and soldiershave made up our mints to revolt and now we have come to you for advice.” The Social-Democrats became flurried and replied that they couldn’t decide the question of a revolt without a special conference. The sailors intimated that there was no time to lose, that everything was ready, and that if they did not get a straight answer from the Social-Democrats, and if the Social-Democrats did not take over the direction of the revolt, the whole thing might collapse. The sailors and soldiers went away pending instructions, and the Social-Democrats called a conference to discuss the matter. They took the first volume of Capital, they took the second volume of Capital, and then they took the third volume of Capital, looking for some instruction about the Crimea, about Sevastopol, about a revolt in the Crimea. But they could not find a single, literally not a single instruction in all three volumes of Capital either about Sevastopol, or about the Crimea, or about a sailors’ and soldiers’ revolt. (Laughter.) They turned over the pages of other works of Marx and Engels, looking for instructions—but not a single instruction could they find. (Laughter..) What was to be done? Meanwhile the sailors had come expecting an answer. Well, the Social-Democrats had to confess that under the circumstances they were unable to give the sailors and soldiers any instructions. “And so,” our Swedish comrade ended, “the sailors’ and soldiers’ revolt collapsed.” (Laughter.) Undoubtedly, there is a good deal of exaggeration in this story. But undoubtedly, too, it lays its finger very neatly on the basic trouble with Zinoviev’s manner of quoting Marx and Engels.

3) Third fact. The matter concerns quotations from Lenin’s works. To what pains did Zinoviev not go to scrape together a pile of quotations from the works of Lenin and to “stagger” his hearers. Zinoviev evidently thinks that the more quotations the better, without caring very much what the quotations say and what inferences are to be drawn from them. Yet if you examine these quotations, you will easily find that Zinoviev did not quote a single passage from Lenin’s works which speaks, even by implication, in favour of the present capitulatory attitude of the opposition bloc. It should be remarked that for some reason Zinoviev did not quote one of the basic passages of Lenin to the effect that the solution of the “economic problem” of the dictatorship, the victory of the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. in solving this problem, should be considered assured.

Zinoviev quoted a passage from Lenin’s pamphlet, On Co-operation, which says that in the U.S.S.R. there is all that is necessary and sufficient for building a complete socialist society. But he did not even try to make the slightest effort to indicate, if only by implication, what conclusion is to be drawn from this passage, and in whose favour it speaks: in favour of the opposition bloc, or in favour of the C.P.S.U.(B.).

Zinoviev endeavoured to prove that the victory of socialist construction in our country is impossible, but in proof of this proposition he quoted passages from Lenin’s works which knock the bottom out of his assertion. Here, for example, is one of these passages: “I have had occasion more than once to say that, compared with the advanced countries, it was easier for the Russians to begin the great proletarian revolution, but that it will be more difficult for them to continue it and carry it to a victorious finish, in the sense of the complete organisation of a socialist society”* (see Lenin, Vol. XXIV, p. 250).

It did not even occur to Zinoviev that this passage speaks in favour of the Party, not of the opposition bloc, for it speaks not of the impossibility of building socialism in the U.S.S.R., but of the difficulty of building it, the possibility of building socialism in the

* My italics.—J. St.

U.S.S.R. being recognised in this passage as something self-understood. The Party always said that it would be easier to begin the revolution in the U.S.S.R. than in the West-European capitalist countries, but that to build socialism would be harder. Does this mean that recognition of this fact is equivalent to a denial of the possibility of building socialism in the U.S.S.R.? Of course not. On the contrary, the only conclusion that follows from this fact is that the building of socialism in the U.S.S.R. is fully possible and necessary, in spite of the difficulties.

The question arises: Why did Zinoviev need quotations like these? Evidently, in order to “stagger” his hearers with a pile of quotations, and to muddy the water. (Laughter.) But it is now clear, I think, that Zinoviev did not achieve his purpose, that his more than comic manner of quoting the Marxist classics has tripped him up in the most unequivocal fashion.

7. Revisionism According to Zinoviev

Lastly, a few words on Zinoviev’s interpretation of the concept “revisionism.” According to Zinoviev, any improvement, any refinement of old formulas or individual propositions of Marx or Engels, and still more their replacement by other formulas corresponding to new conditions, is revisionism. Why, one asks? Is not Marxism a science, and does not science develop, becoming enriched by new experience and improving old formulas? The reason, it appears, is that “revision” means “reconsidering,” and old formulas cannot be improved or made more precise without to some extent reconsidering them, and, consequently, every refinement and improvement of old formulas, every enrichment of Marxism by new experience and new formulas is revisionism. All this, of course, is comical. But what can you do with Zinoviev, when he puts himself in a comical position and at the same time imagines he is fighting revisionism?

For example, did Stalin have the right to alter and make more precise his own formula concerning the victory of socialism in one country (1924) in full conformity with the directives and basic line of Leninism? According to Zinoviev, he had no such right. Why? Because altering and making more precise an old formula means reconsidering the formula, and in German reconsideration means revision. Is it not then clear that Stalin is guilty of revisionism? It thus follows that we have a new, Zinoviev criterion of revisionism, one which dooms Marxist thought to complete stagnation for fear of being accused of revisionism.

If, for example, in the middle of the last century Marx said that when capitalism was on the upgrade the victory of socialism within national boundaries was impossible, and Lenin in the fifteenth year of the twentieth century said that when the development of capitalism was on the downgrade, when capitalism was moribund, such a victory was possible, it follows that Lenin was guilty of revisionism in relation to Marx. If, for example, in the middle of the last century Marx said that a socialist “revolution in the economic relations of any country of the European continent, or of the whole European continent, but without England, would be a storm in a teacup,” 26 and Engels, in view of the new experience of the class struggle, later altered this proposition and said of the socialist revolution that “the Frenchman will begin it and the German will finish it,” it follows that Engels was guilty of revisionism in relation to Marx. If Engels said that the Frenchman would begin the socialist revolution and the German would finish it, and Lenin, in view of the experience of the victory of the revolution in the U.S.S.R., changed this formula and replaced it by another saying that the Russian began the socialist revolution and the German, Frenchman and Englishman would finish it, it follows that Lenin was guilty of revisionism in relation to Engels, and even more so in relation to Marx.

Here, for example, is what Lenin said on this score: “The great founders of socialism, Marx and Engels, having watched the development of the labour movement and the growth of the world socialist revolution for a number of decades, clearly saw that the transition from capitalism to socialism would require prolonged birth-pangs, a long period of proletarian dictatorship, the break-up of all that belonged to the past, the ruthless destruction of all forms of capitalism, the co-operation of the workers of all countries, who would have to combine their efforts to ensure complete victory. And they said that at the end of the nineteenth century ‘the Frenchman will begin it, and the German will finish it’—the Frenchman would begin it, because in the course of decades of revolution he had acquired that intrepid initiative in revolutionary action that made him the vanguard of the socialist revolution. “Today we see a different combination of forces of international socialism. We say that it is easier for the movement to begin in countries that do not belong to the category of exploiting countries, which have better opportunities for robbing and are able to bribe the upper stratum of their workers. . . . Things have turned out differently from what Marx and Engels expected.* They have assigned us, the Russian toiling and exploited classes, the honourable role of being the vanguard of the international socialist revolution, and we can now see clearly how far the development of the revolution will go. The Russian began it—the German, the Frenchman and the Englishman will finish it, and socialism will triumph” (see Lenin, Vol. XXII, p. 218). You see that Lenin here directly “reconsiders” Engels and Marx and, according to Zinoviev, is guilty of “revisionism.”

If, for example, Engels and Marx defined the Paris Commune as a dictatorship of the proletariat, which, as we know, was led by two parties, neither of which was a Marxist party, and Lenin, in view of the new experience of the class struggle under the conditions of imperialism, later said that any developed dictatorship of the proletariat could be realised only under the leadership of one party, the Marxist party, it follows that Lenin was obviously guilty of “revisionism” in relation to Marx and Engels. If, in the period prior to the imperialist war, Lenin said that federation was an unsuitable type of state structure, and in 1917, in view of the new experience of the proletarian struggle, he altered, reconsidered, this formula and said that federation was the appropriate type of state structure during the transition to socialism, it follows that Lenin was guilty of “revisionism” in relation to himself and Leninism. And so on and so forth.

* My italics.—J. St.

It thus follows from what Zinoviev says that Marxism must not enrich itself by new experience, and that any improvement of individual propositions and formulas of any of the Marxist classics is revisionism. What is Marxism? Marxism is a science. Can Marxism persist and develop as a science if it is not enriched by the new experience of the class struggle of the proletariat, if it does not digest this experience from the standpoint of Marxism, from the point of view of the Marxist method? Clearly, it cannot.

After this, is it not obvious that Marxism requires that old formulas should be improved and enriched in conformity with new experience, while retaining the standpoint of Marxism and its method, but that Zinoviev does the opposite, retaining the letter and substituting the letter of individual Marxist propositions for the Marxist standpoint and method?

What can there be in common between real Marxism and the practice of replacing the basic line of Marxism by the letter of individual formulas and quotations from individual propositions of Marxism? Can there be any doubt that this is not Marxism, but a travesty of Marxism?

It was “Marxists” like Zinoviev that Marx and Engels had in mind when they said: “Our theory is not a dogma, but a guide to action.”

Zinoviev’s trouble is that he does not understand the meaning and importance of those words of Marx and Engels.

II

THE QUESTION OF THE VICTORY OF SOCIALISM

IN INDIVIDUAL CAPITALIST COUNTRIES

I have spoken of various errors of the opposition and of inaccuracies of fact observed in the speeches of the opposition leaders. I have tried to exhaust this subject in the form of miscellaneous remarks in the first part of my speech in reply to the discussion. Permit me now to pass directly to the substance of the matter. 1. The Prerequisites for Proletarian Revolutions in Individual Countries in the Period of Imperialism

The first question is whether the victory of socialism is possible in individual capitalist countries in the period of imperialism. As you see, it is not a question of any one particular country, but of all more or less developed imperialist countries.

What is the fundamental error of the opposition in the question of the victory of socialism in individual capitalist countries?

The fundamental error of the opposition is that it does not, or will not, understand the vast difference between pre-imperialist capitalism and imperialist capitalism, that it does not understand the economic essence of imperialism and confuses two different phases of capitalism—the pre-imperialist phase and the imperialist phase. From this error springs another error of the opposition, which is that it does not understand the meaning and importance of the law of uneven development in the period of imperialism, counterposes to it a levelling tendency, and thus slides into the Kautskyan position of ultra-imperialism.

These two errors of the opposition lead to a third, which is that it mechanically extends the formulas and propositions derived from pre-imperialist capitalism to imperialist capitalism, and it is this which leads it to deny the possibility of the victory of socialism in individual capitalist countries.

What is the difference between the old, premonopoly capitalism and the new, monopoly capitalism, if this difference is defined in a couple of words? It is that the development of capitalism through free competition has been replaced by development through huge monopolist capitalist combines; that the old, “cultured,” “progressive” capital has been replaced by finance capital, “decaying” capital; that the “peaceful” expansion of capital and its spread to “vacant” territories has been replaced by spasmodic development, development through redivisions of the already divided world by means of military conflicts between capitalist groups; that the old capitalism, the development of which as a whole was on the upgrade, has thus been replaced by moribund capitalism, the development of which as a whole is on the downgrade. Here is what Lenin says on this score:

“Let us recall what caused the change from the former ‘peaceful’ epoch of capitalism to the present imperialist epoch: free competition gave way to monopolist capitalist combines and the whole terrestrial globe was divided up. It is obvious that both these facts (and factors) are really of world-wide significance:
free trade and peaceful competition were possible and necessary as long as capital was in a position to enlarge its colonies without hindrance, and to seize unoccupied land in Africa, etc., while the concentration of capital was still slight and no monopolist undertakings, i.e., undertakings of such a magnitude as to dominate a whole branch of industry, existed. The appearance and growth of such monopolist undertakings . . . make the free competition of former times impossible, they have cut the ground from under its feet, while the division of the globe compels the capitalists to pass from peaceful expansion to armed struggle for the redivision of colonies and spheres of influence” (see Vol. XVIII, p. 254). And further:

“It is impossible to live in the old way, in the comparatively tranquil, cultured, peaceful surroundings of a capitalism that is smoothly evolving* and gradually spreading to new countries, for a new epoch has been ushered in. Finance capital is ousting and will completely oust a particular country from the ranks of the Great Powers, will deprive it of its colonies and spheres of influence” (see Vol. XVIII, pp. 256-57) From this follows Lenin’s main conclusion concerning the character of imperialist capitalism: “It is clear why imperialism is moribund capitalism, capitalism in transition to socialism: monopoly, which grows out of capitalism, is already capitalism dying out, the beginning of its transition to socialism. The tremendous socialisation of labour by imperialism (what the apologists—the bourgeois economists—call ‘interlocking’) means the same thing” (see Vol. XIX, p. 302). It is the misfortune of our opposition that it does not understand the extreme importance of this difference between pre-imperialist capitalism and imperialist capitalism.

* My italics.—J. St.

Hence the starting point for the position of our Party is the recognition of the fact that present-day capitalism, imperialist capitalism, is moribund capitalism. This, unfortunately, does not mean that capitalism is already extinct. But it undoubtedly does mean that capitalism as a whole is moving towards extinction, and not regeneration, that the development of capitalism as a whole is on the down grade, not the upgrade. From this general question follows the question of uneven development in the period of imperialism. What do Leninists mean, as a rule, when they speak of uneven development in the period of imperialism? Do they mean that there is a big difference in the levels of development of the various capitalist countries, that some lag behind others in their development, and that this difference is becoming wider and wider? No, they do not mean that. To confuse unevenness of development under imperialism with the difference in the levels of development of the capitalist countries is to be guilty of philistinism. It was precisely this philistinism that the opposition was guilty of at the Fifteenth Conference of the C.P.S.U.(B.) when they confused unevenness of development with the difference in economic levels of the various capitalist countries. It was precisely by starting out from this confusion that the opposition at that time arrived at the absolutely incorrect conclusion that the unevenness of development was formerly greater than it is now, under imperialism. It was precisely because of this that Trotsky said at the Fifteenth Conference that “this unevenness was greater in the nineteenth century than in the twentieth” (see

Trotsky’s speech at the Fifteenth Conference of the C.P.S.U.). Zinoviev at that time said the same thing, asserting that it was “untrue that the unevenness of capitalist development was less before the beginning of the imperialist epoch” (see Zinoviev’s speech at the Fifteenth Conference of the C.P.S.U.).

It is true that now, after the discussion at the Fifteenth Conference, the opposition has found it necessary to make a change of front, and in its speeches at the Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I. has said something that is the very opposite, or has simply tried to pass over this error of its in silence. Here, for instance, is what Trotsky said in his speech at the Enlarged Plenum: “As to the tempo of development, imperialism has infinitely accentuated this unevenness.” As for Zinoviev, he deemed it wise in his speech at the E.C.C.I. plenum simply to keep silent on this question, although he must have known that the dispute was precisely whether the action of the law of unevenness becomes stronger or weaker in the period of imperialism. But this only shows that the discussion taught the opposition a thing or two and was not without benefit to it.

And so: the unevenness of development of the capitalist countries in the period of imperialism must not be confused with the difference in economic levels of the various capitalist countries.

Can it be said that the diminishing difference in the levels of development of the capitalist countries and the increased levelling of these countries weaken the action of the law of uneven development under imperialism? No, it cannot. Does the difference in the levels of development increase or diminish? It undoubtedly diminishes.

Does the degree of levelling grow or decline? It certainly grows. Is there not a contradiction between the growth of levelling and increasing unevenness of development under imperialism? No, there is not. On the contrary, levelling is the background and the basis which make the increasing unevenness of development under imperialism possible. Only people who, like our oppositionists, do not understand the economic essence of imperialism can counterpose levelling to the law of uneven development under imperialism. It is precisely because the lagging countries accelerate their development and tend to become level with the foremost countries that the struggle between countries to outstrip one another becomes more acute; it is precisely this that creates the possibility for some countries to outstrip others and oust them from the markets, thereby creating the pre-conditions for military conflicts, for the weakening of the capitalist world front and for the breaching of this front by the proletarians of different capitalist countries. He who does not understand this simple matter, understands nothing about the economic essence of monopoly capitalism. And so: levelling is one of the conditions for the increasing unevenness of development in the period of imperialism. Can it be said that the unevenness of development under imperialism consists in the fact that some countries overtake and then outstrip others economically in the ordinary way, in an evolutionary way, so to speak, without spasmodic leaps, without catastrophic wars, and without redivisions of the already divided world? No, it cannot. This kind of unevenness also existed in the period of pre-monopoly capitalism; Marx knew about it, and Lenin wrote about it in his Development of Capitalism in Russia.27 At that time the development of capitalism proceeded more or less smoothly, more or less in an evolutionary way, and some countries outstripped others over a long period of time, without spasmodic leaps, and without the necessary accompaniment of military conflicts on a world scale. It is not this unevenness we are speaking of now.

What, then, is the law of the uneven development of capitalist countries under imperialism?

The law of uneven development in the period of imperialism means the spasmodic development of some countries relative to others, the rapid ousting from the world market of some countries by others, periodic redivisions of the already divided world through military conflicts and catastrophic wars, the increasing profundity and acuteness of the conflicts in the imperialist camp, the weakening of the capitalist world front, the possibility of this front being breached by the proletariat of individual countries, and the possibility of the victory of socialism in individual countries. What are the basic elements of the law of uneven development under imperialism? Firstly, the fact that the world is already divided up among imperialist groups, that there are no more “vacant,” unoccupied territories in the world, and that in order to occupy new markets and sources of raw materials, in order to expand, it is necessary to seize territory from others by force.

Secondly, the fact that the unprecedented development of technology and the increasing levelling of development of the capitalist countries have made possible and facilitated the spasmodic outstripping of some countries by others, the ousting of more powerful countries by less powerful but rapidly developing countries.

Thirdly, the fact that the old distribution of spheres of influence among the various imperialist groups is forever coming into conflict with the new correlation of forces in the world market, and that, in order to establish “equilibrium” between the old distribution of spheres of influence and the new correlation of forces, periodic redivisions of the world by means of imperialist wars are necessary.

Hence the growing intensity and acuteness of the unevenness of development in the period of imperialism. Hence the impossibility of resolving the conflicts in the imperialist camp by peaceful means.

Hence the untenability of Kautsky’s theory of ultraimperialism, which preaches the possibility of a peaceful settlement of these conflicts. But it follows from this that, in denying that the unevenness of development becomes more intense and acute in the period of imperialism, the opposition slides into the position of ultra-imperialism. Such are the characteristic features of the unevenness of development in the period of imperialism. When was the division of the world among the imperialist groups completed?

Lenin said that the division of the world was completed in the beginning of the twentieth century. When in point of fact was the question of a redivision of the already divided world first raised? At the time of the first world imperialist war.

But it follows from this that the law of uneven development under imperialism could only be discovered and substantiated in the beginning of the twentieth century. I spoke about that in my report at the Fifteenth Conference of the C.P.S.U.(B.), when I said that the law of uneven development under imperialism was discovered and substantiated by Comrade Lenin.

The world imperialist war was the first attempt to redivide the already divided world. That attempt cost capitalism the victory of the revolution in Russia and the undermining of the foundations of imperialism in the colonies and dependencies.

It goes without saying that the first attempt at redivision is bound to be followed by a second attempt, preparations for which are already under way in the imperialist camp.

It is scarcely to be doubted that a second attempt at redivision will cost world capitalism much dearer than the first.

Such are the perspectives of development of world capitalism from the standpoint of the law of uneven development under the conditions of imperialism. You see that these perspectives point directly and immediately to the possibility of the victory of socialism in individual capitalist countries in the period of imperialism.

We know that Lenin deduced the possibility of the victory of socialism in individual countries directly and immediately from the law of uneven development of the capitalist countries. And Lenin was absolutely right. For the law of uneven development under imperialism completely destroys the basis for “theoretical” exercises on the part of all Social-Democrats concerning the impossibility of the victory of socialism in individual capitalist countries. Here is what Lenin said on this score in his programmatic article written in 1915: “Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence* the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country taken separately” (see Vol. XVIII, p. 232).

Conclusions:
a) The fundamental error of the opposition consists in the fact that it does not see the difference between the two phases of capitalism, or avoids stressing this difference. And why does it avoid doing so? Because this difference leads to the law of uneven development in the period of imperialism.

b) The second error of the opposition is that it does not understand, or underestimates, the decisive significance of the law of uneven development of the capitalist countries under imperialism. And why does it underestimate it? Because a correct appraisal of the law of uneven development of the capitalist countries leads to the conclusion that the victory of socialism in individual countries is possible.

c) Hence the third error of the opposition, which consists in denying the possibility of the victory of socialism in individual capitalist countries under imperialism. Whoever denies the possibility of the victory of socialism in individual countries is obliged to keep silent about the significance of the law of uneven development under imperialism. And whoever is obliged to keep silent about the significance of the law of uneven development cannot but gloss over the difference between pre-imperialist capitalism and imperialist capitalism. That is how matters stand with the question of the pre-conditions for proletarian revolutions in the capitalist countries. What is the significance of this question in practice? In practice, we are confronted by two lines. One line is the line of our Party, which calls upon the proletarians of the individual countries to prepare for the coming revolution, to follow vigilantly the course of events and to be ready, when the conditions are favourable, to breach the capitalist front independently, to take power and shake the foundations of world capitalism.

The other line is the line of our opposition, which sows doubts regarding the expediency of independently breaching the capitalist front and calls on the proletarians of the individual countries to wait for the “general denouement.”

Whereas the line of our Party is one of intensifying the revolutionary onslaught on one’s own bourgeoisie and giving free rein to the initiative of the proletarians of the individual countries, the line of our opposition is one of passive waiting and of fettering the initiative of the proletarians of the individual countries in their struggle against their own bourgeoisies.

The first line is one of activising the proletarians of the individual countries.

The second line is one of sapping the proletariat’s will for revolution, the line of passivity and waiting. Lenin was a thousand times right when he wrote the following prophetic words, which have a direct bearing on our present disputes:

“I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense” (see Vol. XXIII, p. 9).

These words of Lenin should not be forgotten. 2. How Zinoviev “Elaborates” Lenin

I have spoken of the pre-conditions for proletarian revolutions in individual capitalist countries. I should now like to say a few words to show how Zinoviev distorts or “elaborates” Lenin’s fundamental article on the preconditions for proletarian revolutions and on the victory of socialism in individual capitalist countries. I have in mind Lenin’s well-known article, “The United States of Europe Slogan,” written in 1915 and several times quoted in the course of our discussions. Zinoviev reproached me for not having quoted this article in full; but he himself tried to give the article an interpretation which cannot be called other than a complete distortion of Lenin’s views, of his basic line on the question of the victory of socialism in individual countries. Permit me to quote this passage in full. I shall try to indicate by special stress the lines which I omitted previously owing to lack of time. Here is the passage:

“Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country taken separately. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organised socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world, attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, raising revolts in those countries against the capitalists, and in the event of necessity coming out even with armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. The political form of the society in which the proletariat is victorious by overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic, which will more and more centralise the forces of the proletariat of the given nation, or nations, in the struggle against the states that have not yet gone over to socialism. The abolition of classes is impossible without the dictatorship of the oppressed class, the proletariat. The free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states” (see Vol. XVIII, pp. 232-33). Zinoviev, having quoted this passage, made two remarks: the first on the democratic republic, and the second on the organisation of socialist production. Let us, to begin with, discuss the first remark. Zinoviev thinks that since Lenin speaks here of a democratic republic, he can have in mind at most the seizure of power by the proletariat, and Zinoviev was not ashamed to hint, rather vaguely but insistently, that what Lenin most likely had in mind here was a bourgeois republic. Is that true? Of course not. In order to refute this not altogether honest hint of Zinoviev’s, it is enough to read the last lines of the passage, where it speaks of the “struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states.” It is clear that in speaking of a democratic republic Lenin had in mind a socialist republic, and not a bourgeois republic.

In 1915 Lenin did not yet know of Soviet power as the state form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin knew already in 1905 that the various Soviets were the embryo of revolutionary power in the period of the overthrow of tsarism. But he did not then yet know of Soviet power united on a country-wide scale as the state form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin discovered the Republic of Soviets as the state form of the dictatorship of the proletariat only in 1917, and he made a detailed analysis of this new form of political organisation of a transitional society in the summer of 1917, chiefly in his book The State and Revolution.28 This, in fact, explains why Lenin in the passage quoted speaks not of a Soviet republic, but of a democratic republic, by which, as is clear from the quotation, he meant a socialist republic. Lenin acted in the same way here as Marx and Engels did in their time, who before the Paris Commune considered the republic in general as the form of political organisation of society in the transition from capitalism to socialism, but after the Paris Commune deciphered this term and said that this republic must be of the type of the Paris Commune. This is apart from the fact that if what Lenin had in mind in the above passage was a bourgeois-democratic republic, there could be no question of “dictatorship of the proletariat,” “expropriation of the capitalists,” etc. You see that Zinoviev’s attempt to “elaborate” Lenin cannot be called successful.

Let us pass to Zinoviev’s second remark. Zinoviev asserts that Comrade Lenin’s phrase about “organisation of socialist production” should be understood not in the sense in which normal people generally are bound to understand it, but in some other sense, namely, that what Lenin had in mind here was only proceeding to organise socialist production. Why, on what grounds, Zinoviev did not explain. Permit me to say that Zinoviev is here making another attempt to “elaborate” Lenin. It is directly stated in the passage quoted that “the victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and having organised socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world.” It says here “having organised,” and not “organising.” Need it be demonstrated that there is a difference here? Need it be demonstrated either that if what Lenin had in mind was only proceeding to organise socialist production, he would have said “organising,” and not “having organised.” Consequently, Lenin had in mind not only proceeding to organise socialist production, but also the possibility of organising socialist production, the possibility of completely building socialist production in individual countries.

You see that this second attempt of Zinoviev’s to “elaborate” Lenin must likewise be regarded as unsuccessful, to say the least of it. Zinoviev tried to disguise his attempts to “elaborate” Lenin by facetiously remarking that “you can’t build socialism in two weeks or two months by a wave of the wand.” I am afraid that Zinoviev needed this facetiousness in order to put “a fair face on a bad business.” Where has Zinoviev found people who propose to build socialism in two weeks, or two months, or two years? If there are such people at all, why did he not name them? He did not name them because there are no such people. Zinoviev needed this spurious facetiousness in order to disguise his “work” of “elaborating” Lenin and Leninism. And so:
a) proceeding from the law of uneven development under imperialism, Lenin, in his fundamental article, “The United States of Europe Slogan,” drew the conclusion that the victory of socialism in individual capitalist countries is possible;
b) by the victory of socialism in individual countries, Lenin means the seizure of power by the proletariat, the expropriation of the capitalists, and the organisation of socialist production; moreover, all these tasks are not an end in themselves, but a means of standing up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world, and helping the proletarians of all countries in their struggle against capitalism;
c) Zinoviev tried to whittle down these Leninist propositions and to “elaborate” Lenin in conformity with the present semi-Menshevik position of the opposition bloc. But the attempt has proved futile.

Further comment, I think, is superfluous here.

III

THE QUESTION OF BUILDING SOCIALISM

IN THE U.S.S.R.

Permit me, comrades, to pass now to the question of building socialism in our country, in the U.S.S.R.

1. The “Manoeuvres” of the Opposition and the “National-Reformism” of Lenin’s Party Trotsky declared in his speech that Stalin’s biggest error is the theory of the possibility of building socialism in one country, in our country. It appears, then, that what is in question is not Lenin’s theory of the possibility of completely building socialism in our country, but of some unknown “theory” of Stalin’s. The way I understand it is that Trotsky set out to give battle to Lenin’s theory, but since giving open battle to Lenin is a risky business, he decided to fight this battle under the guise of combating a “theory” of Stalin’s. Trotsky in this way wants to make it easier for himself to fight Leninism, by disguising that fight by his criticism of Stalin’s “theory.” That this is precisely so, that Stalin has nothing to do with the case, that there can be no question of any “theory” of Stalin’s, that Stalin never had any pretensions to making any new contributions to theory, but only strove to facilitate the complete triumph of Leninism in our Party, in spite of Trotsky’s revisionist efforts—this I shall endeavour to show later. Meanwhile, let it be noted that Trotsky’s statement about Stalin’s “theory” is a manoeuvre, a trick, a cowardly and unsuccessful trick, designed to cover up his fight against Lenin’s theory of the victory of socialism in individual countries, a fight which began in 1915 and is continuing to the present day. Whether this stratagem of Trotsky’s is a sign of honest polemics, I leave the comrades to judge. The starting point for the decisions of our Party on the question whether it is possible to build socialism in our country is to be found in the well-known programmatic works of Comrade Lenin. In those works Lenin says that under the conditions of imperialism the victory of socialism in individual countries is possible, that the victory of the dictatorship of the proletariat in solving the economic problem of this dictatorship is assured, that we, the proletarians of the U.S.S.R., have all that is necessary and sufficient for building a complete socialist society.

I have just quoted a passage from the well-known article of Lenin’s where he for the first time raised the question of the possibility of the victory of socialism in individual countries, and which I therefore shall not repeat here. That article was written in 1915. It says that the victory of socialism in individual countries— he seizure of power by the proletariat, the expropriation of the capitalists and the organisation of socialist production—is possible. We know that Trotsky at that very time, in that same year 1915, came out in the press against this article of Lenin’s and called Lenin’s theory of socialism in one country a theory of “national narrow-mindedness.” The question arises, what has Stalin’s “theory” to do with this?

Further, in my report I quoted a passage from Lenin’s well-known work, “Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat,” where it says plainly and definitely that the victory of the proletariat of the U.S.S.R., in the sense of solving the economic problem of the dictatorship of the proletariat, may be considered assured. This work was written in 1919. Here is the passage:

“In spite of the lies and slanders of the bourgeoisie of all countries and of their open or masked henchmen (the ‘Socialists’ of the Second International), one thing remains beyond dispute, viz., that from the point of view of the basic economic problem of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the victory of communism over capitalism in our country is assured. Throughout the world the bourgeoisie is raging and fuming against Bolshevism and is organising military expeditions, plots, etc., against the Bolsheviks, just because it fully realises that our success in reconstructing the social economy is inevitable, provided we are not crushed by military force. And its attempts to crush us in this way are not succeeding”* (see Vol. XXIV, p. 510). You see that Lenin plainly speaks here of the possibility of the victory of the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. in the matter of reconstructing the social economy, in the matter of solving the economic problem of the dictatorship of the proletariat. We know that Trotsky and the opposition as a whole do not agree with the basic propositions contained in this passage.

The question arises, what has Stalin’s “theory” to do with this?

I quoted, lastly, a passage from Lenin’s well-known pamphlet, On Co-operation, written in 1923. In this passage, it says: “As a matter of fact, state power over all large-scale means of production, state power in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of this proletariat with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured leadership of the peasantry by the proletariat, etc.—is not this all that is necessary for building a complete socialist society from the co-operatives, from the co-operatives alone, which we formerly looked down upon as huckstering and which from a certain aspect we have the right to look down upon as such now, under NEP? Is this not all that is necessary for building a complete socialist society? This is not yet the building of socialist society, but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for this building”* (see Vol. XXVII, p. 392). You see that this passage leaves no doubt whatever about the possibility of building socialism in our country. You see that this passage enumerates the principal factors in the building of a socialist economy in our country: proletarian power, large-scale production in the hands of the proletarian power, an alliance of the proletariat and the peasantry, leadership of the proletariat in this alliance, co-operation.

Trotsky endeavoured recently, at the Fifteenth Conference of the C.P.S.U.(B.), to counterpose to this quotation another quotation from the works of Lenin, where it says that “Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country” (see Vol. XXVI, p. 46). But to counterpose these quotations is to distort the basic idea of Lenin’s pamphlet, On Co-operation. Is not electrification a constituent part of large-scale production, and is electrification possible at all in our country without large-scale production, concentrated in the hands of a proletarian state? Is it not clear that when Lenin says in his pamphlet On Co-operation that large-scale production is one of the factors in the building of socialism, this includes electrification?

We know that the opposition is conducting a more or less overt, but mostly covert, fight against the basic propositions formulated in this passage from Lenin’s pamphlet, On Co-operation.

* My italics.—J. St.

The question arises, what has Stalin’s “theory” to do with this?

Such are the basic propositions of Leninism in the question of the building of socialism in our country. The Party affirms that fundamentally at variance with these propositions of Leninism are the postulates of Trotsky and the opposition bloc to the effect that “the building of socialism within the framework of national states is impossible,” that “the theory of socialism in one country is a theoretical justification of national narrow-mindedness,” that “without direct state support from the European proletariat, the working class of Russia will not be able to maintain itself in power” (Trotsky). The Party affirms that these propositions of the opposition bloc are the expression of a Social-Democratic deviation in our Party.

The Party affirms that Trotsky’s formula about “direct state support from the European proletariat” is a formula that makes a complete break with Leninism. For what is implied by making the building of socialism in our country dependent on “direct state support from the European proletariat”? What if the European proletariat does not succeed in seizing power within the next few years? Can our revolution mark time for an indefinite period, pending the victory of the revolution in the West? Can it be expected that the bourgeoisie of our country will agree to wait for the victory of the revolution in the West and renounce its work and its struggle against the socialist elements in our economy? Does not this formula of Trotsky’s denote the prospect of a gradual surrender of our positions to the capitalist elements in our economy, and then the prospect of our Party’s retiring from power in the event of a victorious revolution in the West being delayed? Is it not clear that what we have here are two absolutely different lines, one of which is the line of the Party and Leninism, and the other the line of the opposition and Trotskyism?

I asked Trotsky in my report, and I ask him again: Is it not true that Lenin’s theory of the possibility of the victory of socialism in individual countries was qualified by Trotsky in 1915 as a theory of “national narrow-mindedness”? But I received no answer. Why? Is silence a sign of courage in polemics?

I asked Trotsky, further, and I ask him again: Is it not true that he repeated the charge of “national narrow-mindedness” against the theory of the building of socialism only quite recently, in September 1926, in his document addressed to the opposition? But I received no answer to this either. Why? Is it not because silence with Trotsky is also a sort of “manoeuvre”? What does all this show?

It shows that Trotsky adheres to his old position of fighting Leninism on the basic question of the building of socialism in our country.

It shows that Trotsky, not having the courage to come out openly against Leninism, is trying to disguise his fight by criticising a non-existent “theory” of Stalin’s.

Let us pass to another “manoeuvrer,” Kamenev. He, apparently, was infected by Trotsky and also began to manoeuvre. But his manoeuvre turned out to be cruder than Trotsky’s. Trotsky tried to accuse Stalin alone, but Kamenev hurled an accusation against the whole

Party, declaring that it, that is, the Party, “replaces the international revolutionary perspective by a nationalreformist perspective.” How do you like that? Our Party, it appears, replaces the international revolutionary perspective by a national-reformist perspective. But since our Party is Lenin’s party, and since in its decisions on the question of the building of socialism it rests wholly and entirely on Lenin’s well-known propositions, it follows that Lenin’s theory of the building of socialism is a national-reformist theory. Lenin a “nationalreformist”—that is the sort of nonsense Kamenev treats us to.

Are there any decisions of our Party on the question of building socialism in our country? Yes, and even very definite decisions. When were those decisions adopted by the Party? They were adopted at the Fourteenth Conference of our Party in April 1925. I am referring to the resolution of the Fourteenth Conference on the work of the E.C.C.I. and socialist construction in our country. Is this resolution a Leninist resolution? Yes, it is, because this can be vouched for by such competent persons as Zinoviev, who made the report at the Fourteenth Conference in defence of this resolution, and Kamenev, who presided at this conference and voted for this resolution.

Why, then, did not Kamenev and Zinoviev try to convict the Party of contradicting itself, of diverging from the resolution of the Fourteenth Conference on the question of building socialism in our country, which resolution, as we know, was adopted unanimously? One would think that nothing could be easier: the Party adopted a special resolution on the question of building socialism in our country and Kamenev and Zinoviev voted for it, and now both of them accuse the Party of national-reformism—why, then, should they not base their argument on so important a Party document as the resolution of the Fourteenth Conference, which deals with the building of socialism in our country, and which is obviously Leninist from beginning to end? Did you notice that the opposition in general, and Kamenev in particular, avoided the Fourteenth Conference resolution as a cat-avoids hot porridge? (Laughter.) Why this fear of the Fourteenth Conference resolution, which was adopted on Zinoviev’s motion and passed with the active assistance of Kamenev? Why are Kamenev and Zinoviev scared of mentioning this resolution even casually? Does not this resolution deal with the building of socialism in our country? And is not the question of the building of socialism the basic question at issue in our discussion?

Then what is the trouble?

It is that Kamenev and Zinoviev, who supported the Fourteenth Conference resolution in 1925, afterwards renounced this resolution, and hence, renounced Leninism, went over to the side of Trotskyism, and are now scared of mentioning this resolution even casually, for fear of being exposed.

What does this resolution say?

Here is a quotation from the resolution:

“Generally, the victory of socialism in one country (not in the sense of final victory) is unquestionably possible.”*

* My italics.—J. St.

And further:

“. . . The existence of two directly opposite social systems gives rise to the constant menace of capitalist blockade, of other forms of economic pressure, of armed intervention, of restoration. Consequently, the only guarantee of the final victory of socialism, i.e., the guarantee against restoration, is a victorious socialist revolution in a number of countries. It by no means follows from this that it is impossible to build a complete socialist society in a backward country like Russia without the ‘state aid’* (Trotsky) of countries more developed technically and economically. An integral part of Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution is the assertion that ‘real progress of a socialist economy in Russia will become possible only after the victory of the proletariat in the major European countries’ (Trotsky, 1922)—an assertion which in the present period condemns the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. to fatalistic passivity. In opposition to such ‘theories,’ Comrade Lenin wrote: ‘Infinitely hackneyed is the argument that they learned by rote during the development of West-European Social-Democracy, namely, that we are not yet ripe for socialism, that, as certain “learned” gentlemen among them express it, the objective economic prerequisites for socialism do not exist in our country’ (Notes on Sukhanov).” (Resolution of the Fourteenth Conference of the R.C.P.(B.) on “The Tasks of the Comintern and the R.C.P.(B.) in Connection with the Enlarged Plenum of the
E.C.C.I.”29)

You see that the Fourteenth Conference resolution is an accurate statement of the basic propositions of Leninism on the question of the possibility of building socialism in our country.

You see that the resolution qualifies Trotskyism as running counter to Leninism, while a number of theses in the resolution are based upon a direct denial of the basic tenets of Trotskyism.

* My italics.—J. St.

You see that the resolution fully reflects the disputes that have now again broken out over the question of the building of a socialist society in our country. You know that my report was based on the guiding propositions of this resolution.

You no doubt remember that in my report I made special mention of the Fourteenth Conference resolution and accused Kamenev and Zinoviev of having violated it, of having departed from this resolution. Why did not Kamenev and Zinoviev try to dispel that accusation?

What is the secret?

The secret is that Kamenev and Zinoviev renounced this resolution long ago and, having renounced it, passed over to Trotskyism.

For either one thing or the other:
either the Fourteenth Conference resolution is not a Leninist resolution—in which case Kamenev and Zinoviev were not Leninists when they voted for it; or the resolution is a Leninist resolution—in which case Kamenev and Zinoviev, having renounced the resolution, have ceased to be Leninists. Some of the speakers here said (Riese was one of them, I think) that Zinoviev and Kamenev had not gone over to Trotskyism, but, on the contrary, Trotsky had gone over to Zinoviev and Kamenev. That is all nonsense, comrades. The fact that Kamenev and Zinoviev have renounced the Fourteenth Conference resolution is direct proof that it is precisely Kamenev and Zinoviev that have gone over to Trotskyism.

And so:

Who has renounced the Leninist line in the question of the building of socialism in the U.S.S.R., as formulated in the resolution of the Fourteenth Conference of the R.C.P.(B.)?

It turns out that Kamenev and Zinoviev have. Who has “replaced the international revolutionary perspective” by Trotskyism?

It turns out that Kamenev and Zinoviev have. If Kamenev now howls and clamours about the “national-reformism” of our Party, it is because he is trying to divert the attention of the comrades from his fall from grace and to blame others for his own sins. This is why Kamenev’s “manoeuvre” about the “national-reformism” of our Party is a trick, an unseemly and crude trick, designed to cover up his renunciation of the Fourteenth Conference resolution, his renunciation of Leninism, his desertion to Trotskyism, by clamouring about “national-reformism” in our Party.

2. We Are Building and Can Completely Build the Economic Basis of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.

I said in my report that the political basis of socialism has already been created in our country—it is the dictatorship of the proletariat. I said that the economic basis of socialism is still far from having been created, and has yet to be created. I said, further, that in consequence of this the question stands as follows: have we the possibility of building the economic basis of socialism in our country by our own efforts? I said, lastly, that if this question is put in class language, it takes the following form: have we the possibility of overcoming our, Soviet, bourgeoisie by our own efforts?

Trotsky asserted in his speech that when I spoke of overcoming the bourgeoisie in the U.S.S.R., I meant overcoming it politically. That, of course, is not true. It is a factional fancy of Trotsky’s. It will be seen from my report that when I spoke of overcoming the bourgeoisie in the U.S.S.R., I meant overcoming it economically, because, politically, it has already been overcome. What does overcoming the bourgeoisie in the U.S.S.R. economically mean? Or in other words: what does creating the economic basis of socialism in the U.S.S.R. mean?

“To create the economic basis of socialism means welding agriculture and socialist industry into one integral economy, subordinating agriculture to the leadership of socialist industry, regulating relations between town and country on the basis of an exchange of the products of agriculture and industry, closing and eliminating all the channels which facilitate the birth of classes and, above all, of capital, and, in the long run, establishing such conditions of production and distribution as will lead directly and immediately to the abolition of classes” (see Stalin’s report at the Seventh Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I.*). That is how I defined in my report the essence of the economic basis of socialism in the U.S.S.R. This definition is an exact formulation of the definition of the “economic essence,” the “economic basis” of socialism given by Lenin in his draft of the pamphlet, The Tax in Kind.30

* See this volume, pp. 23-24.—Ed.

Is this definition correct, and can we count on the possibility of completely building the economic basis of socialism in our country?—that is now the fundamental point of our disagreements.

Trotsky did not even touch upon this question. He simply avoided it, apparently considering that it would be wiser to say nothing about it.

But that we are building, and can completely build, the economic basis of socialism is evident if only from the fact that:
a) our socialised production is large-scale and united production, whereas non-nationalised production in our country is small-scale and dispersed production, and it is known that the superiority of large-scale, and moreover united, production over small-scale production is an indisputable fact;
b) our socialised production is already directing and beginning to bring under its control small-scale production, irrespective whether the latter is urban or rural; c) on the front of the struggle between the socialist elements in our economy and the capitalist elements, the former have undoubted superiority over the latter and are progressing step by step, overcoming the capitalist elements in our economy both in the sphere of production and in the sphere of circulation. I shall not stop to mention other factors which make for the victory of the socialist elements in our economy over the capitalist elements.

What grounds are there for supposing that the process of overcoming the capitalist elements in our economy will not continue in future?

Trotsky said in his speech:

“Stalin says that we are engaged in the building of socialism, that is, are working for the abolition of classes and the state, that is, are overcoming our bourgeoisie. Yes, comrades, but the state needs an army against external enemies” (I quote from the verbatim report.—J. St.). What does this mean? What is the sense of this passage? From this passage, only one conclusion can be drawn: since completely building the economic basis of socialism implies abolition of classes and the state, and since we shall nevertheless need an army for the protection of the socialist homeland, while an army without a state is impossible (so Trotsky thinks), it follows that we cannot completely build the economic basis of socialism until the necessity for armed defence of the socialist homeland has disappeared.

That, comrades, is a mixing up of all concepts. Either what is meant by the state here is simply an apparatus for the armed defence of socialist society—which is absurd, for the state is primarily the weapon of one class against other classes, and it is self-evident that if there are no classes there cannot be a state. Or an army for the defence of socialist society is here considered inconceivable without the existence of a state—which again is absurd, for it is theoretically quite possible to grant the existence of a state of society in which there are no classes and no state, but there is an armed people defending its classless society against external enemies. Sociology provides quite a number of examples of the existence in the course of human history of societies which had no classes and no state, but which defended themselves in one way or another against external enemies. It is similarly possible to conceive a future classless society which, having no classes and no state, may nevertheless have a socialist militia, essential for defence against external enemies. I consider it hardly likely that such a state of things may occur in our country, because there is no reason to doubt that the achievements of socialist construction in our country, and still more the victory of socialism and the abolition of classes, will be facts of such historic significance that they cannot fail to evoke a mighty impulse towards socialism among the proletarians of the capitalist countries, can not fail to evoke revolutionary explosions in other countries. But, theoretically, a state of society is quite conceivable in which there is a socialist militia, but no classes and no state.

Incidentally, this question is to a certain extent dealt with in the programme of our Party. Here is what it says:

“The Red Army, as an instrument of the proletarian dictatorship must necessarily be of a frankly class character, that is, it must be recruited exclusively from the proletariat and the related semi-proletarian strata of the peasantry. Only with the abolition of classes will such a class army be converted into a socialist militia of the whole people”* (see Programme of the C.P.S.U.(B.)31). Trotsky has evidently forgotten this point in our programme.

In his speech Trotsky spoke of the dependence of our national economy on world capitalist economy, and asserted that “from isolated War Communism we are coming more and more to coalescence with world economy.”

* My italics.—J. St.

It follows from this that our national economy, with its struggle between the capitalist and socialist elements, is coalescing with world capitalist economy. I say capitalist world economy because at the present time no other world economy exists.

That is not true, comrades. It is absurd. It is a factional fancy of Trotsky’s. No one denies that there exists a dependence of our national economy on world capitalist economy. No one denies this, or has denied it, just as no one denies that there exists a dependence of every country and every national economy, not excluding the American national economy, on international capitalist economy. But this dependence is mutual. Not only does our economy depend upon the capitalist countries, but the capitalist countries, too, depend upon our economy, upon our oil, our grain, our timber and, lastly, our boundless market. We receive credits, say, from Standard Oil. We receive credits from German capitalists. But we receive them not because of our bright eyes, but because the capitalist countries need our oil, our grain and our market for the disposal of their machinery. It must not be forgotten that our country constitutes one-sixth of the world, that it constitutes a huge market, and the capitalist countries cannot manage without some connection or other with our market. All this means that the capitalist countries depend upon our economy. The dependence is mutual.

Does this mean that the dependence of our national economy on the capitalist countries precludes the possibility of building a socialist economy in our country? Of course not. To depict a socialist economy as something absolutely self-contained and absolutely independent of the surrounding national economies is to talk nonsense. Can it be asserted that a socialist economy will have absolutely no exports or imports, will not import products it does not itself possess, and will not, in consequence of this, export its own products? No, it cannot. And what are exports and imports? They are an expression of the dependence of countries upon other countries. They are an expression of economic interdependence. The same must be said of the capitalist countries of today. You cannot imagine a single country which does not export and import. Take America, the richest country in the world. Can it be said that the present-day capitalist states, Britain or America, say, are absolutely independent countries? No, it cannot. Why? Because they depend on exports and imports, they depend on the raw materials of other countries (America, for instance, depends on rubber and other raw materials), they depend on the markets in which they sell their machinery and other finished goods.

Does this mean that since there are no absolutely independent countries, the independence of individual national economies is thereby precluded? No, it does not. Our country depends upon other countries just as other countries depend upon our national economy; but this does not mean that our country has thereby lost, or will lose, its independence, that it cannot uphold its independence, that it is bound to become a cog in international capitalist economy. A distinction must be drawn between the dependence of some countries on others and the economic independence of these countries. Denying the absolute independence of individual national economic units does not mean, and cannot mean, denying the economic independence of these units.

But Trotsky speaks not only of the dependence of our national economy. He converts this dependence into a coalescence of our economy with capitalist world economy. But what does the coalescence of our national economy with capitalist world economy mean? It means its conversion into an appendage of world capitalism. But is our country an appendage of world capitalism? Of course not! It is nonsense to say so, comrades. It is not talking seriously.

If it were true, we should be quite unable to uphold our socialist industry, our foreign trade monopoly, our nationalised transport system, our nationalised credit system, our planned direction of economy.

If it were true, our socialist industry would already be on the way to degenerating into ordinary capitalist industry.

If it were true, we should have no successes on the front of the struggle of the socialist elements of our economy against the capitalist elements. Trotsky said in his speech: “In reality, we shall always be under the control of world economy.” It follows from this that our national economy will develop under the control of world capitalist economy, because at the present time no other world economy than capitalist world economy exists.

Is that true? No, it is not. That is the dream of the capitalist sharks, but one that will never be realised. What does the control of capitalist world economy mean? In the mouths of the capitalists, control is not an empty word. In the mouths of the capitalists, control is something real.

Capitalist control means first of all financial control. But have not our banks been nationalised, and are they functioning under the direction of European capitalist banks? Financial control means the establishment in our country of branches of big capitalist banks, the formation of what are known as “subsidiary” banks. But are there such banks in our country? Of course not! Not only are there no such banks, but there never will be so long as Soviet power exists.

Capitalist control means control over our industry, the denationalisation of our socialist industry, the denationalisation of our transport system. But is not our industry nationalised and is it not developing precisely as nationalised industry? Does anyone intend to denationalise even a single one of our nationalised enterprises? I don’t know, of course, what they are thinking of in Trotsky’s Chief Concessions Committee. (Laughter.) But that there will be no room for denationalisers in our country so long as Soviet power exists, of that you may be certain. Capitalist control means a free run of our market, it means abolition of the monopoly of foreign trade. I know that the Western capitalists have time and again dashed their heads against the wall, trying to shatter the armour-plate of the foreign trade monopoly. You know that the foreign trade monopoly is the shield and protection of our young socialist industry. But have the capitalists achieved any success in liquidating the foreign trade monopoly? Is it so hard to understand that so long as Soviet power exists, the foreign trade monopoly will continue to live and flourish, in spite of everything?

Capitalist control, lastly, means political control, the destruction of the political independence of our country, the adaptation of its laws to the interests and tastes of international capitalist economy. But is not our country a politically independent country? Are not our laws dictated by the interests of the proletariat and the masses of the working people of our country? Why not cite facts, even one fact, to show that our country is losing its political independence? Let them try to do so. That is how the capitalists understand control, if, of course, we are speaking of real control, and not chattering idly about some imaginary control. If it is real capitalist control of this nature we are discussing—and it is only such control we can discuss, because only wretched scribblers can indulge in idle chatter about imaginary control—I must say that in our country there is no such control, and there never will be so long as our proletariat lives and so long as we have Soviet power. (Applause.)

Trotsky said in his speech:

“The idea is, within the encirclement of the capitalist world economy, to build an isolated socialist state. This can be achieved only if the productive forces of this isolated state will be superior to the productive forces of capitalism; because, looked at from the perspective not of one year or even ten years, but of a half-century or even a century, only such a state, such a new social form can firmly establish itself, whose productive forces prove to be more powerful than the productive forces of the old economic system” (see verbatim report of Trotsky’s speech at the Seventh Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I.).

It follows from this that some fifty or even a hundred years will be needed for the socialist system of economy to prove in practice its superiority over the capitalist system of economy from the standpoint of the development of productive forces.

That is not true, comrades. It is a mixing up of all concepts and perspectives.

It required, I think, about two hundred years, or somewhat less, for the feudal system of economy to prove its superiority over the slave system of economy. And it could not be otherwise, since the rate of development at that time was dreadfully slow, and the technique of production was more than primitive.

It required about a hundred years, or somewhat less, for the bourgeois system of economy to prove its superiority over the feudal system of economy. Already in the depths of feudal society the bourgeois system of economy revealed that it was superior, far superior, to the feudal system of economy. The difference in the periods is to be explained by the faster rate of development and the more highly developed technology of the bourgeois system of economy.

Since then technology has achieved unprecedented successes, and the rate of development has become truly furious. What grounds, then, has Trotsky for assuming that the socialist system of economy will require about a hundred years to prove its superiority over the capitalist system of economy? Is not the fact that our production will be headed not by parasites, but by the producers themselves—is not this a most powerful factor ensuring that the socialist system of economy will have every chance of advancing the economy with giant strides, and of proving its superiority over the capitalist system of economy in a much shorter period?

Does not the fact that socialist economy is the most united and concentrated economy, that socialist economy is conducted on planned lines—does not this fact indicate that socialist economy will have every advantage, and be able in a comparatively short period to prove its superiority over the capitalist system of economy, which is torn by internal contradictions and corroded by crises?

In view of all this, is it not clear that to hold out here a perspective of fifty or a hundred years means to suffer from the superstitious faith of the scared petty bourgeois in the almighty power of the capitalist system of economy? (Voices: “Quite right!”)

And what are the conclusions? There are two conclusions. Firstly. In controverting the possibility of building socialism in our country, Trotsky retreated from his old polemical stand and adopted another. Formerly the opposition based its objections on internal contradictions, on the contradictions between the proletariat and the peasantry, considering these contradictions insuperable. Now Trotsky stresses external contradictions, the contradictions between our national economy and world capitalist economy, considering these contradictions insuperable. Whereas, formerly, Trotsky believed that the stumbling-block of socialist construction in our country is the contradictions between the proletariat and the peasantry, now he has changed front, retreated to another stand from which to criticise the Party’s position, and asserts that the stumbling-block of socialist construction is the contradictions between our system of economy and capitalist world economy. Thereby he has in fact admitted the untenability of the opposition’s old arguments. Secondly. But Trotsky’s retreat is a retreat into the wilderness, into the morass. Trotsky has, in point of fact, retreated to Sukhanov, directly and openly. What, in point of fact, do Trotsky’s “new” arguments amount to? They amount to this: owing to our economic backwardness we are not ripe for socialism, we have not the objective prerequisites for building a socialist economy, and as a result our national economy is being converted, and is bound to be converted, into an appendage of capitalist world economy, into an economic unit controlled by world capitalism. But this is “Sukhanovism,” open and undisguised. The opposition has sunk to the position of the Menshevik Sukhanov, to his attitude of bluntly denying the possibility of the victorious building of socialism in our country.

3. We Are Building Socialism in Alliance with the World Proletariat

That we are building socialism in alliance with the peasantry is something, I think, which our opposition does not venture openly to deny. Whether we are building socialism in alliance with the world proletariat, this the opposition is inclined to doubt. Some of the oppositionists even assert that our Party underestimates the importance of this alliance. And one of them, Kamenev, has even gone so far as to accuse the Party of national-reformism, of replacing the international revolutionary perspective by a national-reformist perspective.

That, comrades, is nonsense. The most arrant nonsense. Only madmen can deny the paramount importance of an alliance of the proletarians of our country with the proletarians of all other countries in the building of socialism. Only madmen can accuse our Party of underestimating the importance of an alliance of the proletarians of all countries. Only in alliance with the world proletariat is it possible to build socialism in our country. The whole point is how this alliance is to be understood. When the proletarians of the U.S.S.R. seized power in October 1917, this was assistance to the proletarians of all countries; it was an alliance with them. When the proletarians of Germany made a revolution in 1918, this was assistance to the proletarians of all countries, especially the proletarians of the U.S.S.R.; it was an alliance with the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. When the proletarians of Western Europe frustrated intervention against the U.S.S.R., refused to transport arms for the counter-revolutionary generals, set up councils of action and undermined the rear of their capitalists, this was assistance to the proletarians of the U.S.S.R.; it was an alliance of the West-European proletarians with the proletarians of the U.S.S.R. Without this sympathy and this support of the proletarians of the capitalist countries, we could not have won the Civil War. When the proletarians of the capitalist countries send a series of delegations to our country, check our constructive work and then spread the news of the successes of our constructive work to all the workers of Europe, this is assistance to the proletarians of the U.S.S.R., it is support of the highest value for the proletarians of the U.S.S.R., it is an alliance with the proletarians of the U.S.S.R., and a curb on possible imperialist intervention in our country. Without this support and without this curb, we should not now be having a “respite,” and without a “respite” there could be no widely developed work on the building of socialism in our country.

When the proletarians of the U.S.S.R. consolidate their dictatorship, put an end to economic disruption, develop constructive work and achieve successes in the building of socialism, this is support of the highest value for the proletarians of all countries, for their struggle against capitalism, their struggle for power; because the existence of the Soviet Republic, its steadfastness, its successes on the front of socialist construction, are factors of the highest value for the world revolution, factors that encourage the proletarians of all countries in their struggle against capitalism. It can scarcely be doubted that the destruction of the Soviet Republic would be followed by the blackest and most savage reaction in all capitalist countries. The strength of our revolution and the strength of the revolutionary movement in the capitalist countries lie in this mutual support and in this alliance of the proletarians of all countries.

Such are the diverse forms of the alliance between the proletarians of the U.S.S.R. and the world proletariat. The error of the opposition consists in the fact that it does not understand or does not recognise these forms of alliance. The trouble of the opposition is that it recognises only one form of alliance, the form of “direct state support” rendered to the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. by the proletarians of Western Europe, i.e., a form which, unfortunately, is not yet being applied; and the opposition makes the fate of socialist construction in the U.S.S.R. directly dependent upon such support being rendered in the future.

The opposition thinks that only by recognising this form of support can the Party retain its “international revolutionary perspective.” But I have already said that if the world revolution should be delayed, this attitude can only lead to endless concessions on our part to the capitalist elements in our economy and, in the long run, to capitulationism, to defeatism.

It therefore follows that “direct state support” from the European proletariat, which the opposition holds out as the only form of alliance with the world proletariat, would, if the world revolution should be delayed, serve as a screen for capitulationism.

Kamenev’s “international revolutionary perspective” as a screen for capitulationism—this, it appears, is where Kamenev is heading for.

One can therefore only wonder at the audacity with which Kamenev spoke here, in accusing our Party of national reformism.

Whence this, to put it mildly, audacity of Kamenev’s, who has never been distinguished either for his revolutionary spirit or his internationalism? Whence this audacity of Kamenev’s, who has always been considered by us a Bolshevik among Mensheviks, and a Menshevik among Bolsheviks? (Laughter.) Whence this audacity of Kamenev’s, whom Lenin at one time with full justification called a “black-leg” of the October Revolution?

Kamenev wants to know whether the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. is internationalist. I must declare that the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. needs no testimonial from a “black-leg” of the October Revolution.

You want to know the extent of the internationalism of the proletariat of the U.S.S.R.? Well, ask the British workers, ask the German workers (stormy applause), ask the Chinese workers—they will tell you about the internationalism of the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. 4. The Question of Degeneration

It may therefore be regarded as demonstrated that the attitude of the opposition is one of direct denial of the possibility of victoriously building socialism in our country.

But denying the possibility of victoriously building socialism leads to the perspective of the degeneration of the Party, and the perspective of degeneration, in its turn, leads to retirement from power and the issue of forming another party.

Trotsky pretended that he could not take this seriously. But that was camouflage. There can be no doubt that, if we cannot build socialism, and the revolution in other countries is delayed, while capital in our country grows, just as the “coalescence” of our national economy with world capitalist economy also grows—then, from the point of view of the opposition, there can be only two alternatives: a) either to remain in power and pursue a bourgeois-democratic policy, to take part in a bourgeois government, hence, to pursue a “Millerandist” policy; b) or to retire from power, so as not to degenerate, and, parallel with the official party, to form a new party—which indeed is what our opposition was striving for and, in point of fact, is continuing to strive for now. The theory of two parties, or the theory of a new party, is the direct result of denying the possibility of victoriously building socialism, the direct result of the perspective of degeneration.

Both these alternatives lead to capitulationism, to defeatism.

How did the question stand in the period of the Civil War? It stood as follows: if we do not succeed in organising an army and repulsing our enemies, the dictatorship of the proletariat will fall and we shall lose power. At that time the war held first place.

How does the question stand now, when the Civil War is over and the tasks of economic construction have come to hold first place? Now the question stands as follows: if we cannot build a socialist economy, then the dictatorship of the proletariat will have to make more and more serious concessions to the bourgeoisie and must degenerate and follow in the wake of bourgeois democracy. Can Communists agree to pursue a bourgeois policy, with the dictatorship of the proletariat in process of degenerating?

No, they cannot, and must not.

Hence the way out: to retire from power and form a new party, having cleared the way for the restoration of capitalism.

Capitulationism as the natural result of the present attitude of the opposition bloc—such is the conclusion.

IV

THE OPPOSITION AND THE QUESTION

OF PARTY UNITY

I pass to the last question, the question of the opposition bloc and the unity of our Party. How was the opposition bloc formed?

The Party affirms that the opposition bloc was formed by the passing over of the “New Opposition,” the passing over of Kamenev and Zinoviev, to Trotskyism. Zinoviev and Kamenev deny this, and hint that it was not they who went over to Trotsky, but Trotsky who came over to them.

Let us turn to the facts.

I have spoken of the Fourteenth Conference resolution on the building of socialism in our country. I said that Kamenev and Zinoviev renounced that resolution, a resolution which Trotsky does not and cannot accept, and renounced it in order to come closer to Trotsky and to go over to Trotskyism. Is that true or not? Yes, it is true. Did Kamenev and Zinoviev try in any way to controvert that assertion? No, they did not. They passed over the question in silence.

We have, further, the resolution of the Thirteenth Conference of our Party which qualifies Trotskyism as a petty-bourgeois deviation and a revision of Leninism.32 This resolution, as you know, was endorsed by the Fifth Congress of the Comintern. I said in my report that Kamenev and Zinoviev had renounced this resolution and, in their special statements, had declared that in its struggle against the Party in 1923 Trotskyism was right. Is that true or not? Yes, it is true. Did Zinoviev and
Kamenev try in any way to controvert that assertion? No, they did not. They passed it over in silence. Here are some more facts. In 1925, Kamenev wrote as follows about Trotskyism:

“Comrade Trotsky has become the channel through which the petty bourgeois elemental forces manifest themselves in our Party. The whole character of his pronouncements and his whole past history prove that this is so. In his fight against the Party he has already become a symbol in the country for everything opposed to our Party.” . . . “We must take every measure to prevent this non-Bolshevik teaching from infecting those sections of our Party which it reckons to capture, namely, our youth, those who will have in the future to take the destiny of the Party into their hands. It must therefore be the immediate task of our Party to adopt every means of explaining the incorrectness of Comrade Trotsky’s position, that it is necessary to choose between Trotskyism and Leninism, that the two cannot be combined”* (see Kamenev, “The Party and Trotskyism,” in the symposium For Leninism, pp. 84-86).

Would Kamenev be bold enough to repeat those words now? If he is prepared to repeat them, why is he now in a bloc with Trotsky? If he does not venture to repeat them, is it not clear that Kamenev has deserted his old position and has gone over to Trotskyism?

In 1925, Zinoviev wrote this about Trotskyism: “Comrade Trotsky’s latest pronouncement (The Lessons of October) is nothing but a fairly open attempt to revise or even directly liquidate the fundamentals of Leninism.* It will not be very long before this becomes clear to our whole Party and the whole International” (see Zinoviev, “Bolshevism or Trotskyism,” in the symposium For Leninism, p. 120).

* My italics.—J. St.

Compare this quotation from Zinoviev with what Kamenev said in his speech—“We are with Trotsky because he does not revise Lenin’s fundamental ideas”— and you will realise the full depth of Kamenev’s and Zinoviev’s fall.

In that same year, 1925, Zinoviev wrote this about Trotsky:

“The question now being decided is, what is the R.C.P. in 1925? In 1903, it was decided by the attitude towards the first paragraph of the Rules, and in 1925 by the attitude towards Trotsky and Trotskyism. Whoever says that Trotskyism may be a ‘legitimate shade’ in the Bolshevik Party, himself ceases to be a Bolshevik. Whoever now wants to build the Party in alliance with Trotsky, in collaboration with that Trotskyism which is openly coming out against Bolshevism, is retreating from the fundamentals of Leninism.* It must be realised that Trotskyism is a stage of the past, that the Leninist party can now be built only in opposition to Trotskyism” (Pravda, February 5, 1925). Would Zinoviev be bold enough to repeat those words now? If he is prepared to repeat them, why is he now in a bloc with Trotsky? If he cannot repeat them, is it not clear that Zinoviev has deserted Leninism and gone over to Trotskyism?

What do all these facts show?

That the opposition bloc was formed by the passing over of Kamenev and Zinoviev to Trotskyism. What is the platform of the opposition bloc? The platform of the opposition bloc is the platform of a Social-Democratic deviation, the platform of a Right-wing deviation in our Party, a platform for gathering together all kinds of opportunist trends for the purpose of organising a fight against the Party, against its unity, against its authority. Kamenev speaks of a Right-wing deviation in our Party, hinting at the Central Committee. But that is a trick, a crude and dishonest trick, designed to screen the opportunism of the opposition bloc by means of loud accusations against the Party. In actual fact, it is the opposition bloc that is the expression of a Right-wing deviation in our Party. We judge the opposition not by its statements, but by its deeds. And the deeds of the opposition show that it is a rallying centre and hotbed for all kinds of opportunist elements, from Ossovsky and the “Workers’ Opposition” to Souvarine and Maslow, Korsch and Ruth Fischer. The restoration of factionalism, the restoration of the theory of freedom of factions in our Party, a rallying of all the opportunist elements in our Party, a fight against the unity of the Party, a fight against its leading cadres, a fight for the formation of a new party—that is what the opposition is now driving for, if we are to judge from Kamenev’s speech. In this respect Kamenev’s speech marks a turning point from the opposition’s “statement” of October 1926 to a resumption of the opposition’s splitting policy.

What is the opposition bloc from the point of view of Party unity?

The opposition bloc is the embryo of a new party within our Party. Is it not a fact that the opposition had its own Central Committee and its own parallel local committees? In its “statement” of October 16, 1926, the opposition gave assurances that it had renounced factionalism. But does not Kamenev’s speech show that it has gone back to the factional struggle? What guarantee is there that the opposition has not already re-established its central and local parallel organisations? Is it not a fact that the opposition collected special membership dues for its treasury? What guarantee is there that it has not resumed this splitting course?

The opposition bloc is the embryo of a new party, undermining the unity of our Party.

The task is to smash this bloc and liquidate it. (Stormy applause.)

Comrades, at a time when imperialism is dominant in other countries, when one country and only one country has succeeded in breaching the front of capital, under such conditions the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot exist for a single moment without a united party armed with iron discipline. Attempts to undermine the Party’s unity, attempts to form a new party, must be rooted out if we want to preserve the dictatorship of the proletariat, if we want to build socialism. The task therefore is to liquidate the opposition bloc and consolidate the unity of our Party.

V

CONCLUSION

I am concluding, comrades.

If we sum up the discussion, we can arrive at one general conclusion that is beyond all doubt, namely, that the Fourteenth Congress of our Party was right when it said that the opposition is infected with disbelief in the strength of our proletariat, disbelief in the possibility of victoriously building socialism in our country. That is the general residual impression and the general conclusion which the comrades cannot have failed to form.

Thus, you have before you two forces. On the one hand, you have our Party, which is confidently leading the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. forward, building socialism and summoning the proletariat of all countries to the struggle. On the other hand, you have the opposition, hobbling along behind our Party like a decrepit old man with rheumatic legs, an aching back and a pain in the head—an opposition that sows pessimism around it and poisons the atmosphere with its twaddle to the effect that nothing will come of socialism in the U.S.S.R., that over there, among the bourgeois, everything is all right, and that over here, among the proletarians, everything is all wrong.

Those, comrades, are the two forces confronting you. It is for you to make your choice between them. (Laughter.)

I have no doubt that you will make the right choice. (Applause.)

The opposition, in its factional blindness, regards our revolution as something devoid of all independent strength, as a sort of gratuitous supplement to the future revolution in the West, which has not yet won victory. That is not the way Comrade Lenin regarded our revolution, the Republic of Soviets. Comrade Lenin regarded the Republic of Soviets as a torch which illumines thepath of the proletarians of all countries. Here is what Comrade Lenin said on this score: “The example of the Soviet Republic will stand before them (that is, the proletarians of all countries.—J. St.) for a long time to come. Our socialist Republic of Soviets will stand secure as a torch of international socialism and as an example to all the labouring masses. Over there—conflict, war, bloodshed, the sacrifice of millions of lives, capitalist exploitation; here—a genuine policy of peace and a socialist Republic of Soviets” (see Vol. XXII, p. 218).

Around this torch two fronts have formed: the front of the enemies of the proletarian dictatorship, who are striving to discredit this torch, to upset and extinguish it, and the front of the friends of the dictatorship of the proletariat, who are striving to hold the torch aloft and to fan its flame.

The task is to hold this torch aloft and to make its existence secure for the sake of the victory of the world revolution.

Comrades, I do not doubt that you will do all you can that the torch may burn bright and illumine the road of all the oppressed and enslaved.

I do not doubt that you will do all you can to fan this torch into full flame, to the terror of the enemies of the proletariat.

I do not doubt that you will do all you can so that similar torches may be lighted in all parts of the world, to the joy of the proletarians of all countries. (Continuous and prolonged applause. All delegates rise and sing the “Internationale,” followed by three cheers.)

---

Notes:

* My italics.—J. St.

* My italics.—J. St.

* My italics.—J. St.

* My italics.—J. St.

* My italics.—J. St.

* My italics.—J. St.