Comrades! I shall not reply to individual written questions on individual matters, because my entire concluding speech will in essence be an answer to these questions.

Furthermore, I do not intend to reply to personal attacks and all sorts of sallies of a purely personal character, since I believe that the congress has sufficient materials for verifying the motives and background of these attacks.

Nor shall I touch upon the "cavemen" -- people who assembled somewhere there, near Kislovodsk, and hatched all sorts of combinations concerning the organs of the CC. Well, that is their affair; let them scheme. I would only like to emphasize that Lashevich, who here spoke with aplomb against combinatorial politics, himself turned out to be among the schemers, and in the meeting of "cavemen" near Kislovodsk he played, as it turns out, far from an insignificant role. Well, God be with him. (Laughter.)

Let me get down to business.

1. Sokolnikov and the Dawesification of Our Country

First, individual objections. The first objection is to Sokolnikov. He said in his speech: "When Stalin outlined two general lines, two lines in the construction of our economy, he misled us, because he should have formulated these two lines differently, should have spoken not about the import of equipment but about the import of finished goods." I assert that this statement by Sokolnikov gives him away completely as a supporter of Shanin's theses. I want to say that here Sokolnikov acts essentially as a supporter of the Dawesification of our country. What did I speak about in my report? Did I speak about an export-import plan? Of course not. Everyone knows that we are forced at present to import equipment. But Sokolnikov turns this necessity into a principle, a theory, a development perspective. That is where Sokolnikov's error lies. I spoke in my report about two basic, guiding, general lines for building our national economy. I spoke about this in order to clarify the question of the ways to ensure the independent economic development of our country in the conditions of capitalist encirclement. I spoke in my report about our general line, our perspective, in the sense of transforming our country from an agrarian into an industrial one. What is an agrarian country? An agrarian country is one that exports agricultural products and imports equipment, but does not itself produce this equipment (machinery and the like) or almost does not produce it by its own forces. If we get stuck at that stage of development where we must import equipment and machinery rather than produce them by our own forces, then we cannot be guaranteed against the transformation of our country into an appendage of the capitalist system. That is precisely why we must steer a course toward developing in our country the production of means of production. Can Sokolnikov really not understand this elementary thing? And yet this is all I spoke about in my report.

What does the Dawes Plan require? It requires that Germany pump out money for the purpose of paying reparation payments at the expense of markets that are primarily Soviet, ours. What follows from this? It follows that Germany will supply us with equipment, we shall import it, and we shall export agricultural products. We, that is, our industry, will thus be on a leash to Europe. This is the essence of the Dawes Plan. Concerning this I said in my report that the Dawes Plan, insofar as it touches our country, is built on sand. Why? "Because," I said, "we have absolutely no desire to turn into an agrarian country for any other country, including Germany," for "we ourselves will produce machinery and other means of production." To transform our country from an agrarian into an industrial one, capable of producing the necessary equipment by its own forces -- that is the essence, the foundation of our general line. We must arrange things so that the thoughts and aspirations of our economic managers are directed precisely in this direction, toward transforming our country from a country that imports equipment into a country that produces this equipment. For herein lies the basic guarantee of the economic independence of our country. For herein lies the guarantee that our country will not be turned into an appendage of the capitalist countries. Sokolnikov does not want to understand this simple and obvious thing. They, the authors of the Dawes Plan, would like to limit us to the production of, say, calico, but that is not enough for us, for we want to produce not only calico but also the machines necessary for producing calico. They would like us to limit ourselves to the production of, say, automobiles, but that is not enough for us, for we want to produce not only automobiles but also the machines that produce automobiles. They want to limit us to the production of, say, shoes, but that is not enough for us, for we want to produce not only shoes but also the machines that produce shoes. And so on and so forth.

That is the difference between the two general lines, and that is what Sokolnikov does not want to understand.

To abandon our line means to retreat from the tasks of socialist construction, means to adopt the standpoint of the Dawesification of our country.

2. Kamenev and Our Concessions to the Peasantry

The second objection is to Kamenev. He said that we, by adopting certain decisions at the XIV Party Conference along the lines of economic policy, along the lines of enlivening the Soviets, along the lines of liquidating survivals of war communism, along the lines of clarifying the question of leasing and hired labor -- that we thereby made concessions to the kulak, not to the peasantry, that these are concessions not to the peasantry but to the capitalist elements. Is this correct? I assert that this is incorrect, that this is slander against the party. I assert that a Marxist cannot approach the question this way, that only a liberal can approach the question this way.

What are the concessions that we made at the XIV Party Conference? Do these concessions fit within the framework of NEP or not? They certainly do. Did we perhaps expand NEP at the April conference? Let the opposition answer: did we expand NEP in April or not? If we expanded it, why did they vote for the decisions of the XIV Conference? And is it not well known that we are all against the expansion of NEP? What, then, is the point? The point is that Kamenev has gotten confused, for NEP includes the admittance of trade, capitalism, hired labor, and the decisions of the XIV Conference are an expression of NEP, introduced under Lenin. Did Lenin know that NEP would be utilized in the first instance primarily by capitalists, merchants, kulaks? Of course he knew. But did Lenin say that by introducing NEP we were making concessions to speculators and capitalist elements, not to the peasantry? No, he did not say that, and he could not have said that. On the contrary, he always maintained that, by permitting trade and capitalism and changing the policy in the direction of NEP, we were making concessions to the peasantry for the sake of preserving and strengthening the bond with it, for the peasantry cannot live under the present conditions without commodity circulation, without permitting some revival of capitalism, for we cannot establish the bond now other than through trade, for only in this way can we strengthen the bond and build the foundations of a socialist economy. That is how Lenin approached the question of concessions. That is how we must approach the question of concessions in April 1925.

Allow me to read you Lenin's opinion on this subject. Here is how he substantiates the party's transition to the new policy, the policy of NEP, in his report "On the Tax in Kind" at the meeting of secretaries of cells of Moscow Province:

"I want to dwell on the question of how this policy is reconcilable from the standpoint of communism and how it comes about that the communist Soviet government promotes the development of free trade. Is this a good thing from the standpoint of communism? To answer this question, one must carefully examine those changes that have occurred in peasant economy. At first the situation was such that we saw the onslaught of the entire peasantry against the power of the landlords. Against the landlords, both the poor peasants and the kulaks marched equally, although, of course, with different intentions: the kulaks marched with the aim of taking the land from the landlord and developing their own economy on it. It was then that differences of interests and aspirations between the kulaks and the poor became evident. In Ukraine this clash of interests is visible even now with far greater clarity than with us. The poor could make very little direct use of this transfer of land from the landlords, for they had neither the materials nor the tools for it. And so we see the poor organizing so as not to let the kulaks seize the confiscated lands. Soviet power renders aid to the committees of poor peasants that arose among us and to the 'komnesamozh' in Ukraine. And what was the result? The result was that the predominant element in the village turned out to be the middle peasants... The extremes in the direction of kulak power decreased, the extremes in the direction of destitution decreased, and the majority of the population began to approach the middle-peasant level. If we need to raise the productivity of our peasant economy, then we must reckon, first of all, with the middle peasant. And the Communist Party had to build its policy accordingly... So the change in policy toward the peasantry is explained by the fact that the situation of the peasantry itself has changed. The village has become more middle-peasant, and to raise the productive forces we must reckon with this" (see Vol. XXVI, pp. 304-305; italics everywhere mine -- J. St.).

And further, in the same volume, on p. 247, Lenin draws a general conclusion:

"We must build our state economy to suit the economy of the middle peasant, which we could not remake in three years and will not remake in ten years" (italics everywhere mine -- J. St.).

In other words, we introduced free trade, we permitted the revival of capitalism, we introduced NEP in order to raise the growth of productive forces, increase the quantity of products in the country, strengthen the bond with the peasantry. The bond, the interests of the bond with the peasantry, as the basis of our concessions along the lines of NEP -- that is how Lenin approaches the matter.

Did Lenin know at the time that speculators, capitalists, kulaks would take advantage of NEP, of concessions to the peasantry? Of course he knew. Does this mean that these concessions were, in essence, concessions to the speculator and the kulak? No, it does not. For NEP in general and trade in particular are utilized not only by capitalists and kulaks, but also by state and cooperative organs, for not only capitalists and kulaks trade but also state organs and cooperatives, and state organs and cooperatives, when they learn to trade, will gain the upper hand (are already gaining it!) over private traders, linking our industry with peasant economy.

So what follows from this? It follows that our concessions go mainly along the line of strengthening the bond and for the sake of the bond with the peasantry.

Whoever does not understand this approaches the matter not as a Leninist but as a liberal.

3. Whose Miscalculations?

Third objection -- again to Sokolnikov. He says: "The considerable losses we have suffered on the economic front since the autumn come precisely along the line of overestimating our forces, along the line of overestimating socialist maturity, overestimating the possibility for us, for the state economy, to direct the entire national economy already now."

It turns out that the miscalculations in procurement and foreign trade -- I have in mind the negative trade balance for 1924/25 -- these miscalculations are explained not by an error of our regulatory organs but by an overestimation of the socialist maturity of our economy. And for this, it turns out, Bukharin is to blame, whose "school" specifically cultivates the business of enthusiasm about the socialist maturity of our economy.

Of course, in speeches one "can" carry on as much as one likes, as Sokolnikov often does. But there must be some limit, after all. How can one utter such an incongruity and a direct untruth before the congress? Is Sokolnikov not aware of the special meeting of the Politburo at the beginning of November, where the question of procurement and foreign trade was discussed, where the errors of the regulatory organs were corrected by the Central Committee, by the majority of the Central Committee, which supposedly overestimates our socialist possibilities? How can one say such trifles at the congress? And what does Bukharin's "school," or Bukharin himself, have to do with it? What a way of shifting the blame from a sick head to a healthy one! Doesn't Sokolnikov know that the stenogram of the speeches at the CC meeting on the question of miscalculations was sent to all provincial committees? How can one speak against obvious facts? One "can" go wild in speeches, but one must know the limits.

4. How Sokolnikov Defends the Poor

Fourth objection -- also against Sokolnikov. He declared here that he, as People's Commissar of Finance, does his utmost, you see, to ensure the income-based character of our agricultural tax, but that he is being hindered -- hindered because they will not let him defend the poor and restrain the kulak. This is untrue, comrades. This is slander against the party. The question of formally changing the agricultural tax along the lines of income-based taxation -- I say "formally" because in fact it is already an income tax -- this question was raised at the CC plenum in October of this year, but no one except Sokolnikov supported raising this question at the congress, since the question was not yet prepared for presentation at the congress. At that time Sokolnikov did not insist on his proposal. And now it turns out that Sokolnikov is not averse to using this matter against the CC -- of course, not for the sake of the interests of the poor, but for the sake of the interests of the opposition. Well then, if Sokolnikov speaks here about the poor, allow me to communicate to you one fact revealing the true position of Sokolnikov, this sworn supposed defender of the poor. Not long ago, People's Commissar of Finance of the RSFSR Comrade Milyutin adopted a decision to exempt from the tax below one ruble poor peasant households. From a memorandum by Comrade Milyutin to the CC it is clear that the entire sum of this tax below one ruble -- a tax that irritates the peasantry -- amounts to about 300,000-400,000 rubles throughout the RSFSR, that the expenses for collecting this tax alone will amount to not much less than the sum of the tax itself. What does Sokolnikov, this defender of the poor, do? He goes and overturns this decision of Comrade Milyutin. The CC receives protests from 15 provincial committees on this matter. Sokolnikov persists. It took pressure from the CC for Sokolnikov to abandon his overturning of the completely correct decision of the RSFSR People's Commissariat of Finance not to collect the tax below one ruble. Sokolnikov calls this "defending" the interests of the poor. And such people, bearing such a burden, have the -- well, how should I put it more gently -- the boldness to come out against the CC. Strange, comrades, strange.

5. Ideological Struggle or Slander?

Finally, one more objection. I have in mind an objection to the authors of the "Collection of Materials on Disputed Questions." Yesterday here they distributed secretly, only for congress members, a just-published "Collection of Materials on Disputed Questions." In this collection, among other things, it is stated that I received a delegation of village correspondents in April of this year and expressed sympathy for the idea of restoring private property in land. It turns out that in Bednota similar "impressions" of one of the village correspondents were published, unknown to me, not reviewed by me. I learned about this in October of this year. Even earlier, in April, the Riga Agency, which distinguishes itself from all other agencies by fabricating all the false rumors about our kind, made a similar report to the foreign press, of which our people informed us by telegram from Paris addressed to the People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs, demanding a retraction. I then replied to Comrade Chicherin through my aide, declaring that "if Comrade Chicherin considers it necessary to refute every piece of nonsense and gossip, let him refute it" (see the CC archives).

Is all this known to the authors of this sacrosanct "collection"? Of course it is known. Why, then, do they continue to spread all sorts of nonsense and fabrications? How can they, how can the opposition resort to the methods of the Riga Agency? Have they really sunk to this? (A voice: "Shame!")

Further, knowing the ways of the "cavemen," knowing that they are capable of repeating the methods of the Riga Agency, I sent a retraction to the editorial office of Bednota. To refute such nonsense is laughable, but knowing with whom I was dealing, I sent a retraction all the same. Here it is:

"Letter to the editors of Bednota.

Comrade Editor! I recently learned from comrades that in a sketch of the impressions of one of the village correspondents published in Bednota on April 5, 1925, about a conversation I had with a delegation of village correspondents -- a sketch I did not have the opportunity to read at the time -- it is reported that I allegedly expressed sympathy for the idea of securing land tenure for 40 or more years, for the idea of private property in land, and the like. Although this fantastic report requires no refutation owing to its evident absurdity, nevertheless it may not be superfluous to ask your permission to declare in Bednota that this report represents a most egregious error and must be entirely attributed to the fantasy of its author.

J. Stalin."

Is this letter known to the comrade authors of the "collection"? Undoubtedly it is known. Then why do they continue to spread gossip and fabrications? What kind of method of struggle is this? They say it is an ideological struggle. No, comrades, this is not an ideological struggle. In our Russian language this is simply called slander.

Allow me now to turn to the basic principled questions.

6. On NEP

The question of NEP. I have in mind Comrade Krupskaya and her speech on the question of NEP. She says: "NEP is in essence capitalism, permitted on certain conditions, capitalism held on a leash by the proletarian state"... Is this correct? Both yes and no. That we hold capitalism on a leash and will continue to do so as long as it exists -- that is a fact, that is true. But that NEP is capitalism -- that is nonsense, utter nonsense. NEP is a special policy of the proletarian state, designed to permit capitalism given the presence of the commanding heights in the hands of the proletarian state, designed for the struggle between capitalist and socialist elements, designed for the increasing role of socialist elements at the expense of capitalist elements, designed for the victory of socialist elements over capitalist elements, designed for the abolition of classes, for the building of the foundations of a socialist economy. Whoever does not understand this transitional, dual nature of NEP departs from Leninism. If NEP were capitalism, then NEP Russia, of which Lenin spoke, would be capitalist Russia. But is present-day Russia capitalist and not transitional from capitalism to socialism? Why, then, did Lenin not simply say: "Capitalist Russia will become socialist Russia," but preferred to give a different formula: "Out of NEP Russia will come socialist Russia"? Does the opposition agree with Comrade Krupskaya that NEP is capitalism, or does it not? I think that not a single congress member would agree with Comrade Krupskaya's formula. Comrade Krupskaya (may she forgive me) said utter nonsense about NEP. One cannot come out here defending Lenin against Bukharin with such nonsense.

7. On State Capitalism

This question is connected with Bukharin's error. What did his error consist of? On what questions did Lenin argue with Bukharin? Lenin maintained that the category of state capitalism is compatible with the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Bukharin denied this. He believed -- and the "left" communists together with him, and Safarov among them, believed -- that the category of state capitalism could not be reconciled with the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin was right, of course. Bukharin was wrong. He has acknowledged this error of his. That is what Bukharin's error consists of. But this was in the past. If now, in 1925, in May, he repeats that he has disagreements with Lenin on the question of state capitalism, then I believe this is a simple misunderstanding. Either he must directly renounce this statement, or it is a misunderstanding, because the line he now defends on the question of the nature of state industry is Lenin's line. It is not Lenin who came to Bukharin, but on the contrary, Bukharin who came to Lenin. And that is precisely why we stand for Bukharin. (Applause.)

The basic error of Kamenev and Zinoviev consists in the fact that they examine the question of state capitalism scholastically, not dialectically, outside any connection with the historical situation. Such an approach to the question is alien to the entire spirit of Leninism. How did Lenin pose the question? In 1921, Lenin, knowing that our industry was little developed and the peasantry needed goods, knowing that industry could not be raised all at once, that the workers, owing to the circumstances of the time, were occupied not so much with industry as with making cigarette lighters -- in this situation Lenin considered that the best possibility of all possibilities was to attract foreign capital, to get industry going with its help, to introduce state capitalism in this way, and through it to establish the bond between Soviet power and the countryside. Such a path was at that time unquestionably correct, for there were no other possibilities at the time for satisfying the peasantry, for our industry was lame, transport had stopped or nearly stopped, there was not enough fuel. Did Lenin at that time consider state capitalism as a desirable and admissible predominant form of our economy? Yes, he did. But that was then, in 1921. And now? Can one say now that we have no industry of our own, that transport has stopped, that there is no fuel, and so on? No, one cannot. Can one deny that our industry and trade are already establishing the bond between industry (our industry) and peasant economy directly, by their own forces? No, one cannot. Can one deny that in the area of industry "state capitalism" and "socialism" have already changed roles, for socialist industry has become the dominant one, while the share of concessions and leasing (the former have 50,000 workers, the latter 35,000) is minimal? No, one cannot. Already in 1922 Lenin said that things had not worked out with concessions and leasing.

What follows from this? It follows that since 1921 the situation in our country has changed substantially, that during this time our socialist industry and Soviet-cooperative trade have already become the predominant force, that the bond between town and country has already been learned to be established by our own forces, that the most vivid forms of state capitalism -- concessions and leasing -- have not received serious development during this time, and that to speak now, in 1925, about state capitalism as the predominant form of our economy means to distort the socialist nature of our state industry, means not to understand the entire difference between the past and the present situation, means to approach the question of state capitalism not dialectically but scholastically, metaphysically.

Would you like to hear Sokolnikov? He says in his speech:

"Our foreign trade is conducted as a state-capitalist enterprise... Our domestic trading companies are also state-capitalist enterprises. And I must say, comrades, that the State Bank is likewise a state-capitalist enterprise. Our monetary system? Our monetary system is based on the fact that in the Soviet economy, in the conditions of building socialism, a monetary system has been adopted that is permeated with the principles of capitalist economics."

So says Sokolnikov.

Soon he will get to the point of declaring the People's Commissariat of Finance also state capitalism. Until now I thought, until now we all thought, that Gosbank is a part of the state apparatus. Until now I thought, and we all thought, that our Vneshorg, apart from the state-capitalist institutions surrounding it, is part of the state apparatus, that our state apparatus is the apparatus of a state of the proletarian type. We all thought so until now, for the proletarian power is the sole master of these institutions. And now, according to Sokolnikov, it turns out that these institutions, constituting part of our state apparatus, are state-capitalist. Perhaps our Soviet apparatus also represents state capitalism, and not a proletarian type of state, as Lenin maintained? Why not? Doesn't our Soviet apparatus use "a monetary system permeated with the principles of capitalist economics"? That is the sort of nonsense a person can arrive at.

Allow me first to cite Lenin's opinion on the question of the nature and significance of the State Bank. I would like, comrades, to refer to one passage from a book by Lenin written in 1917. I have in mind the pamphlet "Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?," where he still stood on the point of view of controlling industry (not nationalization) and where, despite this, he considered the State Bank in the hands of the proletarian state to be nine-tenths a socialist apparatus. Here is what he wrote about Gosbank:

"The big banks are the 'state apparatus' that we need for the realization of socialism, and which we take ready-made from capitalism, our task here being merely to lop off what capitalistically mutilates this excellent apparatus, to make it even bigger, even more democratic, even more all-embracing. Quantity will be transformed into quality. A single, biggest of big state bank, with branches in every rural district, in every factory -- this is already nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus. This is country-wide bookkeeping, country-wide accounting of the production and distribution of goods; this is, so to speak, something in the nature of the skeleton of socialist society" (see Vol. XXI, p. 260).

Compare Lenin's words with Sokolnikov's speech, and you will understand where Sokolnikov is heading. I shall not be surprised if he declares the People's Commissariat of Finance to be state capitalism.

What is the matter here? Where do such errors by Sokolnikov come from?

The point is that Sokolnikov does not understand the dual nature of NEP, the dual nature of trade under the present conditions of the struggle between socialist and capitalist elements; he does not understand the dialectics of development in the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat, in the conditions of the transitional period, where the methods and weapons of the bourgeoisie are utilized by socialist elements to overcome and liquidate capitalist elements. The point is not at all that trade and the monetary system are methods of "capitalist economics." The point is that the socialist elements of our economy, in their struggle against capitalist elements, are mastering these methods and weapons of the bourgeoisie to overcome capitalist elements, are successfully using them against capitalism, successfully using them for building the socialist foundation of our economy. The point is, therefore, that, thanks to the dialectics of our development, the functions and purpose of these instruments of the bourgeoisie are changing in principle, radically, changing in favor of socialism, to the detriment of capitalism. Sokolnikov's error consists in the fact that he did not understand the full complexity and contradictoriness of the processes occurring in our economy.

Allow me now to refer to Lenin on the question of the historical character of state capitalism, to cite a quotation on the question of when and why he proposed state capitalism as the main form, what compelled him to do so, and under what specific concrete conditions he proposed it. (A voice: "Please do!")

"We must in no case forget that which we often observe -- the socialist attitude of workers in factories belonging to the state, where the workers themselves gather fuel, raw materials, and products, or when the workers try to distribute correctly the products of industry among the peasantry, deliver them by means of transport. This is socialism. But alongside it there exists small-scale economy, which very often exists independently of it. Why can it exist independently of it? Because large-scale industry has not been restored, because socialist factories can perhaps receive only a tenth of what they should receive; and, insofar as they do not receive it, it remains independent of socialist factories. The frightful devastation of the country, the shortage of fuel, raw materials, and transport leads to the situation that small-scale production exists separately from socialism. And I say: under such conditions, state capitalism -- what is that? -- it will be the unification of small-scale production. Capital unifies small-scale production, capital grows out of small-scale production. In this respect there is nothing to hide from oneself. Of course, freedom of trade means the growth of capitalism; there is no way around this, and whoever tries to evade this and to wave it aside is merely amusing himself with words. If small-scale economy exists, if freedom of exchange exists -- capitalism appears. But is this capitalism frightening to us if we have in our hands the factories, plants, transport, and foreign trade? And so I said then, I shall repeat now, and I consider that it is irrefutable, that this capitalism is not frightening to us. Concessions are such a capitalism" (see Vol. XXVI, p. 306; italics everywhere mine -- J. St.).

That is how Lenin approached the question of state capitalism.

In 1921, when our own industry was almost nonexistent, raw materials were scarce, and transport had stopped, Lenin proposed state capitalism as a means through which he thought to link peasant economy with industry. And this was correct. But does this mean that Lenin considered this path desirable under all conditions? Of course it does not. He went to the bond through state capitalism because we did not have developed socialist industry. Well, and now? Can one say that we now have no developed state industry? Of course one cannot say that. Development has followed a different channel; concessions have hardly taken root, state industry has grown, state trade has grown, cooperatives have grown, and the bond between town and country has begun to be established through socialist industry. We have found ourselves in a better position than we ourselves expected. How can one after this say that state capitalism is the main form of our economy?

The trouble with the opposition is that it does not want to understand these simple things.

8. Zinoviev and the Peasantry

The question of the peasantry. I said in my report, and speakers here asserted, that Zinoviev has a deviation toward underestimating the middle peasant, that he stood definitely, until recently, on the point of view of neutralizing the middle peasantry, and only now, after a struggle within the party, is trying to move over and establish himself on a different point of view, that of a solid alliance with the middle peasant. Is all this true? Allow me to cite certain documents.

In his article "On Bolshevization," Zinoviev wrote this year:

"There are a number of tasks that are completely common to all parties of the Comintern. Such, for example, is... a correct approach to the peasantry. There are three strata among the agricultural population of the entire world that can and must be won by us and become allies of the proletariat (the agricultural proletariat, semi-proletarians -- smallholder peasants, and small peasantry that does not employ hired labor). There is another stratum of the peasantry (middle peasants) that must be, at the very least, neutralized by us" (Pravda, January 18, 1925; italics everywhere mine -- J. St.).

This is how Zinoviev writes about the middle peasant, six years after the VIII Congress of the party, where Lenin rejected the slogan of neutralizing the middle peasant and replaced it with the slogan of a solid alliance with the middle peasant. Bakayev asks what is so terrible about this. And I ask you to compare Zinoviev's article with Lenin's thesis on reliance on the middle peasant and say whether Zinoviev has departed from Lenin's thesis or has not... (An exclamation from the floor: "Other countries are meant, not Russia." Noise.) That does not hold, comrade, for in Zinoviev's article it says "tasks that are completely common to all parties of the Comintern." Do you really deny that our party is also part of the Comintern? It says here plainly: "all parties." (An exclamation from the Leningrad delegation: "In certain moments." General laughter.)

Compare this quotation from Zinoviev's article on neutralization with the quotation from Lenin's speech at the VIII Party Congress about our needing a solid alliance with the middle peasant, and you will understand that there is nothing in common between them.

Characteristically, having read these lines in Zinoviev's article, Comrade Larin, this supporter of a "second revolution" in the countryside, did not delay in joining them. I think that although Comrade Larin recently spoke against Kamenev and Zinoviev, and spoke rather successfully, this does not exclude the fact that we have disagreements with him, and we must here dissociate ourselves from him. Here is how Comrade Larin speaks of this article by Zinoviev:

"The 'correct approach to the peasantry' from the standpoint of the common tasks of all parties of the Comintern was formulated quite correctly by its chairman, Zinoviev" (Larin, Soviet Countryside, p. 80; italics mine -- J. St.).

I see that Comrade Larin protests, declaring that he stipulates in his book his disagreement with Zinoviev, insofar as Zinoviev extends the slogan of neutralization of the middle peasant to Russia as well. This is true -- he does stipulate in his book about this, asserting that neutralization is insufficient for us, that we need to take "a step further" in the direction of "agreement with the middle peasant against the kulak." But here, unfortunately, Comrade Larin mixes in his scheme of a "second revolution" against kulak domination, which we do not share, which brings him closer to Zinoviev, and which compels me to dissociate myself somewhat from him.

As you see, in the document I have cited, Zinoviev speaks directly and definitely in favor of the slogan of neutralization of the middle peasantry, against Lenin, who proclaims the insufficiency of neutralization and the necessity of a solid alliance with the middle peasant.

The next document. Zinoviev in his book "Leninism," citing the following passage from Lenin, dating to 1918: "With the peasantry to the end of the bourgeois-democratic revolution -- with the poorest, proletarian and semi-proletarian part of the peasantry onward to the socialist revolution!" -- draws the following conclusion:

"The basic... problem occupying us now... is illuminated in the cited propositions of Lenin fully and to the end. There is nothing to add here, not a single word to subtract. Here everything is said with Ilyich's parsimony and vividness, concisely and clearly -- so that it begs for a textbook" ("Leninism," p. 60; italics mine -- J. St.).

Such, according to Zinoviev, is the exhaustive characterization of Leninism on the peasant question. With the peasantry in general against the tsar and the landlords -- that is the bourgeois revolution. With the poor against the bourgeoisie -- that is the October Revolution. This is all fine. Two Leninist slogans are given. But what about the third slogan of Lenin -- with the middle peasant against the kulak for socialist construction? Where has this third slogan of Lenin gone? It is not there in Zinoviev. It has disappeared. Although Zinoviev asserts that "there is nothing to add here," if we do not add the third slogan of Lenin about a solid alliance of the proletariat and the poor with the middle peasant, we risk distorting Lenin, as Zinoviev distorts him. Can it be considered accidental that the third slogan of Lenin, which is now the most immediate slogan for us, has disappeared, has been lost in Zinoviev? No, it cannot be considered accidental, for he stands on the point of view of neutralizing the middle peasant. The only difference between the first and second documents is that in the first he spoke out against the slogan of a solid alliance with the middle peasant, while in the second he kept silent about this slogan.

The third document is Zinoviev's article "Philosophy of the Epoch." I am speaking about the original version of this article, without the changes and additions that were subsequently introduced by members of the CC. The characteristic feature of this article is that it, like the second document, completely passes over in silence the question of the middle peasant and, bypassing this vital question, discourses about some indefinite, populist equality without indicating the class nature of this equality. There is the rural poor, there is the kulak, there is the capitalist, there are attacks on Bukharin, there is Socialist-Revolutionary equality, there is Ustryalov, but there is no middle peasant and no cooperative plan of Lenin, although the article is called "Philosophy of the Epoch." When Comrade Molotov sent me this article (I was away at the time), I replied with rude and sharp criticism. Yes, comrades, I am a direct and rude person, that is true, I do not deny it. (Laughter.) I replied with rude criticism, for one cannot tolerate Zinoviev systematically passing over in silence or distorting for a year the most characteristic features of Leninism in the peasant question, the current slogan of our party on an alliance with the main mass of the peasantry. Here is what I replied to Comrade Molotov at that time:

"Zinoviev's article 'Philosophy of the Epoch' represents a distortion of the party line in the spirit of Larin. It talks about the XIV Conference, but the main theme of that conference -- the middle peasantry and cooperatives -- is bypassed. The middle peasantry and the cooperative plan of Lenin have disappeared. This is no accident. To talk after this about 'the struggle for the interpretation' of the decisions of the XIV Conference means to pursue a line toward violating these decisions. To confuse Bukharin with Stolypin, as Zinoviev does, means to slander Bukharin. At this rate one could confuse Lenin too with Stolypin, since Lenin said: 'Trade and learn to trade.' The slogan of equality at the present moment is Socialist-Revolutionary demagogy. There can be no equality so long as classes exist and so long as there is skilled and unskilled labor (see 'The State and Revolution' by Lenin). One must speak not of indefinite equality, but of the abolition of classes, of socialism. To call our revolution 'non-classical' means to slide down to Menshevism. The article must be fundamentally reworked, in my view, so that it does not bear the character of a platform for the XIV Congress.

September 12, 1925.

J. Stalin."

I am prepared to defend all this even now. Every word, every sentence.

One cannot speak of equality in a major guiding article without giving a strict definition of what equality is meant -- equality of peasants with the working class, equality within the peasantry, equality within the working class between skilled and unskilled, or equality in the sense of the abolition of classes. One cannot pass over in silence in a guiding article the current slogans of the party on work in the countryside. One cannot play with the phrase about equality, for this is playing with fire, just as one cannot play with the phrase about Leninism, passing over in silence the current slogan of Leninism in the question of the peasantry.

Such are the three documents: Zinoviev's article (January 1925) for the neutralization of the middle peasant, Zinoviev's book "Leninism" (September 1925), which passes over in silence the third slogan of Lenin about the middle peasant, and Zinoviev's new article "Philosophy of the Epoch" (September 1925), which passes over in silence the middle peasant and the cooperative plan of Lenin.

Is this constant vacillation of Zinoviev on the peasant question accidental?

You see that it is not accidental.

Recently, in his report on the CC's account in Leningrad, Zinoviev finally decided to speak out for the slogan of a solid alliance with the middle peasant. This after a struggle, after frictions, after clashes in the CC. This is very good. But I am not sure that he will not renounce this later. For, as the facts show, Zinoviev never suffered from that firmness of line on the peasant question that we need. (Applause.)

Here are several facts from the area of Zinoviev's vacillations on the peasant question. In 1924, Zinoviev advocated at a CC plenum a "peasant" policy of organizing non-party peasant fractions at the center and in the localities with a weekly newspaper. This proposal was rejected owing to objections in the CC. A little before this, Zinoviev even boasted that he had a "peasant deviation." Here is what he said, for example, at the XII Party Congress: "When they tell me: you have a 'deviation,' you are deviating toward the peasantry -- I answer: yes, we must not only 'deviate' toward the peasantry and its economic needs, but we must bow and, if necessary, prostrate ourselves before the economic needs of that peasant who follows our proletariat." You hear: "deviate," "bow," "prostrate." (Laughter, applause.) Then, when things improved with the peasantry, when our position improved in the countryside, Zinoviev made a "turn" away from enthusiasm, taking the middle peasant under suspicion and proclaiming the slogan of neutralization. Some time later he made another "turn," demanding in essence a revision of the decisions of the XIV Conference ("Philosophy of the Epoch"), and, accusing nearly the entire CC of a peasant deviation, began to "deviate" more resolutely against the middle peasant. Finally, for the XIV Party Congress he makes yet another "turn," now in the direction of an alliance with the middle peasant, and may even begin to boast again that he is once more ready to "prostrate" himself before the peasantry.

What guarantee is there that Zinoviev won't wobble once more?

But this is pitching, comrades, not politics. (Laughter, applause.) This is hysteria, not politics. (Exclamations: "Right!")

They say there is no need to pay special attention to the struggle against the second deviation. This is incorrect. If we have two deviations -- the Bogushevsky deviation and the Zinoviev deviation -- then you must understand that Bogushevsky is no comparison with Zinoviev. Bogushevsky is a finished man. (Laughter.) Bogushevsky has no press organ of his own. But the deviation in the direction of neutralization of the middle peasant, the deviation against a solid alliance with the middle peasant, the Zinoviev deviation, has its own organ and to this day continues to fight against the CC. This organ is called Leningradskaya Pravda. For what is the term "middle-peasant Bolshevism" recently concocted in Leningrad, about which Leningradskaya Pravda speaks so breathlessly, if not an indicator that this newspaper has departed from Leninism on the peasant question? Is it not clear, even from this one circumstance alone, that the struggle against the second deviation is more difficult than the struggle against the first deviation, the Bogushevsky deviation? That is why, having before us such a representative of the second deviation, or such a defender and patron of the second deviation, as Leningradskaya Pravda, we must take all measures to ensure that the party is especially prepared for the struggle against this deviation, which is strong, which is complex, and against which fire must be concentrated. That is why this second deviation must be the object of special attention of our party. (Voices: "Right!" Applause.)

9. On the History of the Disagreements

Allow me now to turn to the history of our internal struggle within the majority of the Central Committee. How did our falling-out begin? It began with the question: "What to do with Trotsky?" This was at the end of 1924. A group of Leningraders initially proposed Trotsky's expulsion from the party. I have in mind here the period of the 1924 discussion. The Leningrad provincial committee passed a resolution on Trotsky's expulsion from the party. We, that is, the majority of the CC, did not agree with this (voices: "Right!"), had some struggle with the Leningraders, and persuaded them to strike the point about expulsion from their resolution. Some time after this, when our CC plenum met and the Leningraders together with Kamenev demanded the immediate removal of Trotsky from the Politburo, we did not agree with this proposal of the opposition either, obtained a majority in the CC, and limited ourselves to removing Trotsky from the post of People's Commissar of War. We did not agree with Zinoviev and Kamenev because we knew that the policy of lopping off is fraught with great dangers for the party, that the method of lopping off, the method of bloodletting -- and they demanded blood -- is dangerous and contagious: today you lop off one person, tomorrow another, the day after tomorrow a third -- and what will be left of the party? (Applause.)

In this first clash within the majority of the CC, the basic difference between us on questions of organizational policy in the party became apparent.

The second question that gave rise to disagreements among us was the question connected with Sarkis's attack on Bukharin. This was at the XXI Leningrad Conference in January 1925. Sarkis came out then with an accusation of Bukharin of syndicalism. Here are his words:

"We read in the Moscow Pravda Bukharin's article on worker and village correspondents. Such views as Bukharin develops have no supporters in our organization. But such views, one might say, views of a kind of syndicalism, non-Bolshevik, anti-party views, exist among a number of even responsible comrades (I repeat, not in the Leningrad but in other organizations). These views speak about the independence and extraterritoriality of various mass worker-peasant public organizations from the Communist Party" (Stenographic Report of the XXI Leningrad Conference).

This speech was, first, a principled error by Sarkis, for Bukharin was absolutely right on the question of the worker-and-village-correspondent movement; second, there was permitted here, not without encouragement from the leaders of the Leningrad organization, a most gross violation of the elementary rules of comradely discussion of a question. Needless to say, this circumstance could not but worsen relations within the CC. The matter ended with an open acknowledgment in the press by Sarkis of his error.

This incident showed that an open acknowledgment of one's error is the best way to avoid an open discussion and to overcome disagreements internally.

The third question is the question of the Leningrad Komsomol. Members of provincial committees are sitting here, and they probably remember that the Politburo had a corresponding decision regarding the Leningrad provincial Komsomol committee, which tried to convene in Leningrad a virtually all-Russian Komsomol conference without the knowledge and consent of the CC of the Youth League. You are acquainted with the decision of the CC of the RCP(b). We could not permit that alongside the Central Committee of the Komsomol there existed yet another center, competing with it and counterposing itself to it. We, as Bolsheviks, could not permit dual centers. That is why the CC considered it necessary to take measures to refresh the CC of the Youth League, which had permitted this separatism, and to remove Safarov from the post of head of the Leningrad provincial Komsomol committee.

This incident showed that the Leningrad comrades have a tendency to turn their Leningrad organization into a center of struggle against the CC.

The fourth question is the question raised by Zinoviev about organizing in Leningrad a special journal under the name "Bolshevik," with an editorial board consisting of Zinoviev, Safarov, Vardin, Sarkis, and Tarkhanov. We did not agree with this, declaring that such a journal, parallel to the Moscow Bolshevik, would inevitably turn into an organ of a group, into a factional organ of the opposition, that such a step was dangerous and would undermine party unity. In other words, we forbade the journal's publication. Now they want to frighten us with the word "prohibition." But this is trifling, comrades. We are not liberals. For us, the interests of the party stand above formal democracy. Yes, we forbade the publication of a factional organ, and such things we shall continue to forbid. (Voices: "Right! Clear!" Stormy applause.)

This incident showed that the Leningrad leadership wants to set itself apart as a separate grouping.

Further, the question of Bukharin. I have in mind the slogan "enrich yourselves." I have in mind Bukharin's April speech, when the words "enrich yourselves" escaped him. Two days later the April conference of our party opened. It was none other than I who, in the presidium of the conference, in the presence of Sokolnikov, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Kalinin, declared that the slogan "enrich yourselves" is not our slogan. I do not recall that Bukharin objected to this protest. When Comrade Larin requested the floor at the conference, I believe against Bukharin, it was none other than Zinoviev who then demanded that the speech against Bukharin not be permitted. However, after this Comrade Krupskaya sends in an article against Bukharin, demanding its publication. Bukharin, naturally, does not remain in debt and in his turn writes an article against Comrade Krupskaya. The majority of the CC decides not to publish either discussion article, not to open a discussion, and to propose that Bukharin declare in the press the erroneousness of the slogan "enrich yourselves," which he agrees to and which he later does, after returning from leave, in his article against Ustryalov. Now Kamenev and Zinoviev are trying to frighten certain people with the bugbear of "prohibition," indignant in a liberal fashion that we prohibited the printing of Comrade Krupskaya's article. You will frighten no one with this. First, we refused to print not only Comrade Krupskaya's article but also Bukharin's. Second, why shouldn't we prohibit the printing of Comrade Krupskaya's article if the interests of party unity demand it? And how, actually, does Comrade Krupskaya differ from every other responsible comrade? Do you really think that the interests of individual comrades should be placed above the interests of the party and its unity? Is it not known to the comrades of the opposition that for us Bolsheviks, formal democracy is an empty shell, while the real interests of the party are everything? (Applause.)

Let the comrades point to even one article in the Central Organ of the party, in Pravda, that directly or indirectly justified the slogan "enrich yourselves." They will not point to one, for no such articles exist in nature. There was one case, a single case, when Stetsky wrote an article in Komsomolskaya Pravda where he tried to justify the slogan "enrich yourselves" in a soft, barely noticeable form. And what happened? The very next day after this, the Secretariat of the CC called the editorial board of that newspaper to order in a special letter signed by Molotov, Andreyev, and Stalin. This was on June 2, 1925. And a few days later the Orgburo of the CC resolved, with the full agreement of Bukharin, to prearrange the removal of the editor of that newspaper. Here is an excerpt from that letter:

"City of Moscow. June 2, 1925. To all members of the editorial board of Komsomolskaya Pravda.

We consider that certain passages in Stetsky's articles 'A New Stage of the New Economic Policy' give rise to doubts. In these articles, admittedly in a mild form, the slogan 'enrich yourselves' is put forward. This slogan is not ours, it is incorrect, it gives rise to a whole number of doubts and misunderstandings, and there should be no place for it in a lead article in Komsomolskaya Pravda. Our slogan is socialist accumulation. We are removing administrative barriers standing in the way of raising the welfare of the countryside. This operation undoubtedly facilitates every kind of accumulation, both private-capitalist and socialist. But the party has never said that it makes its slogan private accumulation"...

Are all these facts known to the opposition? Of course they are known. Why, then, do they not cease their persecution of Bukharin? How long will they go on shouting about Bukharin's error?

I know the errors of certain comrades -- for example, in October 1917 -- in comparison with which Bukharin's error is not even worth attention. These comrades not only erred at that time but had the "boldness" to violate twice the most important resolution of the CC, adopted under the leadership and in the presence of Lenin. And yet the party forgot about these errors as soon as these comrades acknowledged their errors. But Bukharin committed, compared with these comrades, an insignificant error. And he has not violated a single resolution of the CC. How can one explain that, despite this, the unbridled persecution of Bukharin still continues? What, actually, do they want from Bukharin?

So stands the matter with the question of Bukharin's error.

Further, the question of Zinoviev's article "Philosophy of the Epoch" and of Kamenev's report at the meeting of the Moscow plenum in the autumn of this year, at the end of summer -- a question that also sharpened our inner-party relations. I have already spoken about this in my speech and shall not repeat myself. At issue at that time were the "Philosophy of the Epoch," the errors of that article, how we corrected those errors, the errors of Kamenev in connection with the grain and forage balance of the Central Statistical Administration, how Kamenev took on faith the figures of the Central Statistical Administration about 61% of marketable surpluses being in the upper groups of the peasantry, and how he then, under pressure from our comrades, had to correct his error in a special statement to the Council of Labor and Defense, published in the newspapers, to the effect that more than half the surpluses are in the hands of the middle peasants. All this, undoubtedly, sharpened our relations.

Subsequently, the questions connected with the October plenum -- new complications, where the opposition demanded an open discussion, where the question of Zalutsky's so-called "Thermidor" came up, and at the end of all this -- the Leningrad Conference, which from the very first day opened fire against the CC. I have in mind the speeches of Safarov, Sarkis, Shelavin, and others. I have in mind Zinoviev's speech, one of his last speeches at the closing of the conference, where he called upon the conference to wage war against the Muscovites, proposing to elect a delegation of people ready for a struggle against the CC. That is how things stood. It was precisely for this reason that the worker-Bolsheviks Komarov and Lobov did not get into the Leningrad delegation (they did not accept the platform of struggle against the CC). They were replaced in the delegation by Gordon and Tarkhanov. Put on one side of the scales Gordon and Tarkhanov, on the other Komarov and Lobov, and any impartial person will say that the former do not stand comparison with the latter. (Applause.) And what is the fault of Lobov and Komarov? The entire fault of Komarov and Lobov consists in the fact that they did not want to go against the CC. That is their entire fault. Why, just a month ago the Leningraders proposed Komarov as first secretary of their organization. That was how it was. Is that so or not? (Voices from the Leningrad delegation: "That's right, that's right.") What then could have happened to Komarov in a month? (Bukharin: "He degenerated in a month.") What could have happened in a month, that CC member Komarov, whom you yourselves proposed as first secretary of your organization, was thrown out of the secretariat of the Leningrad Committee and you did not consider it possible to elect him as one of the delegates to the congress? (A voice from the Leningraders: "He insulted the conference." A voice: "That's a lie, Naumov!" Noise.)

10. The Platform of the Opposition

And now let us turn to the platform of Zinoviev and Kamenev, Sokolnikov and Lashevich. It is time to talk about the platform of the opposition. It is rather original. We have heard many diverse speeches from the side of the opposition. Kamenev said one thing, pulled in one direction; Zinoviev said another, pulled in another direction; Lashevich a third, Sokolnikov a fourth. But despite the diversity, they all converged on one thing. What did they converge on? What, then, is their platform? Their platform is the reform of the CC Secretariat. The only thing in common that fully unites them is the question of the Secretariat. This is strange and funny, but it is a fact.

This question has its history. In 1923, after the XII Congress, people who gathered in the "cave" (laughter) worked out a platform calling for the abolition of the Politburo and the politicization of the Secretariat, that is, the transformation of the Secretariat into a political and organizational leading body consisting of Zinoviev, Trotsky, and Stalin. What is the meaning of this platform? What does it mean? It means governing the party without Kalinin, without Molotov. Nothing came of this platform, not only because it was at that time unprincipled, but also because without the comrades I have mentioned it is impossible to govern the party at the present moment. To the question posed to me in written form from the depths of Kislovodsk, I replied in the negative, declaring that if the comrades insisted, I was ready to vacate my place without fuss, without a discussion, whether open or secret, and without demanding guarantees of the rights of the minority. (Laughter.)

That was, so to speak, the first stage.

And now we have come, it turns out, to the second stage, the opposite of the first. Now they demand not the politicization but the technicization of the Secretariat, not the abolition of the Politburo but its full authority.

Well, if the transformation of the Secretariat into a mere technical apparatus is a real convenience for Kamenev, perhaps one should agree to it. I only fear that the party will not agree. (A voice: "Right!") Whether a technical Secretariat will be able to prepare those questions that it must prepare both for the Orgburo and for the Politburo, I have my doubts.

But when they speak of a fully empowered Politburo, such a platform deserves to be given to the hens to laugh at. Is the Politburo not fully empowered? Are the Secretariat and the Orgburo not subordinate to the Politburo? And the CC plenum? Why does our opposition say nothing about the CC plenum? Does it think of making the Politburo more empowered than the plenum?

No, the opposition is decidedly unlucky with its platform or platforms on the Secretariat.

11. Their "Peacefulness"

What next, you ask, what steps should be taken to find a way out of the present situation? This question has occupied us all along, both during and before the congress. We need the unity of party ranks -- that is now the crux of the question. The opposition likes to talk about difficulties. But there is one difficulty that is more dangerous than all the rest, and it has been created for us by the opposition -- the danger of discord and disorganization of the party. (Applause.) We must, first of all, overcome this difficulty. We had this in mind when, two days before the congress, we approached the opposition with compromise conditions of agreement, calculated on a possible reconciliation. Here is the text of this appeal:

"The undersigned members of the CC believe that the preparation for the party congress has been conducted by a number of leading comrades of the Leningrad organization at variance with the line of the CC of the party and against the supporters of this line in Leningrad. The undersigned members of the CC consider the resolution of the Moscow Conference to be completely correct both in substance and in form, and believe that the CC is obliged to rebuff any and all tendencies that go against the party line and disorganize the party.

However, in the interests of party unity, of peace within the party, and of preventing the possible danger of the estrangement of the Leningrad organization, one of the best organizations of the RCP, from the CC of the party -- the undersigned consider it possible -- provided the congress consolidates a clear and definite political line of the CC -- to make a number of concessions. In view of this, we submit the following proposals:

1. In drafting the resolution on the CC's report, to take as a basis the resolution of the Moscow Conference, softening individual formulations.

2. To recognize as inexpedient, in the interests of unity, the printing of the letter of the Leningrad Conference and the reply of the MC to that letter, both in the newspapers and in the bulletins.

3. That members of the Politburo... not speak against one another at the congress.

4. That speeches at the congress dissociate from Sarkis (on regulating the composition of the party) and Safarov (on state capitalism).

5. That the mistake regarding Komarov, Lobov, and Moskvin be corrected organizationally.

6. That the CC's decision to include a Leningrader in the CC Secretariat be implemented immediately after the congress.

7. That, for the purpose of strengthening ties with the Central Organ, one worker from Leningrad be included on the editorial board of the Central Organ.

8. That, in view of the weakness of the editor of Leningradskaya Pravda (Gladnev), his replacement by a stronger comrade be recognized as necessary, by agreement with the CC.

Kalinin, Stalin, Molotov, Dzerzhinsky, and others.

December 15, 1925."

That is the compromise we proposed, comrades.

But the opposition did not go along with the agreement. It preferred an open and cruel struggle at the congress to peace. Such is the "peacefulness" of the opposition.

12. The Party Will Achieve Unity

In the main, we still remain on the standpoint of this document. In our draft resolution we have, as you know, already softened certain formulations in the interests of peace in the party.

We are against lopping off. We are against the policy of lopping off. This does not mean that the leaders will be permitted with impunity to put on airs and sit on the party's head. Oh no, excuse me. There will be no bowing down to leaders. (Exclamations: "Right!" Applause.) We are for unity, we are against lopping off. The policy of lopping off is alien to us. The party wants unity, and it will achieve it together with Kamenev and Zinoviev if they wish it, without them if they do not wish it. (Exclamations: "Right!" Applause.)

And what does unity require? That the minority submit to the majority. Without this there has not been and cannot be any party unity.

We are against a special discussion bulletin. Bolshevik has a discussion section. That will be quite sufficient. One cannot get carried away with discussion. We are a party governing a country -- do not forget this. Do not forget that every quarrel at the top reverberates in the country as a minus for us. I need not even speak about abroad.

The organs of the CC will presumably remain in the form in which they exist. The party will hardly agree to break them up. (Exclamations: "Right!" Applause.) The Politburo is fully empowered as it is; it stands above all organs of the CC except the plenum. And the supreme organ is the plenum, which is sometimes forgotten. The plenum decides everything for us, and it calls its leaders to order when they begin to lose their equilibrium. (Exclamations: "Right!" Laughter. Applause.)

Unity we must have, and it will be had, if the party, if the congress shows character and does not yield to intimidation. (Voices: "We won't yield, the people here are battle-hardened.") If any of us gets out of line, we will be called to order -- that is necessary, that is needed. To lead the party outside a collective is impossible. It is foolish to dream of this after Ilyich (applause), foolish to talk about it.

Collective work, collective leadership, unity in the party, unity in the organs of the CC on the condition that the minority submits to the majority -- that is what we need now.

As for the Leningrad worker-communists, I do not doubt that they will always be in the front ranks of our party. Together with them we built the party, together with them we carried it through, together with them we raised the banner of insurrection in October 1917, together with them we vanquished the bourgeoisie, together with them we fought and will fight the difficulties on the path of our construction. I do not doubt that the Leningrad worker-communists will not fall behind their friends in other industrial centers in the struggle for the iron Leninist unity of the party. (Stormy applause. The "Internationale.")

Pravda No. 296, December 29, 1925.