Source: International Press Correspondence Vol 7, No. 2, January 6, 1927, pp. 39-44
Transcription/HTML Markup: Martin Fahlgren
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2007). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
(Comrade Bukharin's appearance in the rostrum was the signal for an outburst of cheering and the singing of the “Internationale”.)
Comrade REMMELE: “Long live the unity of the CPSU!” (repeated applause).
First of all I would like to make a few fleeting remarks concerning the speech of comrade Trotsky.[1] I will analyse the most important questions Comrade Trotsky dealt with in his speech when I will deal with the speech delivered by Comrade Zinoviev. I have in mind that Comrade Trotsky said that Comrade Zinoviev “excellently proved” the falsity, of our views.
First of all a slight formal remark. Comrade Trotsky said from this rostrum that he did not intend to appeal to the International, that all he wanted to do was to defend his “ideas”. But definite political differences of opinion exist over these “ideas”; and the greater part of these disagreements has already been settled by our Party. To defend these “ideas” now means to defend them in spite of the decisions of our Party. Of course, Comrade Trotsky has the formal right to do this, but in the German language, as indeed in all other languages, this is described as an appeal.
With regard to the Fifth Congress. The Fifth Congress invited Comrade Trotsky to speak, but as he did not speak, his silence was condemned, to a more or less degree. The present Plenum, however, did not invite Comrade Trotsky to speak here. Consequently, from the formal point of view the situation is altogether different. Since Comrade Trotsky has referred to the Fifth Congress, it would have been better on his part if he had not remained silent about the resolutions passed at that Congress, particularly on the question of Trotskyism. It is not in the least to the advantage of Comrade Trotsky to refer to the Fifth Congress. The second remark refers to the theory of permanent revolution. Comrade Trotsky here declared that in all the important disagreements between Comrade Lenin and the other comrades, Lenin always proved to be right in principle. This is true. We think that the theory of permanent revolution should be included in the complex of questions in which differences were revealed and in which Lenin proved to be entirely right. But in the speech which Comrade Trotsky delivered today he said that he saw some “gaps” in the theory of permanent revolution. He said that he had not noticed these defects in the theory of permanent revolution before. This is rather vague, to put it mildly. If you speak only of certain “gaps”, certain “defects” in an essentially correct theory, then apparently the theory as a whole remains untouched. The theory is correct says comrade Trotsky. As experience has shown, however, it suffers from certain gaps. But they are only gaps, and nothing more. Comrade Trotsky registers this fact as it were. But I think this admission is far from adequate. Comrade Trotsky, in giving his estimation of this theory as a whole, never declared that it was incorrect. We have never heard such a statement made up till now, and I think we did not hear it made in the speech which Comrade Trotsky delivered today. This is my second remark.
My third remark bears an altogether fleeting character. Comrade Trotsky said here that there was no sense in going over the biographies of certain comrades. But in the very next breath he began to deal with the biographies of Comrade Manuilsky and Comrade Pepper. When Comrade Trotsky, in dealing with the biography of Comrade Pepper, declared that the latter was advocating a Monroe doctrine to be applied to Socialist construction in the USSR, he of course also had in mind other comrades. But if we shall live, as well from the capitalist point of view in the USSR, within the framework of Socialist construction as America lived under the conditions of the Monroe doctrine, it will not be so bad. We shall then, at the proper time, begin to worry about our expansion.
As for his own biograph, his own life and acts, Comrade Trotsky among other things, said that in America he maintained the same line as Comrade Lenin, and that he almost anticipated this line. This is not true and I, so to speak, am a living witness of the very opposite. In America, Comrade Trotsky — and I think he will not deny this — was a strong opponent of the Zimmerwald Left Wing. On many occasions he asked me ironically: have you got a Zimmerwald Left Wing in the North Pole? (Although as is known, America is not the North Pole). This position of Comrade Trotsky is an important line of demarcation. In America Comrade Trotsky was an opponent of the Zimmerwald Left, and now this is described as “conducting a Leninist policy”. This, again, putting it mildly, is “a slight deviation from the truth”, connected with what is certainly not a little boastfulness.
Now I come to the question of unevenness of development. In his speech Comrade Trotsky said that a process of levelling is going on, a growth of world economy, etc. This is an elementary truth, like twice two are four; no one will dispute this. Further, Comrade Trotsky made it appear that Comrade Stalin, in his report, completely, ignored the levelling tendency. This is not true. No one asserted anything of the kind.
As a result of this excessively simple and excessively vulgar approach to this question, Comrade Trotsky, in estimating the State of the USSR arrives at an excessively vulgarised interpretation of the question. His principal thesis in this connection is: the more we will develop, the more we shall be dependent upon world economy. And here he puts a full stop. This is only a half truth, and therefore an untruth. The process of our development in connection with the world market is full of contradictions. On the one hand we become largely dependent on world economy, and on the other hand, although this may sound paradoxical, we become more independent. Our economic base becomes more stable as a result of our utilising our contacts with the capitalist countries abroad. Here there is a dialectical contradiction. We must not look only at one half of the process and completely ignore the other half. This is a wrong method of presenting the questions.
What perspective would we obtain if we took only the half assertion made by Comrade Trotsky concerning the state of the USSR? It would be a perspective of the USSR becoming a component part, an auxiliary of capitalist world economy (a voice “Quite right”), and nothing more. And yet this is a decisive point in Comrade Trotsky's logic. Of course, it is absolutely true that Russia of the past was dependent upon foreign capital. “Twice two are four!” We imported various kinds of machinery — “twice two are four!” We exported grain — “twice two are four!” It was quite jolly to listen to Comrade Trotsky's speech, but it was quite impossible to believe that what he said was serious.
Comrade Trotsky brought forward another argument: he said that we must not stamp underfoot the whole of our economic history. Could a revolutionary say things like this? In October 1917 we “stamped underfoot our economic history” rather zealously (laughter). Where is the sense in a statement like this? It has only one meaning, and that is, that there can be no definite “leaps” in economic development, that there can be no change in the direction development is taking. Of course we cannot entirely “abstract” ourselves from history, for we are proceeding forward with the past as our starting point. But when “we are brought” to an assertion that we “must not stamp underfoot our economic history”, it is a “bit too much”, it is not true, it is a denial of the revolutionary break with the past, it is — going back to the previous stage of history through which we have already passed. Such a method of presenting the question is too vulgar and therefore it is wrong.
Now the last remark concerning Comrade Trotsky's speech, Comrade Trotsky disputed Comrade Stalin's thesis that: the construction of Socialism in our country means “overcoming our own bourgeoisie by our own forces”. In doing so he told us that we have already overcome our bourgeoisie. In this formula of Comrade Trotsky's there is a “slight defect, namely, he has dropped the word “economic”. Comrade Stalin did not speak about politically overcoming, not about overthrowing the bourgeoisie. This we have done, in spite of some resistance put up by certain comrades already in October; it must be said Comrade Trotsky helped us to overthrow them.
To bring forward arguments to prove this would be insipid. Twice two are four! But this is not the point of the argument. The argument is over the economic defeat of the bourgeoisie by our own forces. It means, shall we squeeze out the bourgeoisie from our industry and from our wholesale and retail trade? More than that; it means shall we overcome the permanent growth of capitalist tendencies, which again and again spring up on the basis of peasant petty bourgeois economy? If we fulfil this task, will it not signify the victory of Socialism? What else can it signify? Comrade Trotsky committed a “slight”, a very slight mistake. He left out the word “economic”. And it is just this word that is decisive.
Comrade Stalin is quite right in thus formulating the question of the victorious construction of Socialism in our country. All these are various formulations of one and the same problem. The possibility of constructing Socialism in our country, or, the possibility of overcoming our bourgeoisie by our own forces, or, the possibility of victorious Socialist revolution in our country — they summarise the question of the character of our revolution. I repeat all these are various formulations of one and the same problem. Hence Comrade Stalin was quite right.
Comrade Trotsky made another mistake in his argument. He spoke about the State dying out; he spoke of a situation in which the State has already ceased to exist, as being the fundamental feature of Socialism. But this would not be Socialism, but fully realised Communism. Now I will not talk about such “shades” and “trifles” as the difference between Socialism and Communism, although Comrade Trotsky ought to understand these things a little better.
If, for example, we assume theoretically that we have achieved great successes in the realisation of Socialism, then our State would already be in a moribund stage. If that was the state of .affairs in our country, then, in view of the existence of capitalist States and consequently, the necessity for our having to maintain an army, that army would be an extremely peculiar army, an army without a class basis. The function of this army would be, as it were, to perform a public duty, and not to serve as an instrument of the State. It would be “the armed nation” but not the army of the State.
These are the remarks that I considered it necessary to make in connection with Comrade Trotsky's speech, insofar as he dealt with “his own” theme and did not develop Comrade Zinoviev's theme. But I will deal in detail with the deductions he makes on the questions which are really the 'subject of the debate when' I reply to the speech of Comrade Zinoviev.
I now come to Comrade Zinoviev's speech, and in part to the most important sections of the speech delivered by Comrade Trotsky. This, however, I must again preface by several remarks of a formal character.
Unfortunately, I, like other comrades, was unable to read the stenographic report of Comrade Zinoviev's speech, although all the comrades observed that Comrade Zinoviev read his speech and therefore it must have been prepared. The manuscript, however, was retained, apparently for the purpose of depriving us of the opportunity of studying the contents of that speech and to prepare the reply to it. This is, so to speak, a hypocritical approach to petty affairs. But, similar ambiguity is revealed in approach to much larger questions.
Comrade Zinoviev, and in part also Comrade Trotsky, says that they are not “appealing”. As a matter of fact, this is not true. Here they referred to the decisions made by the Central Committee, but it is stated in black and White that our Central Committee would regard their appearance here as an appeal, although formally the comrades, of course, have a right to came here. Actually, they appeal, but at the same time they “formally” declare: “We are not appealing”. This is not a “proper” way of dealing.
Now with regard to the political aspect of the speeches. Comrade Zinoviev from this rostrum said: “I am not conducting a factional fight.” But what is the actual position? The speeches delivered here at this Plenum imply neither more nor less than the continuation of the factional fight on an international scale. In the introduction to his speech Comrade Zinoviev stated that he cannot refrain from speaking because he has been President of the Communist International for many years and that it would be indecent, so to speak, for him to remain silent. Well, we will let that go as an argument. Comrade Trotsky justifies his coming to speak here on the ground that the question of Trotskyism is an “urgent” question. Comrade Kamenev has also put his name down on the list of speakers. Is it because he has been at the head of the Commissariat for Trade? There are other comrades of the Opposition in reserve. The general outline of the picture is now becoming clear. The comrades, so to speak, have drafted a whole opposition platform. The first part was read here from a manuscript by Comrade Zinoviev. The second part was spoken by Comrade Trotsky, the third part will perhaps be read or perhaps spoken by Comrade Kamenev. Others will “supplement” it. What is the object of all these speeches? There is not the slightest doubt about what the calculations are based upon. Next to the opposition in our Party, the strongest opposition in the Communist International is that in the German Party. This opposition has revealed its complete incapacity for ideological` production. It stands in need of international support. This is quite logical. Without the “state aid” of the opposition of the CPSU (laughter) without this aid the opposition in the German Party is “doomed”, and these representatives of the backward non-Bolshevik, partly petty‑bourgeois strata of the proletariat, would be liquidated. The theory of permanent revolution is triumphant in this point. “For the sake of appearances” the comrades say that they are not carrying on a factional fight, but actually we see preparations being made for new acute factional struggles on a much wider scale. Whether this fight will be successful is another matter, but that such an attempt has been made here, there is not the slightest doubt.
This also is hypocrisy, political hypocrisy. It is a diplomatic move and not a frank political line,
We see the same thing in other spheres. I would say that this is what happens in the discussion of almost every more or less important political question. Always this ambiguity, always this wriggling. Take for example the problem of stabilisation. We have repeatedly pointed out to Comrade Zinoviev that in one of his speeches he simultaneously expressed two different points of view. On the one hand he “admits” relative stabilisation, on the other hand, he “does not admit”. We have repeatedly asked Comrade Zinoviev about this. He has had repeated opportunities to reply to this, but he has not done so. What are we to understand by all this? What's the game? The mending of it is that in paying their tribute to truth the members of the Opposition have to admit partial stabilisation; in posing as “Lefts” they have to deny, it. Subsequently, according to circumstances, Comrade Zinoviev will say: “I have said before that there is no stabilisation.” Or: “I have previously recognised the fact of capitalist stabilisation”; or “We were able properly, to foretell”, etc. All this is very clever, but too transparent. Thus, in this question the Opposition employs political hypocrisy.
Now I will deal with the celebrated question of the construction of socialism in the USSR. Comrade Trotsky in part and Comrade Zinoviev, to a considerably greater degree, are carrying out a definite strategy in this question, as almost in all others. This strategy is to present the question in a different way, not to bring out, the fundamental radical points of difference for discussion, but those points which are outside of the discussion. And, this is done “awfully” cleverly. I consider it any duty to expose this manoeuvre and to show that we approach this task in an absolutely correct manner, that we have firm convictions and a definite line, whereas the opposition is playing an ambiguous game, in this question. I will prove this by a single quotation, and I think I will earn the gratitude of the members of the Plenum. if I will limit myself throughout the whole of my speech, to a single quotation and that quotation from Comrade Zinoviev himself.
In what way is this substitution of one question by another brought about? It is precisely with this we have to deal.
First, all of us without exception recognise the international character of the Russian Revolution, which is a component part of the world revolution. No one in our Party disputes this. Comrade Zinoviev, and in part Comrade Trotsky, ascribe the very opposite views to us. This is their manoeuvre: What has been said above is elementary truth. The postulate which lays it down that our revolution is and must be a component part of the world revolution, is an axiom, like two and two are four. On this question there is absolutely no disagreement. Something entirely alien is ascribed to us. This is a slander on our Party.
Second: we admit the other axiom which says that the final, practical victory of socialism in our country, without the aid of other countries and the world revolution, is impossible. The fundamental antagonism between the USSR and the capitalist countries can be settled only by world revolution. This is an elementary truth. To ascribe an opposite opinion to us means to slander the whole of our Party. For on this question there is not the slightest disagreement between our Party and the Opposition. Why then do they ascribe the opposite to us? In order to divert the attention of the comrades from the fundamental disputed problems to other problems concerning, which there is absolutely no disagreement. The trump card in this game is quotations. Quotations are good things, especially if you quote properly (laughter). This should also be taken note of. Quotations in themselves are excellent things, but unfortunately, quotations are brought forward as proof of things which no one denies.
The Opposition says that Lenin was in favour of linking up our work of construction with the international revolution; that Lenin considered that the final victory of Socialism is impossible without a world revolution, that Lenin’s point of view was an international point of view. All this is excellent, magnificent, and we all associate ourselves entirely with every one of these postulates and with all the quotations from Lenin. The misfortune, however, is that all this has nothing to do with the case. In order to understand what the argument is about it is necessary to make a differential analysis, and in the first place present the question in as clear and distinct a manner as possible.
In order to make the question clear it is necessary to analyse three fundamental questions:
1. Capitalist intervention or war against Soviet Russia.
2. World capitalist economy, world economy and the USSR.
3. The internal difficulties arising in the USSR out of internal contradictions.
I will attempt to analyse the problem in these three cross-sections and you will be convinced that we are right.
I take up the problem from the cross-section: armed struggle, war, intervention. I have said already that there is a fundamental antagonism in principle between us and the capitalist world. Although we are relatively dependent upon foreign capitalist countries, yet, every day we become more and more independent. Socialism will continue to grow day by day in our country. At the same time the antagonisms in principle between us and the capitalist world surrounding us, will become more acute. Our revolution is laying the basis for world revolution, but our state and our economy, insofar as we are administrating them, serve as the crystallising point for the proletarian world revolution.
The world revolution is a process and a rather prolonged process. It is a whole epoch. Of course, I hope, I know that this epoch will be considerably shorter than the epoch of bourgeois revolutions, but it must be borne in mind that the revolution in England took place in the 17th century, the great
French revolution took place at the end of the 18th century. A number of bourgeois revolutions took place later than that quite apart from the growth of capitalism, in certain Mediterranean countries, Italian republics, in Spain, etc. The present revolutionary epoch will be much shorter. But even with an accelerated process of revolution we must not calculate on revolutions taking place in many countries immediately and simultaneously. There are more grounds for assuming that revolution will commence in one country, or in some complex of countries.
Wars and struggles will take place between Socialist countries and capitalist countries. Before Socialism is introduced in Central Africa, for example, prolonged wars will take place between Socialist states and various large-scale capitalist coalitions. The process is developing unevenly. It will take up a whole, great, historical epoch. But history has bluntly put the question: who will triumph in, the end? The world will belong either to us or to the bourgeoisie. This is quite elementary and it signifies that the final victory of socialism is equal to the introduction of socialism in the whole world. Only in this way and in this way alone, can the question be presented. The bourgeoisie will conduct armed warfare against every Soviet State against every proletarian state. What guarantee have we that we shall be able peacefully to construct Socialism in this or that country without the armed intervention of the capitalist states? Of course we have no such guarantee. The idea that proletarian organisations and capitalist states can continue eternally to exist side by side is of course Utopia. Such a state of affairs can only be temporary. This goes without saying. Consequently, our perspective is one of inevitable, armed conflicts between capitalism and ourselves. I declare, categorically, that the final victory of Socialism is the victory of world revolution, or at least the victory of the proletariat in all the decisive centres of capitalist power. We say quite definitely: unless we have world revolution, unless we have the victory of the proletariat in the decisive centres of capitalist states, the final victory of socialism is impossible.
This is the manner in which this question is answered.
Second question — world capitalist economy and the USSR. This is a special question, a question of another order. Are our national economy and our State industry dependent to any degree upon world capitalist economy or not? Of course it is. But along what line does this dependence proceed? First, along the line of exports and imports, i. e. along the line of exchange of commodities. Second, along the line of credit relations, and thirdly, along the line of concessions. These are the three principal lines of dependence upon foreign capitalist countries. Does this affect the internal state of our country? Of course it does. No one will deny this. But the approach to the question must differ somewhat here from the approach in the first instance. Let us see what would happen if the USSR was in a state of complete economic isolation, i.e. in the event of our economy is completely blocked. In my opinion such a complete blockade is impossible without war being conducted against us. But for the sake of argument, let us take the impossible as being practical. Let us assume a case of complete blockade without war. I would like the comrades of the opposition to give us a clear reply to this question: What would happen to us under such conditions? Would we be able to hold out or not? Is our doom inevitable or not? Have we sufficient forces or not? Are the difficulties surmountable in this case or not? Is our doom sealed under these conditions or not? The opposition does not give a clear reply to these questions? And yet they are of vital significance. In my opinion our doom would not be sealed. It would be better if the opposition, from this rostrum, openly gave us a reply to this question. If they did, it would help to clear up the situation. But these comrades waver on this question. In his speech yesterday, Comrade Zinoviev employed the following phrase: “We must always guard against, etc.” Of course we must always “guard against”: this, so to speak, is the principal feature of our Party but even in this there is no need to exaggerate. The perspective of danger, of the situation becoming complicated, of exaggerated difficulties, as drawn by Comrade Zinoviev does not serve as the key to his approach to this question: Is our doom sealed under these conditions or not?
Of course, we shall meet with many difficulties. Undoubtedly the rate of our development will slow down, but I am far from being convinced that even under these conditions the rate of our development will not be more rapid than the rate of development of capitalist countries. Comrade Trotsky only touched upon this problem, but he lost sight of certain circumstances. If there will be no blockade, and if we are not isolated, the rate of our economic development will be still more rapid. In this we are comparing the rates of our development under various conditions. To compare the rate of our development with the rate of development of capitalist countries is another matter. That is why I think that even in the event of a blockade the rate of our development will be more rapid than the rate of development in capitalist states. At all events, this is not excluded, for, we have a Socialist dictatorship, we have planned economy, which the capitalist countries have not got. The relations between town and country are different in our country than they are in capitalist countries.
I am unable to deal with this problem in detail; it is an independent question in itself. However, 1 assert, and I can prove it at any moment, that the inter-relations which are being established here between town and country which relations are new in principle, arise from the more rapid rate of development. Our industrialisation serves as a means, not to ruin, but on the contrary, to fertilise our agriculture. And this circumstance gives rise to absolutely new relations between town and country.
Examining this complex of questions, I must say: We know one Capitalist country where the rate of development is more rapid, and that is America. This is explained by the fact that feudalism was never developed in America, that wages there have been much higher, and that the relations between town and country developed differently than in old Europe. That is why the rate of development there is much more rapid.
In our country, however, we have the Socialist dictatorship; in our country quite different social relations are developing, industrialisation does not ruin but on the contrary, fertilises agriculture, it means not the restriction, but the rapid expansion of the agricultural market; in our country the rate of development will be much more rapid than in capitalist countries. Our agriculture and the new-in-principle-relations existing between town and country represent a trump card in our hands and determine the more rapid development. Of course we shall come up against a number of difficulties. In the event of a blockade we should have to construct our productive apparatus quite differently. It will be difficult for us to overcome the so-called shortage of goods. All this is quite true. Quite a number of social difficulties will arise. With this I agree. But in spite of all this, these difficulties will not be insurmountable. Comrade Zinoviev tried to line my “Abc of Communism” against me. But he misquoted from it. In the “Abc of Communism” three main ideas are developed which we defend even now, namely, 1. The guarantee against war and intervention is international revolution; 2. International revolution will help in our case of economic construction; without it it will be difficult to build, but these difficulties are not insurmountable. 3. Within the country there are the materials for constructing Socialist society.
Comrade Zinoviev reproached me for having forgotten the “Abc of Communism”. I am very glad to return that compliment to Comrade Zinoviev.
One thing more: Comrade Zinoviev comes here and says: what are you doing? You are denying such an important factor like the world market! Marx said that crises in the home market are determined by crises on the world market, etc. etc.
Comrade Zinoviev dares to assert that these words of Marx must be understood literally and applied to the present state of affairs. But things are not so simple. Under no circumstances must this be understood in the absolute sense. Comrade Zinoviev has forgotten about our monopoly of foreign trade. I must remind you that in saying this Marx had in mind as a premise the existence of free competition. As long as Comrade Sokolnikov, who shares the views of Comrade Zinoviev, and who advocates the abolition of our monopoly of foreign trade has not succeeded in destroying this monopoly, the principal premise for Comrade Zinoviev's theory will remain absent. I again emphasise: even with our monopoly of foreign trade we shall still, to a certain extent, be dependent on the world market. Nobody will dispute this. But to place the present state of affairs on the same level with the past epoch of free competition, when there was no dictatorship of the proletariat and no monopoly of foreign trade, means to read Marx like a first-standard schoolboy. Comrade Zinoviev fails to understand the peculiarities of the existing forms, just as he does in the political question, with which he dealt. Comrade Zinoviev quoted from Marx as if to say that revolution in Europe without a revolution in England is a “storm in a tea cup”. Consequently you declare that our revolution, and for example a revolution in Germany is a storm in a tea cup. In that case you are indeed very “orthodox” Marxists. I recall that Marx wrote this in 1849. Many years have passed since then. There is no need to revise Marxism. But what would happen if, instead of analysing a new situation with the aid of the Marxist method, we merely quoted from Marx, as Zinoviev does? Marx said: Revolution on the Continent without England would be a “storm in a tea cup”. Comrade Zinoviev forgot that at that time capitalism was not developed on the Continent of Europe. He forgot that England at that time had the monopoly in the world market, which she has now lost. Comrade Zinoviev forgot that at that time there was no dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia. Comrade Zinoviev forgot that at that time capitalism was advancing, while now it is in a state of decline, etc. All these things are “trifles” to Comrade Zinoviev, and that is why he conies to absolutely wrong conclusions.
Hence, on this question, the question of the relations between world economy on the one hand and the economy of the USSR on the other we may say that even in the event of the most acute conflicts (blockade, isolation) our doom is by no means sealed. Considerable pressure will be brought to bear upon us, which will give rise to considerable difficulties, but these difficulties are not insurmountable. As for a combined war of all capitalists against us, we have no guarantee that we will stand out against them. The disruption of capitalism in other countries will create such guarantees for us for the first time.
The third question, strictly speaking, is the central point of the whole discussion. This question may be formulated as follows: is it possible victoriously to construct socialism under the present conditions within our country or not?: or are we inevitably doomed to destruction owing to our technical and economic backwardness, unless we obtain “the state aid of the Western European proletariat”? Is there anything that cannot be understood in this manner of presenting the question? No! This presentation is perfectly clear. As I formulate it, this is a question of the character of the Russian Revolution, or, to employ Comrade Stalin's formula, it is a question of the possibility of economically overcoming our own bourgeoisie. Can we regard this question as a superfluous one? No! On the eve of the Fourteenth Conference Comrade Kamenev said that we are doomed owing to our technical backwardness. Comrade Smilga also said at the Communist Academy that without the aid of Western European countries we are doomed, because of our technical and economic backwardness. Comrade Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution, which Comrade Trotsky still advocates, also says that owing to our backwardness we are inevitably doomed, unless the world revolution comes to our aid. All this talk includes the talk about building Socialism “in a single street”, in a “single house”, and similar bouquets of questionable odour. These are off shoots of social democratic views. The question arises, have we really the prerequisites for Socialist construction, or not? This gives rise to a question of an objectively material character (the question of the economic foundations of construction and the adequacy or inadequacy of this construction) and also the question of the relations between social classes.
There is a connection between the relations off economic forms and the corresponding relation of classes. Social Democrats openly declare: with the prerequisites that exist in Russia, the weakly developed industry, the numerical preponderance of peasant enterprises in economics, to imagine that it is possible to construct Socialism in that country, means to be anti-Marxian and utopian. Owing to all these causes a Socialist revolution in Russia is impossible. If this revolution should take place, then the objective laws of development, in the opinion of the Social-Democrats would lead to the rise and the consolidation of a new capitalism under the mask of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Is this not the point of view of the Social Democrats? We want our opposition to give a straight reply to this question. Is the victorious construction of socialism in our country possible or not? This is the disputed question. The question is not whether our revolution is a “national” revolution or part of the international revolution. It is quite superfluous to argue about that. Only a non-communist would oppose the interpretation of our revolution as a component part of the international revolution. But to our question we want to have a reply and a clear reply. But our opposition does not give us a clear reply.
But it is precisely the question of the character of our revolution that is of vital significance. The point of view of Lenin on this question is absolutely clear. In his report[2], Comrade Stalin made two quotations from Lenin: the first quotation is the one in which Lenin says that in our country we have “all that is necessary for the construction of complete Socialist society”. Is this not sufficiently clear? In another passage Comrade Lenin says that we are destined to be victorious in the economic struggle if we are not crushed by intervention and war. This is how Comrade Lenin answered the question. The opposition has declared that the question must not be dismembered in this way; that this is “scholasticism”. But if this is scholasticism, comrades of the opposition, then complain to Lenin, who said “if” (if we are not crushed), i. e. who has clearly “dismembered” the question. How can you explain this? Not one of the comrades of the opposition said a single word about this decisive quotation from Lenin.
I know that “magister dixit” — “the teacher said” is not a sufficient argument. Lenin also “made mistakes” as Comrade Trotsky said in order to excuse his own mistakes. But in this case Lenin was absolutely right. There can be no middle position on this question. Are we faced with doom or degeneration in the process of constructing socialism owing to our technical and economic backwardness or not? And if, on the other hand, we on construct Socialism, then please point to the border line beyond which the possibility of constructing Socialism merges into the impossibility. If we have to be pre-requisites, the starting points, a sufficient basis and even certain successes in constructing Socialism, then where is the limit beyond which is “doom”. There is no such limit.
Comrade Zinoviev pointed out here that this question “was not discussed”, etc. etc. This is not true. We discussed this question officially at the Fourteenth Conference and all the comrades, including comrades Zinoviev and Kamenev voted for the resolution that was passed at the Conference which is drafted on our lines.
But these are only the buds, the flowers have yet to come. Permit me to read to you a quotation from the speech delivered by Comrade Zinoviev at the Fourteenth Conference. After reading a quotation from Comrade Lenin, Zinoviev said literally the following?
“It is absolutely clear that Vladimir Ilyich (Lenin) considers the complete construction of Socialism in a country like ours possible even with co-operation alone, if we will be guaranteed against international intervention.” (Stenographic report of the Fourteenth Conference of the CPSU p. 237.)
This is Comrade Zinoviev's formula. The same thing has happened here as took place with the question of stabilisation. Every good leader must be a good prophet and therefore, they foretell all the possible cases, enumerate all the “pros” and all the “cons” all the “semipros” and all the “semi-cons” being perfectly sure beforehand that whatever happens one of the “possibilities” is sure to occur and in a year's time they will say “I rightly foretold what would happen with regard to stabilisation; I was “able to anticipate the line on the question of the possibility of constructing Socialism in a single country, etc.” In this way they make various formulae, each completely contradicting the other, in order to be able to refer to them later on. They try to have it both ways. We have no guarantee that Comrade Zinoviev will not come in a few years' time and say to pus: “I told you so. Look at this quotation from my speech!”
(The Chairman, Kolarov warns Comrade Bukharin that his time will soon be up.)
I will try to finish with this question quickly.
If these, almost Social Democratic theories which are advocated by our Opposition on the question of the construction of Socialism were right, then their theory of our inevitable degeneration is also correct. If we are too weak to construct Socialism and the international revolution will not come in time, we will be compelled to make more and more concessions. First one concession, then another, then a third; more and more we shall be compelled to retreat. But this cannot go on without end. Sooner or later quantity will change into quality. At last the moment of our degeneration will arrive. And it is this that lies at the basis of the theory of our opposition.
Comrade Zinoviev quoted from my book “Attack” on the question of degeneration. Even now I would sign my name to every word of this quotation. But it has nothing at all to do with the question. In that book I deal with altogether different problems besides, and not only with the question of the possibility of our degeneration. I deal with the imminent tendencies of every proletarian revolution, with the dangers with which every revolution in pregnant. But this is not the question we are discussing. It is a most remarkable thing! Comrade Zinoviev comes here and speaks. He is followed by Comrade Trotsky, and perhaps tomorrow Comrade Kamenev will speak, and not one of them says a word about what their position was formerly, This, both from the theoretical and political point of view is dishonest. What about “Thermidor''? Silence. What about the kulak policy? Silence. Divergence between the interests of the masses of the people and the policy of our Party? Silence. And yet we want a clear reply. Comrade Zinoviev tried to pass these questions over in silence at the Fifteenth Conference. We argued with him there. Comrade Zinoviev has probably not forgotten this, Why does he not reply here. Perhaps this is another one of the secret ailments of our Opposition.
We will now go further. What was the strongest argument of the Opposition against the Central Committee of our Party? (I have in mind the autumn of 1925). Then they said the antagonisms are growing incredibly, but the Central Committee of the Party cannot understand this: They said the kulaks in whose hands all the grain stocks are being concentrated, have organised a “grain strike” against us. That was why the grain was coining in so badly. As a matter of fact the situation is as follows: the figures of the amount of grain purchased in October of this year are higher than that of last year. The figures for November exceed that of last year by 50,000.000 poods. On the whole, the grain purchases have increased by 35% over last year, and this undoubtedly is an achievement in this sphere. According to what the Opposition says the very opposite should have taken place. The Opposition falsely declares that we are helping the kulaks to organise a grain strike. But the actual results prove the very opposite. Perhaps they will say that this is due to a miracle. But indeed, is not the “epoch of monopolist capitalism” the epoch of miracles?
And so it is not we who are mistaken, but the opposition. It was the Opposition that wrongly estimated the class forces, the economic forces. It was the Opposition that was mistaken in its calculations, just as it was mistaken in its calculations at the Aviopribor Works. The very foundations of the principial theory of the Opposition have collapsed. In this sphere, the artificial ideology and the principal arguments of the Opposition have been beaten.
Now a few words about “Thermidor”. In this approach to our development there is concealed the embryo of counterrevolutionary ideas. I use a strong expression, but that is the position, and moreover, I cautiously use the term “embryo”. Secondly, the comrades who advocate this theory of course silently ignore the fact that they are revising the principles of the economic doctrines of Marxism. And this again is connected with the question of Socialist construction in our country. A few words about “Thermidor”. Martov used this expression as far back as 1921. But we will forget about all the Martovs in the world. Our Opposition again used this expression, perhaps because Martov is already dead and he must have, to use the pleasing expression, a “successor”.
Let us examine the question closely. Why was Thermidor victorious and had to be victorious during the great French Revolution? Because all the important economic trump cards were in the hands of the big bourgeoisie. The big bourgeoisie represented large scale production, while the Jacobin dictatorship defended the interests of small production. And this contradiction between the great revolutionary political role of the petty-bourgeoisie and its small producer ideals inevitably led to the victory of the big bourgeoisie, owing to the fact that the proletariat at that time was not yet developed and could not come forward as an independent and leading revolutionary force. But what is the position in Russia? Please explain this, you comrades who chatter about “Thermidor”! Please tell me on whose side is the most progressive economic principle. It is absolutely absurd, sheer ignorance to talk about Thermidor in Russia. Only a very elementary acquaintance with the French Revolution and with our history is required to understand that to talk about Thermidor in Russia is absolutely absurd, and that it reveals vulgarity and downright ignorance.
Take the other problem, the problem of the kulak danger: the kulak will overthrow us, etc. Of course, this is a very serious question. I would ask those comrades who reproach us with “revising Marxism” to explain the following to me: large scale industry is in our hands; small islands of middle size production are in the hands of the private capitalists. In the sphere of trade — wholesale trade is in our hands, and in the hands of the private capitalists is only part of the retail trade. Soviet economy, the principal levers — co-operation, the commanding heights, are in our hands. I would like to know, what the starting point is. What theory of political economy do the comrades employ who talk about the frightful probability, almost inevitability of the victory of small scale production over large scale production in our country?
There are other questions concerning which some comrades, for example Comrade Zinoviev, has argued with me about. I have said for example, that if the kulak deposits his savings in our savings bank, it would not represent a danger to us, because we would operate with his money, as we thought fit. But the comrades declare that this is the “growing into” the theory of revisionism. For in this process the kulak, etc. may easily obtain a victory over us. But remember, comrades, the theory of the so-called “Democratisation of capital”, the founder of which is Edward Bernstein; his followers are now preaching from the housetops the ideology of American capitalism. Bernstein said that to the extent that cooks deposit their savings in capitalist banks, or buy stocks with these savings, capital becomes democratic, or in other words, the lower classes will lay their hands upon capital, peacefully seize industry and overcome large capital.
But in Russia large scale industry is in our hands and all the banks are socialised. Large scale industry is in the hands of the proletariat. Please explain to me then, whether or not our Opposition is interpreting the theory of “the democratisation of capital” in its own way. The only difference is that according to their theory, it is not petty folks who are advancing against capital, but that the democratic kulaks, the small traders, will lay their hands upon the large scale industry of the proletariat. But I think that even here victory will be on the side of large-scale production. A concentrated force must inevitably be victorious. The other approach to the questions is dictated by absolutely revisionist premises. The manner in which the Opposition presents the question does not contain an atom of the economic doctrines of Marx. Confidence in our victory lies deep rooted in the doctrines of Marx concerning the superiority of large scale production.” In addition to this, we have the planned management of industry which is unknown to and impossible in the capitalist world. It is upon this that the firm conviction of the correctness of our position is based.
Thus, as far as the theoretical basis of all these theories are concerned, it is not merely a social democratic slip of the tongue; it is thoroughly saturated with the elements of Bernsteinism. We have only to put a mirror to the face of our Opposition and they will see where reel revisionism has its habitation.
I will not say much on the theme of the clanger of our degeneration. The danger of our degeneration to my mind is closely connected with various Manifestations of bureaucracy in our State economic apparatus. But the policy of raising prices would only intensify the state of bureaucracy. Comrade Zinoviev declared that he does not support the raising of prices, but Comrade Piatakov insisted upon this, and he was supported by Comrade Preobrazhensky. They form a bloc. If there are disagreements among them on any question, they ought to come out here and say so openly, for this is one of the most important questions of our economic policy. They do not dare to say this, however. They refuse to understand that a bloc is created with great difficulties.
I will not deal at length with other questions, for example the juggling with quotations from Lenin. Just a few words about that. At the beginning of the war, Lenin wrote for example, that we were on the eve of a bourgeois revolution, and Comrade Zinoviev says that Lenin expressed himself in favour of a democratic republic, and pretends that since then nothing has happened. This is concealed defence of October mistakes committed by Comrades Zinoviev and Kamenev, and nothing else. (a voice: quite right).
If you really think this, then the theory of degeneration coming as a result of the backwardness of the country is neither more nor less than a relapse to these mistakes in a new form.
I am now coming to the end, although I ought to deal with various other problems, for example, attitude towards the peasantry, etc.
Comrade Zinoviev dealt with several specifically Comintern questions. He stated that the “Lefts” were being squeezed out and that the Rights were being treated “tolerantly”. I would like to say a few words about that. Did Comrade Zinoviev agree with the “open letter” to the Germany Party? He said that the “open letter” was one of the best documents ever issued by the Communist International. But did not the “open letter”, of which I was one of the authors, point out that the so-called “uftra-left” deviations in their attitude towards the USSR were a reflection of the bourgeois orientation “towards the West”? At that time, Comrade Zinoviev considered this to be quite correct and that nothing could be more apt.
Now I ask you, has this sharply defined tendency of a Western orientation of the German bourgeoisie increased or diminished? Undoubtedly it has increased. And its reflection? Undoubtedly this has increased also. It is not difficult to understand what follows from this. From this it follows that the so-called ultra-Left deviation, which formerly could be tolerated in our Party has now become intolerable. I have in mind Korsch, and Schwarz and other leaders like them, who formerly were much more “decent” people than they are now. It would be stupid to ignore these changes. The situation is such that we must speak of the grouping of the most powerful forces of capitalism against the USSR. We are convinced that the USSR is the point of crystallisation of all the world proletarian energies. Hence our strong attitude towards ultra-Left deviations. With a clear conscience, we can say: The Korschists and semi-Korschists cannot be tolerated in the proletarian Communist Party for the reason that the “Left” deviation is becoming converted into actual counter revolution (Applause).
With regard to the Right deviations, I ask you: Can we really be charged with being tolerant towards Right deviations? No we cannot. We criticised the Polish Party very sharply, more sharply than did Comrade. Zinoviev. We criticised certain of the mistakes of the British Party, and the British Party has admitted these mistakes. Is it good or bad, that we have succeeded in avoiding a conflict and in convincing these comrades of their errors? Of course it is very good. If Ruth Fischer had admitted her errors sincerely and entirely, we should not have expelled her. But she refused to admit her errors, and refuses to do so now, as also do the so-called ultra-Left leaders in Germany whom we have also expelled. Ruth Fischer and the others continue to conduct their own “line”. They are progressing in the direction of Korsch. This is a fact. We have criticised all the Right deviations and have achieved successes in this sphere. But Comrade Zinoviev's explanations concerning Souvarine, the Right wing renegade, are absolutely unfounded. He said: I “merely” proposed that Souvarine be sent to England or to China. The baby was “only a little one”, still, it was there. Why does not Comrade Zinoviev propose that we send Kautsky to Java? A rebellion is going on in Java. Perhaps Kautsky will be able to correct the mistakes of the Javan Communists. It was proposed to send Souvarine to China! Since when has China become a place of banishment? I have never heard about it. China is confronted with great world revolutionary problems, as we have placed on record here at this Plenum. To China we must send our most revolutionary and most able comrades, who are most loyal to the Comintern. (Applause.) Comrade Zinoviev says: I advised to send Souvarine not to England, but to China. Thank you very much for this proposal. This is how Comrade Zinoviev decrees banishment and scatters favours.
In conclusion, I would like to say the following: The position is such that the Opposition comrades of our Party had the opportunity of speaking here — of course they wished to make a declaration “in connection with Comrade Zinoviev remaining President of the Comintern”. But that was not the point at all. The point was that the Opposition comrades are trying to lay down a well drawn up platform as a basis for the whole opposition, including those who have been expelled. This was precisely the object of Comrade Zinoviev's speech yesterday. We must give our reply to this, and I think the Executive Committee will do so. That reply will be made in the resolution. The Parties have now matured, have become Bolshevised. They do not now weakly hope, but are firmly convinced of the possibility of the revolutionary development of the USSR. They have already become consolidated and they will not tolerate opposition sorties in the Comintern. Comrades, this question must be put bluntly, because only in this way shall we be able to lead the Comintern along the path of revolution.
This is our aim, this is our task, and this task we shall fulfil by maintaining a course for the further development of the revolution right up to the victory of the world proletariat. (Loud Applause.)
[1] Trotsky's Speech at the 7th Enlarged ECCI Plenum.
[2] Stalin’s speech is reproduced in his Works, vol. 9, pp. 3-64: Once More on the Social-Democratic Deviations in Our Party.