Source: Tom 17

December 13, 1926

I. Preliminary Remarks

1. We Need Facts, Not Fabrications and Gossip

Comrades! Before proceeding to the substance of the matter, allow me to make some factual corrections to the statements of the opposition — statements that either distort the facts or represent fabrications and gossip.

1) The first question is the question of the opposition's speeches at the enlarged ECCI Plenum. The opposition declared that it decided to speak because the CC of the VKP(b) did not give a direct indication that the opposition's speaking could violate the opposition's "statement" of October 16, 1926, that if the CC had forbidden them to speak, the leaders of the opposition would not have dared to speak.

The opposition further declared that, speaking here at the enlarged Plenum, it would take all measures so as not to sharpen the struggle, that it would confine itself to simple "explanations," that it was not thinking, God forbid, of going on the attack against the Party, that it had no intention whatsoever, God forbid, of putting forward any accusations against the Party and appealing against its decisions.

All this is untrue, comrades. This completely fails to correspond to reality. This is hypocrisy on the part of the opposition. The facts have shown, and especially Kamenev's speech has shown, that the speeches of the opposition leaders at the enlarged Plenum were not "explanations" but an attack against the Party, an assault on the Party.

What does it mean to openly raise the question of accusing the Party of a rightist deviation? This is an attack against the Party, this is a sortie against the Party.

Did the CC of the VKP(b) not indicate in its resolution that the opposition's speaking would sharpen the struggle, would give an impulse to factional struggle? Yes, it did indicate this. And this was a warning to the opposition from the CC of the VKP(b). Could the CC have gone further than this? No, it could not. Why? Because the CC could not forbid the speaking. Every Party member has the right to appeal against a Party decision to a higher body. The CC could not but reckon with this right of Party members. Consequently, the CC of the VKP(b) did everything that was in its power to prevent a new sharpening of the struggle, a new intensification of factional struggle.

The leaders of the opposition, who are also members of the CC, should have known that their speeches could not but take the form of an appeal against the decisions of their own Party, a sortie against the Party, an assault on the Party.

Thus, the opposition's speeches, and especially Kamenev's speech — which is not his personal speech but the speech of the entire opposition bloc, for his speech, which he read from a written text, was signed by Trotsky, Kamenev, and Zinoviev — this speech by Kamenev is a turning point in the development of the opposition bloc from the "statement" of October 16, 1926, in which the opposition renounced factional methods of struggle, to a new phase of the opposition's existence, in which it returns once again to factional methods of struggle against the Party.

Hence the conclusion: the opposition has violated its own "statement" of October 16, 1926, having returned to factional methods of struggle.

Let us so record it, comrades. There is no use in being hypocritical. Kamenev was right when he said that a cat must be called a cat. (Voices: "Correct!" "And a pig — a pig.")

2) Trotsky said in his speech that "Stalin after the February revolution preached an erroneous tactic, which Lenin characterized as a Kautskyist deviation."

This is untrue, comrades. This is gossip. Stalin "preached" no Kautskyist deviation. The fact that I had certain vacillations after returning from exile, I have not concealed this and wrote about it myself in my pamphlet "On the Road to October." But which of us has not had passing vacillations? As for Lenin's position and his April Theses in 1917 — which is precisely what is at issue here — the Party knows perfectly well that I stood at that time in the same ranks as Comrade Lenin against Kamenev and his group, who were then fighting against Lenin's theses. People familiar with the minutes of the April Conference of our Party in 1917 cannot but know that I stood in the same ranks as Lenin, fighting together with him against Kamenev's opposition.

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

It is true that Kamenev then stood in opposition to Lenin, to his theses, to the majority of the Party, and developed a point of view bordering on defensism. It is true that Kamenev then wrote in Pravda — for example, in March — articles of a semi-defensist character, for which articles I cannot, of course, be held responsible in any degree.

Trotsky's misfortune is that he confused Stalin with Kamenev here.

And where was Trotsky at the time of the April Conference in 1917, when the Party was waging a struggle against Kamenev's group, in what party was he then to be found — the left-Menshevik or right-Menshevik — and why was he not then in the ranks of the Zimmerwald Left? Let Trotsky tell us about this, at least in the press. But that he was not then in our Party — this is a fact that Trotsky would do well to remember.

3) Trotsky said in his speech that "on the national question Stalin committed a rather major error." What error, under what circumstances — Trotsky never said.

This is untrue, comrades. This is gossip. I have never had any disagreements with the Party or with Lenin on the national question. What Trotsky is referring to here must be one insignificant incident, when Comrade Lenin before the Twelfth Congress of our Party reproached me for pursuing too strict an organizational policy toward the Georgian semi-nationalists, semi-communists of the Mdivani type — Mdivani, who was recently trade representative in France — that I was "persecuting" them. However, subsequent facts showed that the so-called "deviationists," people of the Mdivani type, in fact deserved a stricter attitude toward themselves than I showed as one of the secretaries of the CC of our Party. Subsequent events showed that the "deviationists" are a decomposing faction of the most outspoken opportunism. Let Trotsky prove that this is not so. Lenin did not know and could not have known these facts, as he was ill, lay in bed, and did not have the opportunity to follow events. But what relation can this insignificant incident have to Stalin's principled position? Trotsky is obviously hinting here, in a gossip-mongering way, at some "disagreements" between me and the Party. But is it not a fact that the CC as a whole, including Trotsky, unanimously voted for Stalin's theses on the national question? Is it not a fact that this vote took place after the incident with Mdivani, before the Twelfth Congress of our Party? Is it not a fact that the rapporteur on the national question at the Twelfth Congress was precisely Stalin, and no one else? Where, then, are the "disagreements" on the national question, and why, in essence, did Trotsky want to mention this insignificant incident?

4) Kamenev declared in his speech that the Fourteenth Congress of our Party made an error by "opening fire to the left," that is, by opening fire against the opposition. It turns out that the Party was fighting and continues to fight against the revolutionary core of the Party. It turns out that our opposition is left, not right.

All this is trifles, comrades. This is gossip spread by our oppositionists. The Fourteenth Congress did not think of and could not open fire against the revolutionary majority. In reality it opened fire against the right, against our oppositionists, who are a right opposition, although they drape themselves in a "left" toga. Of course, the opposition is inclined to consider itself the "revolutionary left." But the Fourteenth Congress of our Party determined, on the contrary, that the opposition merely masks itself with "left" phrases, while in reality it is an opportunist opposition. We know how a right opposition often disguises itself in a "left" toga in order to mislead the working class. The "Workers' Opposition" also considered itself more left than everyone, yet it turned out in practice to be more right than everyone. The present opposition also considers itself more left than everyone, yet the practice and entire work of the present opposition prove that it is a center of attraction and a hotbed of all right opportunist currents, from the "Workers' Opposition" and Trotskyism to the "new opposition" and all sorts of Souvarines.

Kamenev committed a "small" sleight of hand regarding "lefts" and "rights."

5) Kamenev quoted from Lenin's works about the fact that we have not yet completed the socialist foundation of our economy, and declared that the Party is making an error by asserting, allegedly, that we have already completed the socialist foundation of our economy.

This is trifles, comrades. This is petty gossip by Kamenev. Never has the Party declared that it has already completed the socialist foundation of our economy. The dispute is not at all about whether we have or have not yet completed the socialist foundation of our economy. The dispute is not about this now. The dispute is only about whether we can complete with our own forces the socialist foundation of our economy or cannot. The Party asserts that we have the capability to complete the socialist foundation of our economy. The opposition denies this, sliding thereby onto the path of defeatism and capitulationism. That is what the dispute is about now. Kamenev, feeling the instability of his position, tries to evade this question. But he will not succeed in this.

Kamenev committed yet another "small" sleight of hand.

6) Trotsky declared in his speech that he "anticipated Lenin's policy in March-April 1917." It turns out, therefore, that Trotsky "anticipated" Comrade Lenin's April Theses. It turns out that Trotsky, as early as February-March 1917, independently arrived at the policy that Comrade Lenin defended in April-May 1917 in his April Theses.

Allow me, comrades, to state that this is a stupid and indecent piece of boasting. Trotsky "anticipating" Lenin — this is a picture one can only laugh at. The peasants are absolutely right when in such cases they usually say: "He compared a fly to a belfry." (Laughter.) Trotsky "anticipating" Lenin... Let Trotsky try to stick his neck out and prove this in print. Why has he not tried to do so even once? Trotsky "anticipated" Lenin... But how then can one explain the fact that Comrade Lenin, from his very first appearance on the scene in Russia, in April 1917, considered it necessary to dissociate himself from Trotsky's position? How can one explain the fact that the one being "anticipated" finds it necessary to fence himself off from the one "anticipating"? Is it not a fact that Lenin in April 1917 stated several times that he had nothing in common with Trotsky's basic formula: "No tsar, but a workers' government"? Is it not a fact that Lenin at the same time stated several times that he had nothing in common with Trotsky, who was trying to leap over the peasant movement, over the agrarian revolution?

Where, then, is the "anticipation"?

Conclusion: we need facts, not fabrications and gossip, yet the opposition prefers to operate with fabrications and gossip.

2. What Do the Enemies of the Proletarian Dictatorship Praise the Opposition For?

I said in my report that the enemies of the proletarian dictatorship, the Mensheviks and Cadets of the Russian emigration, praise the opposition. I said that they praise the opposition for the kind of work that leads to the undermining of Party unity and, consequently, to the undermining of the proletarian dictatorship. I cited a number of quotations showing that the enemies of the proletarian dictatorship praise the opposition precisely for this — that the opposition, by its work, unleashes anti-proletarian forces in the country, tries to discredit our Party, discredit the proletarian dictatorship, and thereby serves the cause of the enemies of the proletarian dictatorship.

In response to this, Kamenev (and also Zinoviev) first referred to the capitalist press in the West, which, it turns out, praises our Party and also Stalin, and then referred to Ustryalov, the smenovekhovets, a representative of the bourgeois specialists in our country, who sides with the position of our Party.

As for the capitalists, they have more disagreements about our Party over there. For example, recently the American press praised Stalin, saying that he would give them the opportunity to obtain major concessions. But now, it turns out, they curse and revile Stalin in every way, asserting that he, Stalin, "deceived" them. There appeared at one time a caricature of Stalin in the bourgeois press, showing him holding a bucket of water and putting out the fire of revolution. But then another caricature appeared in refutation, in which Stalin is holding a bucket, but the bucket contains not water but kerosene, and it turns out that Stalin is not extinguishing but fanning the flames of revolution. (Applause, laughter.)

As you can see, over there among the capitalists there are major disagreements about the position of our Party as well as about Stalin's position.

Let us turn to the question of Ustryalov. Who is Ustryalov? Ustryalov is a representative of the bourgeois specialists and of the new bourgeoisie in general. He is a class enemy of the proletariat. This is indisputable. But enemies come in different kinds. There are class enemies who do not reconcile themselves with Soviet power and seek its overthrow at all costs. And there are class enemies who reconcile themselves, in one way or another, with Soviet power. There are enemies who try to prepare the conditions for the overthrow of the proletarian dictatorship. These are the Mensheviks, SRs, Cadets, and others. But there are also enemies who collaborate with Soviet power and fight against those who stand on the point of view of overthrowing Soviet power, hoping that the dictatorship will gradually weaken, degenerate, and then go to meet the interests of the new bourgeoisie. Ustryalov belongs to the latter category of enemies.

Why did Kamenev refer to Ustryalov? Perhaps in order to show that the Party in our country has degenerated, and that is why Ustryalov praises Stalin, or our Party in general? Apparently not for this reason, since Kamenev did not dare to say this directly. Why, then, did Kamenev refer to Ustryalov? Obviously, in order to make a hint about "degeneration."

But Kamenev forgot to mention that this same Ustryalov praised Lenin even more. Ustryalov's articles praising Lenin are known to our entire Party. What, then, is the matter? Perhaps Comrade Lenin "degenerated" or began to "degenerate" when he introduced NEP? One has only to pose this question to understand the entire absurdity of such a supposition about "degeneration."

So: what does Ustryalov praise Lenin and our Party for, and what do the Mensheviks and Cadets praise the opposition for — that is the question that must first of all be resolved and that Kamenev tries by every means to evade.

The Mensheviks and Cadets praise the opposition for undermining the unity of our Party, weakening the proletarian dictatorship, and thereby facilitating the work of the Mensheviks and Cadets to overthrow Soviet power. This is proved by the quotations. While Ustryalov praises our Party for the fact that Soviet power permitted NEP, permitted private capital, permitted bourgeois specialists, in whose assistance and experience the proletariat has need.

The Mensheviks and Cadets praise the opposition for the fact that its factional work helps them in preparing the conditions for the overthrow of the proletarian dictatorship. While the Ustryalovs, knowing that the dictatorship cannot be overthrown, cast aside the point of view of overthrowing Soviet power, try to get a little corner near the proletarian dictatorship, try to attach themselves to it, and praise the Party for having introduced NEP and having permitted, under certain conditions, the new bourgeoisie, which wants to use Soviet power for its own class purposes, but which Soviet power itself uses for the purposes of the proletarian dictatorship.

That is the difference between the various class enemies of the proletariat of our country.

That is the root of the fact that the Mensheviks and Cadets praise the opposition, while the Ustryalovs praise our Party.

I should like to draw your attention to Lenin's point of view on this question.

"In our Soviet republic," says Lenin, "the social order is based on the collaboration of two classes: the workers and the peasants, to which the 'NEPmen,' i.e., the bourgeoisie, are now admitted on certain conditions" (Lenin, Vol. XXVII, p. 405).

It is precisely for this admission of the new bourgeoisie to some conditional collaboration, of course under certain conditions and under the control of Soviet power — it is precisely for this that Ustryalov praises our Party, hoping to latch on to this admission and use Soviet power for the purposes of the bourgeoisie. But we, the Party, have different calculations: to use the representatives of the new bourgeoisie, their experience, their knowledge, in order to sovietize, assimilate part of them, while casting aside the other part that proves unable to be sovietized.

Is it not a fact that Lenin made a distinction between the new bourgeoisie and the Mensheviks and Cadets, permitting and using the former and proposing to arrest the latter?

Here is what Comrade Lenin wrote on this subject in his "Tax in Kind":

"Not to fear the 'learning' of communists from bourgeois specialists, including traders, and small-scale cooperative capitalists, and capitalists. To learn from them in form differently, but in essence in the same way as they learned and have learned from military specialists. The results of the 'learning' must be verified only by practical experience: do better than those next to you, the bourgeois specialists; achieve the development of agriculture, of industry, of the circulation of agriculture with industry in this way and that way. Do not be stingy in paying 'for learning': it is worth paying dearly for learning, if only learning goes properly" (Lenin, Vol. XXVI, p. 352).

So spoke Lenin about the new bourgeoisie and bourgeois specialists, whose representative is Ustryalov.

And here is what Lenin said about the Mensheviks and SRs:

"And the 'non-party' people, who in reality are nothing but Mensheviks and SRs dressed up in the powerful Kronstadt-non-party outfit — keep them carefully in prison or dispatch them to Berlin to Martov for free enjoyment of all the charms of pure democracy, for the free exchange of ideas with Chernov, with Milyukov, with the Georgian Mensheviks" (see ibid., p. 352).

So spoke Lenin.

Perhaps the opposition does not agree with Lenin? Let it say so directly.

That is what explains the fact that the Mensheviks and Cadets are arrested in our country, while the new bourgeoisie we admit under certain conditions and with certain limitations in order, while fighting it by economic measures and overcoming it step by step, at the same time to use its experience, its knowledge for our economic construction.

It turns out, therefore, that some class enemies, like Ustryalov, praise our Party for introducing NEP and admitting the bourgeoisie to some conditional and limited collaboration with the existing Soviet order, while we pursue the aim of using the knowledge and experience of this bourgeoisie for our construction, which aim we are accomplishing, as is well known, not without success. While other class enemies, like the Mensheviks and Cadets, praise the opposition for the fact that its work leads to the undermining of the unity of our Party, to the undermining of the proletarian dictatorship, and to the facilitation of the Mensheviks' and Cadets' work of overthrowing the dictatorship.

I hope the opposition will at last understand the entire depth of the difference between the praise of the first kind and the praise of the second kind.

3. There Are Errors and Errors

The opposition spoke here about certain errors of individual members of the CC. Individual errors have, of course, occurred. We have no absolutely "infallible" people. Such people do not exist. But there are different kinds of errors. There are errors on which the authors of the errors do not insist and from which no platforms, currents, or factions grow. Such errors are quickly forgotten. And there are errors of another kind — errors on which the authors insist and from which factions, platforms, and struggle within the Party grow. Such errors cannot be quickly forgotten.

Between these two categories of errors a strict distinction must be drawn.

Here, for example, Trotsky says that I once made an error regarding the monopoly of foreign trade. This is true. I actually did propose during the period of the breakdown of our procurement organs to temporarily open one of the ports for the export of grain. But I did not insist on my error and, after talking with Lenin, rectified it without delay. Of Trotsky's errors of this kind — corrected later by the CC, on which he then did not insist — I could count dozens, hundreds. If I were to set about enumerating all the errors, very serious, less serious, and minor, which Trotsky committed in his work in the CC but on which he did not insist and which were forgotten — I would have to deliver several reports on the subject. But I think that in political struggle, in political polemics, one should speak not about such errors but about those errors that later developed into platforms and provoked struggle within the Party.

But Trotsky and Kamenev raised precisely the question of errors of the kind that did not develop into opposition currents and that were soon forgotten. And since the opposition raised precisely these questions, allow me too to recall here some errors of this kind committed at one time by the leaders of the opposition. Perhaps this will serve them as a lesson, and next time they will not try to seize upon already forgotten errors.

There was a time when Trotsky maintained in the CC of our Party that Soviet power was hanging by a thread, that "the cuckoo had already cuckooed," and Soviet power had only several months left to live, if not weeks. That was in 1921. This was a most dangerous error, speaking of dangerous moods on Trotsky's part. But the CC laughed him off, and Trotsky did not insist on this error, and the error was forgotten.

There was a time — this was in 1922 — when Trotsky proposed to allow our industrial enterprises and trusts to pledge state property, including fixed capital, to private capitalists in order to obtain credit. (Comrade Yaroslavsky: "That's the path of capitulation.") Perhaps so. In any case, it would have been a prerequisite for the denationalization of our enterprises. But the CC rejected this plan, Trotsky fought, but then stopped insisting on his error, and the error is now forgotten.

There was a time — this was in 1922 — when Trotsky proposed a harsh concentration of our industry, such a hare-brained concentration that would inevitably have left about a third of our working class outside the gates of the factories and plants. The CC rejected this proposal of Trotsky's as something scholastic, hare-brained, and politically dangerous. Trotsky several times reminded the CC that it would still have to take this path in the future. However, we did not take this path. (Voice from the floor: "The Putilov plant would have had to be closed.") Yes, that is where things were heading. But subsequently Trotsky stopped insisting on his error, and the error was forgotten.

And so on and so forth.

Or take Trotsky's friends — Zinoviev and Kamenev — who like frequently to recall that Bukharin once said "enrich yourselves" and dance around this "enrich yourselves."

This was in 1922, when the question of the Urquhart concession was being discussed, about the enslaving conditions of this concession. And what? Is it not a fact that Kamenev and Zinoviev proposed to accept the enslaving conditions of the Urquhart concession and, in proposing, insisted on their proposal? However, the CC rejected the Urquhart concession, Zinoviev and Kamenev no longer insisted on their error, and the error was forgotten.

Or take, for example, one more fact from Kamenev's errors, about which I would not wish to speak, but about which Kamenev forces me to remind, since he has become tiresome with his reminding about Bukharin's error — an error that Bukharin long ago corrected and liquidated. I am speaking of one incident that happened to Kamenev when he was in exile in Siberia, after the February revolution, when Kamenev together with prominent merchants in Siberia (in Achinsk) took part in sending a congratulatory telegram to the constitutionalist Mikhail Romanov (cries: "Shame!"), the same Mikhail Romanov to whom the tsar, having abdicated from the throne, transferred the "right to the throne." Of course, this was a most foolish error, and for this error Kamenev received a major thrashing from our Party at the April Conference in 1917. But Kamenev acknowledged his error, and the error was forgotten.

Is it necessary to recall errors of this kind? Of course it is not, for they have been forgotten and long since liquidated. Why, then, do Trotsky and Kamenev thrust under the noses of their Party opponents errors of this kind? Is it not clear that by this they only force us to remind of the numerous errors of the leaders of the opposition? And we are forced to do so, if only in order to wean the opposition from nitpicking and gossip.

But there are errors of another kind — errors on which the authors of these errors insist and from which factional platforms then grow. These are errors of an entirely different sort. The task of the Party is to uncover such errors and overcome them. For the overcoming of such errors is the only means of affirming the principles of Marxism in the Party, preserving unity in the Party, liquidating factionalism, and creating a guarantee against the repetition of such errors.

Take, for example, Trotsky's error during the Brest Peace, which turned into a whole platform against the Party. Should one fight against such errors openly and resolutely? Yes, one should.

Or another error of Trotsky's during the trade union discussion — an error that provoked an all-Russian discussion in our Party.

Or, for example, the October error of Zinoviev and Kamenev, which created a crisis in the Party before the uprising in October 1917.

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

And so on and so forth.

Should one fight against such errors openly and resolutely? Yes, one should.

Can one hush up such errors when disagreements in the Party are at issue? Clearly, one cannot.

4. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat According to Zinoviev

Zinoviev spoke in his speech about the dictatorship of the proletariat and assured us that Stalin incorrectly explains the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the well-known article "On the Problems of Leninism."

This is trifles, comrades. Zinoviev is shifting blame from a sick head to a healthy one. In reality, we can speak only of Zinoviev distorting Lenin's understanding of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Zinoviev has two versions concerning the dictatorship of the proletariat, neither of which can be called Marxist and which fundamentally contradict each other.

The first version. Proceeding from the correct thesis that the Party is the fundamental leading force in the system of the proletarian dictatorship, Zinoviev arrives at the completely incorrect conclusion that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of the Party. Thereby Zinoviev identifies the dictatorship of the Party with the dictatorship of the proletariat.

But what does it mean to identify the dictatorship of the Party with the dictatorship of the proletariat?

It means, first, to place an equals sign between the class and the Party, between the whole and a part of this whole, which is absurd and preposterous. Lenin never identified and could not identify the Party with the class. Between the Party and the class stand a whole series of mass non-party organizations of the proletariat, and behind these organizations stands the entire mass of the proletarian class. To ignore the role and specific weight of these mass non-party organizations and, all the more, of the entire mass of the working class, and to think that the Party can replace the mass non-party organizations of the proletariat and the entire proletarian mass in general, means to tear the Party away from the masses, to bring the bureaucratization of the Party to its highest point, to turn the Party into an infallible force, to introduce "Nechayevism" and "Arakcheevism" into the Party.

Needless to say, Lenin has nothing in common with such a "theory" of the proletarian dictatorship.

It means, second, to understand the dictatorship of the Party not in the figurative sense, not in the sense of the Party's leadership of the working class, as precisely Comrade Lenin understood it, but to understand it in the exact sense of the word "dictatorship," i.e., in the sense of replacing leadership by violence of the Party over the working class. For what is dictatorship in the exact sense of this word? Dictatorship, in the exact sense of this word, is power resting on violence, for without elements of violence there is no dictatorship, if one takes dictatorship in the exact sense of this word. Can the Party be power resting on violence in relation to its own class, in relation to the majority of the working class? Clearly, it cannot. Otherwise this would be not a dictatorship over the bourgeoisie but a dictatorship over the working class.

The Party is the teacher, the leader, the guide of its class, but not a power resting on violence in relation to the majority of the working class. Otherwise there would be no point in even speaking of the method of persuasion as the basic method of work of the proletarian party within the ranks of the working class. Otherwise there would be no point in speaking of the Party having to persuade the broad masses of the proletariat of the correctness of its policy, that only in the course of fulfilling this task could the Party consider itself a truly mass party capable of leading the proletariat into battle. Otherwise the Party would have to replace the method of persuasion with orders and threats in relation to the proletariat, which is absurd and completely incompatible with the Marxist understanding of the proletarian dictatorship.

Such is the absurdity to which Zinoviev's "theory" of identifying the dictatorship (leadership) of the Party with the dictatorship of the proletariat leads.

Needless to say, Lenin has nothing in common with this "theory."

It was against this absurdity that I objected in my article "On the Problems of Leninism," when I spoke against Zinoviev.

Perhaps it would not be superfluous to state that this article was written and submitted for publication with the full agreement and approval of the leading comrades of our Party.

So much for the first version of the dictatorship of the proletariat according to Zinoviev.

And here is the second version. If the first version is a distortion of Leninism in one direction, the second version is a distortion in a completely different direction, directly opposed to the first. It consists, this second version, in Zinoviev defining the dictatorship of the proletariat as the leadership not of one class, not of the class of proletarians, but as the leadership of two classes — the workers and the peasants.

Here is what Zinoviev says on this score:

"At present the leadership, the helm, the direction of state life is in the hands of two classes — the working class and the peasantry" (G. Zinoviev, "The Worker-Peasant Alliance and the Red Army," Priboi Publishers, Leningrad, 1925, p. 4).

Can one deny that the dictatorship of the proletariat exists in our country at present? No, one cannot. What does the dictatorship of the proletariat in our country consist of? According to Zinoviev, it consists, it turns out, in the fact that state life in our country is governed by two classes. Is this compatible with the Marxist understanding of the proletarian dictatorship? Clearly, it is incompatible.

Lenin says that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the dominion of one class, the class of proletarians. In the conditions of the alliance of the proletariat and the peasantry, this sole rule of the proletariat is expressed in the fact that the leading force in this alliance is the proletariat, its Party, which does not and cannot share the leadership of state life with another force or another party. All this is so elementary and indisputable that there is hardly any need to explain these elementary things. Yet according to Zinoviev, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the leadership of two classes. Why, then, not call such a dictatorship not the dictatorship of the proletariat but the dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry? And is it not clear that under Zinoviev's understanding of the proletarian dictatorship we would have to have the leadership of two parties, corresponding to the two classes standing at "the helm of state life"? What can Zinoviev's "theory" have in common with the Marxist understanding of the proletarian dictatorship?

Needless to say, Lenin has nothing in common with this "theory."

Conclusion: Zinoviev obviously distorts Lenin's teaching on the dictatorship of the proletariat, whether we are speaking of the first version of Zinoviev's "theory" or the second version.

5. Trotsky's Oracular Pronouncements

I should like, further, to dwell on some of Trotsky's ambiguous statements, whose purpose is, in essence, to mislead people. I should like to cite just a few facts.

One fact. To the question of how Trotsky relates to his Menshevik past, Trotsky replied, not without a certain pose:

"The very fact that I joined the Bolshevik Party... the very fact proves that I laid down on the threshold of the Party everything that had separated me from Bolshevism until then."

What does it mean to "lay down on the threshold of the Party everything that had separated" Trotsky "from Bolshevism"? Remmele was right when he exclaimed in response: "How can one lay down such things on the threshold of the Party?" And indeed, how can one lay down such filth on the threshold of the Party? (Laughter.) This question remained unanswered by Trotsky.

Furthermore, what does it mean to lay down on the threshold of the Party Trotsky's Menshevik survivals? Did he lay them down on the threshold of the Party in reserve for future battles within the Party, or did he simply take and burn them? It seems that Trotsky laid them down on the threshold of the Party in reserve. For how else can one explain those permanent disagreements between Trotsky and the Party that began some time after his entry into the Party and continue to this day?

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

Is this not too many disagreements for a man who "laid down on the threshold of the Party everything that had separated him from Bolshevism"?

Can one say that these permanent disagreements between Trotsky and the Party are an "accidentally occurring accident" and not a natural phenomenon?

One can hardly say so.

What purpose, then, can this more than ambiguous statement of Trotsky's serve?

I think only one purpose: to cloud the listeners' eyes and mislead them.

[The remainder of the speech continues in this manner through sections on Zinoviev's method of quoting Marx, Engels, and Lenin; revisionism according to Zinoviev; the question of the victory of socialism in individual capitalist countries; how Zinoviev "processes" Lenin; the question of building socialism in the USSR; "we are building and can build the economic base of socialism in the USSR"; "we are building socialism in alliance with the world proletariat"; the question of degeneration; the opposition and the question of Party unity; and the conclusion.]

...

IV. The Opposition and the Question of Party Unity

I turn to the last question, the question of the opposition bloc and the unity of our Party.

How did the opposition bloc take shape?

The Party maintains that the opposition bloc took shape through the transition of the "new opposition," through the transition of Kamenev and Zinoviev to the side of Trotskyism.

Zinoviev and Kamenev deny this, hinting that it was not they who came to Trotsky, but Trotsky who came to them.

Let us turn to the facts.

I spoke of the resolution of the Fourteenth Conference on the question of building socialism in our country. I spoke of the fact that Kamenev and Zinoviev renounced this resolution, which Trotsky does not and cannot accept, renounced it in order to draw closer to Trotsky and go over to the side of Trotskyism. Is this true or not? Yes, it is true. Did Kamenev and Zinoviev try to counter this assertion with anything? No, they did not. They passed the question over in silence.

The opposition bloc is an embryo of a new party within our Party. Is it not a fact that the opposition had its own central committee and its own parallel local committees? The opposition assured in its "statement" of October 16, 1926, that it had renounced factionalism. But does Kamenev's speech not show that it has once again returned to factional struggle? What guarantee is there that it has not already restored the central and local parallel organizations of the opposition? Is it not a fact that the opposition collected special membership dues for its own treasury? What guarantee is there that it has not once again set out on this splittist path?

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

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

Comrades, the dictatorship of the proletariat under the dominance of imperialism in other countries, when one country, only one country, has managed to breach the front of capital — the dictatorship of the proletariat under such conditions cannot exist for a single minute without Party unity, armed with iron discipline. Attempts to undermine Party unity, attempts to form a new party must be destroyed at the root, if we wish to preserve the proletarian dictatorship, if we wish to build socialism.

Therefore the task is to liquidate the opposition bloc and strengthen the unity of our Party.

V. Conclusion

I am finished, comrades.

If one sums up the debates, one can arrive at one general conclusion that admits of no doubt — namely, the conclusion that the Fourteenth Congress of our Party was right when it said that the opposition suffers from disbelief in the forces of our proletariat, disbelief in the possibility of the victorious building of socialism in our country.

This is the general residue of impression and the general conclusion that could not but have formed among the comrades.

Thus, before you stand two forces. On one side — our Party, confidently leading the proletariat of the USSR forward, building socialism, and calling upon the proletarians of all countries to struggle. On the other side — the opposition, hobbling after our Party like a decrepit old man, with rheumatism in its legs, pain in its lower back, and a migraine in its head — an opposition that sows pessimism all around and poisons the atmosphere with chatter about how nothing will come of socialism in the USSR for us, how everything is going well for them, the bourgeois, and everything is going badly for us, the proletarians.

Such, comrades, are the two forces standing before you. You must make your choice between them. (Laughter.)

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

The opposition, in its factional blindness, regards our revolution as something devoid of any independent force, as something like a free supplement to the future, not yet victorious revolution in the West.

Comrade Lenin did not view our revolution, the Republic of Soviets, in this way. Comrade Lenin considered the Republic of Soviets a torch illuminating the path of the proletarians of all countries.

Here is what Comrade Lenin said about this:

"The example of the Soviet republic will stand before them [i.e., the proletarians of all countries — J.St.] for a long time. Our socialist republic of Soviets will stand firmly as a torch of international socialism and as an example before all the toiling masses. Over there — fighting, war, bloodshed, the sacrifice of millions of lives, exploitation of capital; here — a genuine policy of peace and a socialist republic of Soviets" (see Vol. XXII, p. 218).

Around this torch two fronts have formed: the front of the enemies of the proletarian dictatorship, who strive to discredit this torch, to shake it, and to extinguish it; and the front of the friends of the proletarian dictatorship, who strive to support the torch and fan its flame.

The task is to support this torch and strengthen its existence in the name of the victory of the world revolution.

Comrades! I have no doubt that you will take all measures to ensure that this torch burns and lights the way for all the oppressed and enslaved.

I have no doubt that you will take all measures to ensure that the flame of this torch is fanned to the fullest, to the terror of the enemies of the proletariat.

I have no doubt that you will take all measures to ensure that such torches are lit in all parts of the world, to the joy of the proletarians of all countries. (Prolonged, long-unfading applause. All delegates rise and sing "The Internationale." Triple "hurrah.")

---

Source: Pravda Nos. 294, 295, and 296; December 19, 21, and 22, 1926.

NOTE: This speech was delivered on December 13, 1926 (not 1927). The file is placed in the 1927 folder following the publication dates of the source volume.