Source: International Press Correspondence, Vol 7, No. 2, January 6, 1927, pp. 23-31.
Transcription/Markup: Martin Fahlgren
Editor's Note: Notes and links to MIA versions of cited Lenin texts added (the translations differ).
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2007). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
Comrades, the decision of the Central Committee [CC] of the CPSU[1] made known here today left it to me to decide whether or not I shall appear here at the Enlarged Executive. After mature deliberation I decided that I would appear.
Is there really a danger that my appearance here might give an impetus to further factional struggle? I believe that this danger is not altogether out of the question. But in my appearance I shall avoid absolutely everything that might lead to such results. I do not want any factional struggle, I will not wage one.
(Interjection by Comrade Thälmann: “But you have waged one!”).
Comrade Thälmann, according to the stenogram of the session of December 4th, declared in the name of the Presidium that
“Comrades Zinoviev and Trotsky, as members of the Executive, have the right and opportunity, at any time and at any hour, to appear here and if they wish also to take the floor”.
Another member of the Presidium, Comrade Ercoli, replying to the apprehension of Comrade Riese that my appearance here might be interpreted as a continuation of factional struggle, according to the stenogram declared the following:
“I believe that the arguments of Comrade Riese are not valid. It is well known that the Russian oppositional comrades, after their 'Declaration of October 16th' defended their viewpoint at the Fifteenth Party Conference, and nobody dreamed of declaring that their defence was a breach of the pledges made on October 16th. On the contrary no one ever imagined that these comrades would fail to take the floor in this highest body of the Russian Party, the Party Conference. The problem stands before us in exactly the same way. Also after the declaration of October 16th, they (that is, the oppositional comrades) have also the right to come here and defend their standpoint”.
That is quite clear and unequivocal.
In the Pravda also this was reported. If I were to remain silent after all this the Communist International [CI] would have to interpret this as though I myself had no desire to appear before the Communist International.
The Fifth World Congress of the Communist International in a similar case (although it took place after a Party Congress and not a Conference of the CPSU) directly condemned a similar silence. In the resolution of the Fifth World Congress it is stated:
“The representatives of the Russian Opposition have upon formal grounds evaded an appearance before the Congress, although the Comintern had invited them to present their viewpoints to the Congress, and although the Russian delegation had voted in favour.”
On the basis of all these facts I must therefore express myself before the Enlarged Executive. As you will see, comrades, I will confine myself entirely to the presentation of my fundamental views. I declare emphatically: I am making no appeal to the Comintern against the decisions of my Party. I submit to these decisions. But I owe to the Comintern, in whose directing organs I have participated actively since the first day of its existence, the duty of making certain explanations. My Party has not forbidden me this.
Since the Presidium has limited my time to one hour I must change somewhat the original plan of my speech:
First of all the question arises of whether Marx and Engels ever expressed themselves upon this theme: I reply, certainly, they have expressed themselves. The chief question is the question of the theory of socialism in a single country. In expectation of the workers' revolution in France, Marx raised the question of what would be the international situation of the French worker's revolution on the day after its victory.
Marx said that the task of the working class (that is, the socialist revolution)
“could not be decided in France, but it would be proclaimed in France. It can be solved nowhere within the limits of national boundaries”. [The Class Struggle in France, 1848 to 1850. Part III]
1. Marx held the view that a single country could (and must) begin; 2. that this country need not necessarily be the most industrialised country (France of that time was not); and 3. that the socialist revolution could also be “proclaimed” in a single country but that it could not be “solved” in one single country. In other words: the socialist revolution can also win the first victories in one country and begin to build socialism, but it cannot be finally victorious in one country.
“It can be solved nowhere within the limits of national boundaries.”
This is precisely the formulation of the question which, as we shall see later, Lenin gave in a more thoroughly elaborated form, in the course of a new historical stage.
In a letter to Engels (October 8, 1858) Marx wrote:
“A revolution is imminent on the continent and it will also immediately take on a socialist character. Will it not necessarily be suppressed in this little corner, since over a much greater territory the development of bourgeois society is still on the ascent?”
Thus Marx considered even the whole European continent, viz. without England, as a “little corner” and feared that a social revolution might be suppressed by the capitalisms of those territories in which capitalism was still developing on an ascending curve.
From this Marx by no means drew the “conclusion” that the proletariat on the continent, or even in one single country, could not seize power. From this Marx of course did not draw the “conclusion” that the proletariat, after seizing power in one country, must not proceed with the building of Socialism in this country. But Marx at the same time knew that the social revolution, even on the whole continent was, under certain conditions menaced with suppression, if “over a much greater territory the development of bourgeois society is still on the ascent”. (What is involved here is obviously not only armed intervention — Marx puts the question more broadly.)
The Social Democratic leaders size up the present situation of world capitalism as a development on the ascendant curve. This is closely bound up with the optimistic (i. e. for the bourgeoisie) appraisal of capitalist stabilisation. For this very reason they are so ready to pronounce a death sentence on the USSR. In their opinion the USSR is confronted with the choice of ruin or degeneration.
We Bolsheviks stand upon the basis of the Leninist appraisal of present-day capitalism as a dying capitalism, of the present period as the eve of the social world revolution. This is in connection with our view of stabilisation as a partial, wavering, not long-lasting stabilisation. This leads us to an unshakable faith in the world revolution and in the final victory of the USSR.
In his criticism of the Gotha programme (1875) Marx expressed himself in the same sense.
Engels expressed himself on this question in complete agreement with Marx. In the “Fundamentals of Communism” (first project of the Communist Manifesto) he replied to the question:
“Can this revolution proceed in any single country?”:
“No. Large scale industry, by creating the world market, has brought all the peoples of the earth, and especially the civilised peoples into such connection with one another that every people is dependent upon what happens to every other.” [Principles of Communism]
From Engels' whole presentation it is clear that what he considers is not whether one country can launch the social revolution. In this connection Engels is undoubtedly in agreement with Marx.
Engels enumerates twelve of the most important measures which the victorious proletariat must carry out in the very beginning.
“Finally, when all capital, all production and all trade has been gathered together in the hands of the nation, private property has disappeared of itself, money has become superfluous and production is so far, multiplied, and people are so far changed, that even the last forms of relationship of the old society can fall.”
I believe that from these words of Engels it is clear how incorrect it is to say that we in the USSR — under the NEP[2] — are supposed to have already fulfilled nine-tenths of this programme of Engels. The NEP is not yet Socialism. Lenin said that the Russia of the NEP has yet to be transformed into a socialist Russia. Unfortunately in this year of 1926 this task is far from being nine-tenths carried out. After these words by Engels himself, there follows the question: “Can this revolution proceed solely in any single country?” And the answer — “No”, etc. This must not be forgotten.
From all this it can be seen that Engels, when speaking of a simultaneous socialist revolution in England, America, France and Germany, by no means had in mind that the conquest of power by the proletariat absolutely had to take place at one and the same moment in these four countries. Engels was by no means of the opinion that a single one of these countries could not “begin”. So flatly only the honourable “leaders” of the II International put the question, who, with the word “internationalism”, tried to justify their treason, their failure to act, their going to the side of “their” bourgeois fatherland.
Engels, on the other hand, wanted to say that the victory of the socialist order over capitalism could take place only if Socialism had entrenched itself in the four at that time leading countries, which, viewed in historical perspective, will proceed in one and the same period.
In 1885 Engels wrote:
“Only an all-European revolution can be victorious” (re-translated from Russian edition, p. 23). [History of the Communist League]
Consequently Engels in 1885 viewed the question exactly as he had in 1847.
This was the standpoint advocated by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto.
Are the views of Marx and Engels concerning the international character of the proletarian revolution out of date?
The law of unevenness of development.
In my opinion it is entirely wrong to maintain that the above-cited views of Marx and Engels on the international character of the socialist revolution are out of date just because Marx and Engels did not live in the period of imperialism.
Lenin once wrote:
“Neither Marx nor Engels experienced the imperialist epoch of world capitalism, which only began in the years 1898-1900. But one peculiarity of Great Britain since the middle of the 19th century consisted in that at least two of the significant essential features of imperialism were to be found there: 1) Vast colonies, and 2) monopoly profits (in consequence of its monopolist position of the world market). In both respects England at that time constituted an exception among capitalist countries, and Engels and Marx, who analysed this exception, indicated clearly and definitely the connection of this phenomenon with the (temporary) victory of opportunism in the British Labour movement.” (From the German: Sammelband pp. 332-333.) [ Imperialism and the Split in Socialism, October 1916]
The “law of uneven development”, from which so many incorrect conclusions are now being drawn, Lenin did not characterise solely as a law of imperialism, but as a law of capitalism as a whole.
“The unevenness of economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism” — Lenin wrote. (Russian: Collected Works, Vol. XIII, p. 133). [On the Slogan for a United States of Europe, August 23, 1915]
Of course this law was well known to Marx and Engels. (Interjection: “Who disputes this?"). To claim that this law of the unevenness of capitalist development was unknown to the founders of scientific communism is absolutely incorrect.
The law of uneven development, yes, even more sharply: of contradictory, antagonistic development springs inevitably out of true anarchy of production, out of the competitive system. Marx gives a whole series of direct formulations concerning the uneven development of capitalism (see for instance “Capital”, Vol. III, Part I, pp. 241, 242, 248. Russian edition).
In the “Theory of Surplus Value”, in the chapter “Accumulation of Capital and Crises”, Marx, in analysing the question of over-production, takes as an example “British and Italian production”, the “British offer and the Italian demand”. And Marx says:
“But since capitalist production can enjoy its fling only in certain spheres and under given conditions, no capitalist production whatever would be possible were it forced to develop in all spheres simultaneously and equally.” (Karl Marx, “Theories of Surplus Value”, Vol. II, Part II, p. 315, edition of 1910). [Theories of Surplus-Value Chapter XVII]]
In the imperialist epoch all objective premises for the socialisation of production are created in certain advanced countries, which approximate one another in this respect; these advanced countries play a decisive role in world economy so that, after the consolidation of proletarian power in them, they will certainly and unreservedly be in a position to lead the remaining countries to Socialism, that is, to establish the final victory of Socialism in the whole world.
Lenin correctly unmasked the Kautskian “Theory of Ultra-Imperialism” as an anti-revolutionary one, as deception of the workers.
And at the same time Lenin took Hilferding (the pupil of Kautsky),”at his word”, when he wrote in “Finance Capital”, that under monopolist capitalism the victory of the world revolution had become economically far easier, since after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie it is sufficient to expropriate a small number of the most powerful banks and thereby begin the transition to Socialism.
Precisely in the fundamental work of Lenin, “Imperialism, the last stage of Capitalism”, we read:
“However strong may the levelling have proceeded of recent years of the world, the approximation of economic and living conditions in various countries under the pressure of the big bourgeoisie, of trade and finance capital, a considerable difference nevertheless remains, and among the six countries mentioned we find on the one hand young; extra-ordinarily rapidly advancing capitalist countries (America, Germany, Japan); on the other hand, countries with an old capitalist development which in recent times are progressing much more slowly than the former, England and France and finally also a country, Russia, which in an economic respect has, remained furthest behind, and in which modern capitalist ,imperialism is, so to say, enveloped in an especially close network of pre-capitalist relationships.”
(German: Marx Library. Vol. I, p. 83.) [Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism Chap. VI ]
At the same time Lenin wrote:
“Nay 3-5 big banks, in any capitalist highly developed nation that you may choose, have established a 'personal union' between industrial and bank capital, and have at their disposal concentrated milliards upon milliards, which comprise the greatest part of the capital and
money receipts of the whole country. The financial oligarchy, which spreads a tight net of dependent relationships without exception over all the economic and political institutions of modern bourgeois society, is the crassest form in which this monopoly appears.”
(German: Marx Library. Vol. I, pp. 86 and 87, 106, 109-110, 110-111). [Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism Chap. X]
Correct conclusions from the “Law of Capitalism” (about the unevenness of development) can be drawn only in the event that one does not for a moment forget this second side of the process, namely, that imperialism means monopolist capitalism, that the imperialist epoch means not only concentration, but also, centralisation, that the epoch finance capital is the epoch of financial oligarchy, the epoch of the concentration of capital and currency receipts in the hands of a tiny, group.
The conditions of monopolist capitalism, the conditions of imperialism, facilitate the proletariat of a country in its chance to break through to Socialism, the chance also in one country (and at that not necessarily in the country most industrially developed) to fight their way through to power and, to begin with socialist revolution.
Imperialism has brought it about that at present a larger number of countries have become economically ripe for Socialism than was the case in the epoch of Marx and Engels, for this very reason imperialism in the main represents the eve of the socialist world revolution.
The proletariat of a single country not only can but must seize power, for we have the “scientific conviction” (Lenin) that the victory can be assured on an international scale, that the objective premises for Socialism are in the main mature, that on a world scale heavy industry and technical development are already sufficient for us to take over the direction of peasant economy, and that the time is now too far advanced for the proletariat to take power prematurely.
Now comes the question: Are Marx and Engels actually “out of date” on these questions?
Marxism is of course no dogma, but a guide to action. But in the above cited doctrines of Marx and Engels are involved not merely casual words, but fundamental marxist conceptions. Here we have the revolutionary kernel of Marxism (viz. also of Leninism):
It is well known that Bernstein and other revisionists and “camp followers”, e. g. Charles Andler, began their “work” by trying to “prove” that the Communist Manifesto was out of date. The orthodox Marxists, especially Lenin, combated this in the most determined manner. We must now do the same.
It is self-understood that every real step which actually fosters the maintenance of the achievements of the proletarian revolution is worth more than dozens of theses and programmes about the desirability of world revolution “in general”. In this respect the international proletariat must learn first of all, from Lenin, from the first leader of the victorious proletarian revolution. Lenin advocates unreservedly the fundamental views of Marx and Engels.
After the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks, Lenin repeatedly came back to the question of Socialism in one country. I shall mention only his most important expressions here*).
*) For the comrades who want to study the question-in more detail I will cite a number of sections in the Russian edition of Lenin's Collected Works: Vol. XV, p. 82, 87-99, 232-233, 126-127, 129, 187, 138, 165-66, 4l4-l5, 268, 175, Vol. XVI. pp, 8, 61, 69-70, 55, 102, 120-22, 195, 354, 390, 404, Vol. XVI. pp. 153, 406-409, 415, 18, Vol. XVIII, pp. I37-48, 148, 180, 189, 313, 321, 333, 368, 380, 433, 436, etc.
“…A complete final victory on an international scale in Russia alone is impossible, it will be possible only then when the proletariat is victorious in all, or at least in most advanced countries, or, in some of the most advanced countries” (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XVI, p. 61). [Achievements and Difficulties of the Soviet Government. Spring 1919]
“I have expressed this already repeatedly: in comparison with the advanced countries it was easier for the Russians to begin the great proletarian revolution, but, it will be more difficult for them to continue it, to conduct it to a final victory in the sense of the complete socialist society”. (Our italics). (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XVI; pp. 184-185). [ The Third International and Its Place In History, 15 April, 1919 ]
“Has at any time any one of the Bolsheviks disputed that the revolution can be finally victorious (our italics) only then when it shall include all or at least some of the most important advanced countries?” (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XVI, p. 195). [ First all-Russia Congress on adult Education, May 6-19, 1919 ]
“The social revolution in such a country can lead to a success only under two conditions: first, under the condition that it will receive timely support from the social revolution in one or several advanced countries... The second condition is an agreement between the proletariat which realises its dictatorship and holds State power its hands with the majority of the peasant population,...” (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XVIII, Part 1, pp. 137-138). [Tenth R.C.P.(B.) Congress: Report On The Substitution Of A Tax In Kind ..., March 15, 1921]
Thus Lenin considers mandatory for victory not one but two conditions, not only a juncture with the peasantry, but also the international revolution.
The well-known essay “On Co-operation” closes with the following words:
“I am ready to declare that for us the centre of gravity would shift to cultural work if there were not international relations, if we did not have the duty of waging the struggle for our position on an international scale”. (Lenin, Vol. XVIII, Part 2). [On Cooperation, January 6, 1923]
“... You all know what an international power is represented by capital, how the great capitalist factories, enterprises, trading houses throughout the whole world are bound up with one another. From this of course it becomes quite clear that, speaking fundamentally, capitalism cannot be finally vanquished in any single country.” (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XX, Part, 2, p. 453 [Fourth All-Russia Congress Of Garment Workers, February 6, 1920 ].
“We have always declared with certainty that this victory cannot be a firm victory unless it is supported in its essence by the proletarian revolution; that a correct appraisal of our revolution is possible only from an international viewpoint.” (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XVIII, Part 2, p. 189). See further also: Vol. XVII, part I, p. 321). [Our Foreign and Domestic Position and Party Tasks, November 21, 1920]
“We have not even finished the foundations of a Socialist economy; this can again be taken from us by the hostile forces of dying capitalism. This must be clearly recognised and openly admitted, for nothing is more dangerous than illusions (and attacks of dizziness on high places). And in this recognition of the bitter truth there is nothing “terrible”, nothing that gives any just cause for even the slightest despair, because we have always defended that elementary Marxist truth, we have constantly repeated: that for the victory of Socialism the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are necessary”. — This is what Lenin wrote in March 1922. (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XX, Part 2, p. 487.) [Lenin: Notes of a Publicist On Ascending A High Mountain]
I can give dozens of further citations of this kind from Lenin. What is Socialism?
“Socialism is the abolition of classes. In order to abolish classes one must 1. Overthrow the landowners and capitalists. This part of the task we have carried out, but this was only a part and not even the most difficult part. In order to abolish the classes we must first destroy the difference between the workers and peasants, and make all into workers.” (Lenin, Collected Works. Vol. XVI, pp. 351-53, further Vol. XIV, part II, p. 377.) [ Economics and Politics In the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, October 30 , 1919 ]
Concerning the time required for the realisation of the socialist order in Russia, Lenin said the following:
“The road of organisation is a long road, and the task of socialist construction demands a long drawn stubborn work and real knowledge which we do not possess to a sufficient degree. [...] Also the next generation, which will be further developed, will probably hardly be able to achieve the complete transition to Socialism.” (Lenin, Collected Works. Vol. XV, p. 240.) [ Session of the All-Russia C.E.C.: Report On The Immediate Tasks , April 29 1918 ]
“Communism is a higher stage in the development of Socialism, in which men work conscious of the necessity of labour for the commonwealth. We know that we are not now in a position to introduce this social order, let us hope that this order will be established by our children, or perhaps even among our grandchildren.” (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XVI, p. 398.) [Speech Delivered at the First Congress of Agricultural Communes and Agricultural Artels., December 4, 1919 ]
In other places (for instance, in his speech at the Youth Congress) Lenin, having in mind the various stages in the development and consolidation of Socialism, also mentioned shorter periods. Extremely important is his following declaration:
“As long as our Soviet Republic remains a lone boundary mark of the whole capitalist world so long would it be absolutely ridiculous phantasy and utopianism to think of our complete economic independence and the disappearance of these or the other dangers.” (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XVII, pp. 408-409.) [ Eighth All-Russia Congress of Soviets: Report On The Work Of The Council Of People's ..., December 22, 1920]
Comrade Stalin cited this passage in his speech at the Fifteenth Party Conference with the elimination of the words I have emphasised above. But in these words is the whole kernel of the affair, and these words of Lenin show clearly that what is involved is not only armed intervention, but also the economic encirclement, viz, that we must be afraid lest our “complete economic independence” be taken from us with the aid of the masters of the world market.
The well-established system of conceptions of Marx, Engels and Lenin characterised by the above-mentioned numerous citations from these classicists, is usually counterpoised by a tiny fraction from a small article by Lenin, written on August 25, 1915. Let us consider this fragment. In this article, which bears the heading: “On the Slogan for a United States of Europe”, Lenin writes:
“The unevenness of economic and political development is an undeniable law of capitalism. From this follows that a victory of Socialism is possible at first in a few countries or even in one single country. The victorious proletariat of this country, after having expropriated the capitalists and having organised its socialist production, would arise against the rest of the capitalist world and if necessary proceed even with armed force against the exploiter classes and their States. The political form of society in which the proletariat is victorious will be the democratic republic, which more and more centralises the forces of the proletariat of the respective nation or nations, in the struggle against the States that have not yet advanced to Socialism. Without the dictatorship of the oppressed class, the proletariat, a destruction of the classes is impossible. A free union of nations in Socialism is impossible without a more or less long-drawn stubborn struggle between the socialist republics and the remaining States.” (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XIII, p. 133, German: “Against the Stream”, p. 126.) [On the Slogan for a United States of Europe, August, 1915 ]
Out of this fragment they tear the words “that a victory of socialism is possible at first in a few countries or even in one single country”, and from it draw the conclusion that the teachings of Lenin are the teachings of a victory in one country.
Let us investigate the section cited. It is quite beyond doubt that the words “victory of socialism” are to be understood here in the sense of the capture of political power by the proletariat. In this fragment Lenin does not even speak of the Soviet Republic, but of the democratic republic.
But with Lenin it is stated: “After ... having organised its socialist production”, etc.! The question arises here: Is it therefore not clear that he speaks here not only of the seizure of power by the proletariat, but also expressly includes socialist production? — No, this is exactly what is not clear.
Something else is clear! “After having expropriated the capitalists and having organised its socialist production” here means: after having taken over power from the capitalists and having brought it about that the factories and workshops are working under the direction of the proletariat, i. e. when the ground is laid for the organisation of socialist production. As soon as one captures political power, the capitalists must be expropriated and a start made with the organisation of socialist society, at the same time, one must prepare for war (or to make war) against the capitalist States, and to try to win the oppressed classes of other countries to our side — this is the actual idea of Lenin.
Is it really possible to ascribe to Lenin the “idea” that he had proposed first to expropriate the capitalists, thereupon during a few decades to organise socialist production, and only then proceed with arms against the exploiting classes and their States and win the oppressed classes of other countries to our side? This would be pure nonsense, it would be equivalent to the pacifist trance-like, philistine-like belief that the capitalists and their States would agree to wait a decade until the proletariat, which had seized power in one country, had organised and developed socialist production and only then advanced for war with the bourgeoisie. Or else all that is left is to ascribe another “idea” to Lenin, that he had held it passible “to organise socialist production” according to the recipe of a wiseacre in the course of a few weeks or months. There is no other alternative for our opponents. It is a false “explanation” of Lenin.
In order to better comprehend how in 1915 Comrade Lenin formulated the question of a revolution in Russia, it is necessary to turn to the most important programmatic documents written by Lenin shortly before and shortly after the article “Concerning the Slogan of the United States of Europe”.
Thus, for example, Lenin wrote, in our CC's famous manifesto on the beginning of the imperialist war 1914:
“In Russia, in view of the great backwardness of the country, which has not yet completed its bourgeois revolution, the tasks of the Bolsheviks must remain as heretofore, the three basic conditions of the consequent democratic transformation: the democratic republic (including full equal suffrage and self-determination of all nations), the confiscation of large landed estates, the 8-hour day. In all advanced countries, on the other hand, the war places upon the agenda the slogan of the socialist revolution.” [ The War and Russian Social-Democracy, Sept/Oct 1914]
This was written in October 1914. In August 1915 the article “Concerning the slogan of the United States of Europe” was written: And in October 1915, Lenin wrote the famous thesis of our central organ at that time:
“6. it is the task of proletarian Russia to carry to the end the bourgeois democratic revolution in order to release the socialist revolution in Europe”. (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XIII, p. 208, German, “Against the Stream”, p. 292.) [Several Theses ]
In March 1917, after the victory of the February revolution in Russia, Lenin wrote
“that these theses were literally confirmed in a splendid manner by the revolution”.
When Lenin left Switzerland after the February revolution he addressed a letter to the Swiss workers, which was patently intended for the whole international. In this letter he wrote:
“The Russian proletariat is not in a position to conduct victoriously the socialist revolution, alone, with its own forces. But it may give such a momentum to the present Russian revolution that it would furnish the best conditions for such a revolution which, in a certain sense, it would have initiated. It may facilitate the conditions under which its principal and most loyal ally, the European and American socialist proletariat, would enter upon the decisive struggle”. (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XIV, Part II, p. 408, German: Fritz Platten, “Die Reise Lenins”, pp. 11-12, or Guilbeaux, “Lenin”, p. 171-172). [ Farewell Letter to the Swiss Workers, March 1917]
This by no means signifies that Lenin even for a single moment thought of limiting the Russian revolution to the boundaries of a bourgeois democratic revolution. (Interjection: “Which you are doing!”).
Already in my book “Leninism” (p. 54) I reminded the comrades that Lenin had said:
“From the democratic revolution we shall immediately and to the limit of our forces, the forces of the conscious and organised proletariat begin to go over to the socialist revolution...” (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. VI, p. 449). [ Social-Democracy's Attitude Towards the Peasant Movement, September 1905]
The question arises why Lenin himself did not on a single occasion, neither in 1916 nor 1917, nor in 1917-23, interprets his article (“Concerning the Slogan of United States of Europe”) in the manner in which it is now interpreted? The question arises why Comrade Stalin himself, up to 1924 (see his book: “Lenin and Leninism”), did not notice this article and why he until then interpreted the views of Lenin on the international character of the revolution exactly as we all did?
The question arises why, in the draft programme of the Comintern, which was written by Bukharin in 1922, there is not a single word about the “theory of Socialism in a single country” [3] (nor about the supposition that Marx and Engels were ignorant of the law of uneven development)? There can be no doubt that the programme of the Comintern could now be written by the supporters of Comrade Stalin's standpoint in no other way than from the angle of the theory of Socialism in one country. This very theory would farm the central point of the whole programme. And in 1923 — while Lenin lived — we find that the programme contains about it not a word, not a syllable, not a sound! The question arises: Is that an accident? And finally the question arises as to why only in 1926 is there for the first time proposed in the Comintern the new conception concerning the victory of Socialism tar one country? Why did no one propose it to the Comintern while Lenin lived? Why did this theory of Socialism in a single country arise only after the death of Lenin?
We have here interpreted the trite views of Lenin. Have they contained any pessimism?
No! In them there was and is no pessimism whatever, much less lack of faith in Socialism. Pessimism and lack of faith would set in only if anyone of us were to assume that the present capitalist “stabilisation” would last a number of decades, that our epoch is already no longer the epoch of world revolution, that the victory of the proletarian revolution had become problematical. But this would be precisely a complete revision of the views of Lenin, especially his teachings on imperialism. We have certainly by no means made ourselves guilty of this.
Lack of a perspective, passivity would result if we doubted that one could and must build Socialism in our country despite the capitalist encirclement, without folding our hands, with all energy and enthusiasm. But of this there can be no thought whatever. We are building socialism and we will build it up — with the aid of the proletarian revolutions in the other countries.
(Interjection: “But if the revolution is delayed?”).
On this we have expressed ourselves in detail in our book “Leninism”. Under this very viewpoint we are fighting in our Party for the acceleration of the tempo of the industrialisation of our country.
Among various foreign Communists we have observed the following mood: “Among us (in Germany or in Czecho-Slovakia) the proletarian revolution is not yet coning — so the Russians should at least build up Socialism in their country, even without our help.” These are really moods of passivity and pessimism. With these same trends of thought many Social Democrats will also agree. In certain Russian Communists this is in reality an expression of pessimism with regard to the proletarian world revolution, and it calls forth an unconscious desire to palm off the NEP as socialism. Precisely in this there exists the danger of the revision of Lenin's views concerning the international character of the proletarian revolution.
Our proposals are very simple. We propose: 1) That the views of Marx and Engels on this question shall not be declared out of date; 2) that we shall retain that conception of Lenin's views on this question that was common to us all up till 1924. That is all we propose.
So that the comrades can more readily comprehend how the views of Comrades Stalin have changed we submit a parallel presentation of his old and new standpoints concerning the question of victory of Socialism in one country:
“But the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the seizure of power by the proletariat in one country does not yet mean the guarantee of the complete victory of Socialism. It’s most important task — the organising of socialist production — still remains unsolved. Can these tasks be solved; can the final victory of socialism be won without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several highly developed countries? No, this is impossible. In order to overthrow the bourgeoisie the efforts of one country are sufficient. This is shown us by the history of our revolution. For the final victory of socialism, for the organising of socialist production, however, the efforts of one country and at that of an agrarian country like Russia will not suffice for this we require the efforts of the proletarians of several highly-developed countries.” |
“But to overthrow the power of the bourgeoisie and to establish the power of the proletariat in one country, does not yet mean the assurance of the complete victory of Socialism. After the victorious proletariat of one country has consolidated its power and has won over the peasantry for itself, it can and must build up the socialist society. Does this mean that the proletariat thereby has already achieved the complete victory of socialism, i. e., does it mean that the proletariat alone with the forces of one single country, can finally consolidate socialism and absolutely guarantee the country against intervention and, consequently, against the restoration? No, it does not mean this. For this the victory in several countries is necessary.” |
| (J. Stalin, “Lenin and Leninism”, 1924, pp. 40-41) . |
(J. Stalin, “Question of Leninism”, Marx Bibl. Vol. V, p. 96) . |
The emphasised section shows the evolution of Comrade Stalin's view.
The present formulation of the question concerning the “victory of Socialism in a single country” only arose at the end of 1924. Even at the Fourteenth Party Congress the Majority spokesmen did not raise this question in all its sharpness. The Fourteenth Party Congress adopted no decision on this.
Sometimes it is declared: even if the theory of Socialism in a single country contradicts the teachings of Marx and Lenin, it is at present nevertheless politically useful because it gives the Russian proletariat a perspective.
Such a formulation of the question is extremely dangerous. This is the worst kind of opportunism. From the standpoint of scientific socialism anything theoretically wrong cannot be politically advisable. A perspective is undoubtedly necessary for Socialist construction. But why should this perspective be national and not international? Here lies the kernel of the question.
If our proletariat recognises that the question of the world revolution is for us a question of life and death, then this is something entirely different than if it is trained to the belief that it is building up Socialism independently of the course of the world revolution.
Our perspective is therefore the perspective of a world revolution. The Soviet power will not be destroyed, and it will lead the work of socialism because, first, the alliance between working class and peasantry can be assured in the Soviet Union and second, because the revolutions in the other countries will come inevitably, and even though they are delayed they will nevertheless come in sufficient time.
I am, as you see, no pessimist. In my book “Leninism” in 1925 I have expressed myself more extensively on this.
“We were optimists at the Twelfth Party Congress of the RCP (1923).[4] In 1925 there is even far more cause for optimism.” (See my book “Leninism”, Russian, p. 339).
Of course I do not “deny” the great successes which the Soviet Power has achieved “especially on the economic field”, on the contrary, I am proud of them, just as are all Bolsheviks. We were not the least of those who worked for those successes. And we hope, despite differences, to continue to work energetically in the raising of Socialist economy and Socialist culture in the USSR[5].
The mutual relations between the proletariat and the peasantry on a world scale. As one of the “most decisive” arguments against our position on the question of Socialism in a single country, this argument is trotted out; that also on a world scale the mutual relations between the proletariat and peasantry are, approximately the same as in Russia, i. e. that the peasantry comprises an overwhelming majority,
This argument disregards at least the following four circumstances:
1. On a world scale heavy industry and technical development are already sufficient for the proletariat to take over the leadership of the peasantry. Lenin said:
“Nevertheless we are justified in saying that on a world scale such an industry is at hand. On the earth there are countries with such an advanced heavy industry that they can immediately supply hundreds of millions of backward peasants. Upon this we base our estimates.” (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol: XVIII, pp. 433-436.) [Ninth All-Russia Congress of Soviets]
2. In order for be victorious it is not absolutely necessary to have a majority everywhere. It is sufficient to have it at the decisive place at the decisive moment. We recall the well-known work of Lenin on the results of the elections to the Constituent Assembly (1918 in which Lenin explained with excellent clarity how the Bolsheviks won the victory because, at the decisive moment and in the decisive places — in Petrograd, Moscow, in the chief army centres and in the fleet, and among the poor peasantry — they had the majority even though the Social Revolutionaries still had a considerable majority in Russia, as the elections showed.
3. If one speaks about the majority of the peasants throughout the whole world, one has in mind also the peasant population of the colonies and semi-colonies, in general of the dependent countries. Among these must be included the hundreds of millions of peasants in China, India; Egypt, etc. It is self-understood that if one takes into consideration the position of these hundreds of millions of peasants suffering under the yoke of imperialism, the role which confronts them in an epoch of the proletarian revolution cannot simply be likened to the situation and role of the European or American agricultural population. Lenin had this very thing in mind when he spoke of the fusion of the great national revolutionary movements with the proletarian revolution. On the other hand, the liberation of the colonies as a result of the proletarian revolutions in the ruling countries will create a completely new situation. The liberation of the principal colonial countries has for its premise simply the victory of the Socialist revolution in two or three of the strongest imperialist States.
4. In the USSR, after the conquest of power by the proletariat, the relationship between the proletariat and peasantry is something entirely special. In all the rest of the world we now still see three classes: the proletariat, the peasantry, and the bourgeoisie, which rules and which rides on the backs of the workers as well as of the peasants and which, by means of deception, has won over to itself a section of the workers and peasants. We (the USSR) are now surrounded on all sides by bourgeois states, i. e., by states in which the bourgeoisie determines the policy, and in which they control the army and navy, the factories and workshops.
This is by no means the same as what will exist tomorrow, i. e., when the whole world (or at least the decisive countries) will have overthrown the bourgeoisie and when only two classes will remain — the proletariat and the peasantry. If tomorrow, let us say, the German proletarian revolution were to join us, and the day after tomorrow the British, this would immediately change the whole situation. We would then have put an end to bourgeois rule in the two countries that are decisive for Europe. The real relationship between the proletariat and peasantry in these countries would immediately change, although the statistical relationship would remain as before. And a decisive change would also immediately take place on a world scale in the relations between proletariat and peasantry. Although in the whole world the peasant would continue to constitute a statistical majority, and although in all the rest of the world the bourgeoisie would continue to ride-upon the backs of the workers as well as of the peasants — the situation would nevertheless be fundamentally changed.
That is why Lenin said that the victory of the Socialist revolution is practically assured from the moment in which it has been victorious at least in some of the most important countries.
“The stronger that the official Social Democracy is in a country the worse off is the proletariat in that country. This can now be considered as a fully proven axiom. Other things being equal it is unquestionably so.”
I wrote this in the article “The Social Democracy as the Tool of Reaction” immediately after the First Congress of the Comintern. (Kommunistische Internationale, 1919, p. 181-182.)
As the “Third Party” of the bourgeoisie, as the “Left Wing of the bourgeoisie”, as a “wing of Fascism” we characterised the upper strata of the official Social Democracy at the Fifth Congress of the Comintern. In its essentials we maintain this appraisal also today. This explains the fact that the Social Democratic leaders and the Social Democratic press organs, including the Russian Mensheviki, who naturally try to exploit our differences of opinion for their own purposes, continue to attack us with a maximum of rage and hatred, in exactly the same manner as do the most important press organs of the world bourgeoisie and of the White emigration.
It is claimed that Levi and other Social Democrats sympathise with me. I should like to point out the following facts.
At the recent Party Congress of the Austrian Social Democracy in Linz, Käte Leichter appeared in the name of a local organisation of the Vienna Social Democratic Party and proposed an amendment in the draft programme worked out by Otto Bauer. The amendment demanded: struggle for the amalgamation of workers' parties on an international scale. In speaking for her proposal this Social Democrat said:
“We also believe that the development a recently shown in Russia will contribute very much to this. No matter how we may look upon the methods of Stalinism one thing is sure that at present that tendency has won out in Russia which, if it proceeds consistently, will lead to a constantly stronger rapprochement with the Social Democracy.”
In this spirit practically, the whole Social Democracy judges our differences of opinion. And the whole of the bourgeois world-newspapers, and the bourgeois politicians of all over Europe and America, go still further.
The general attitude of the CI towards the ultra-Left and Right, mistakes must, in my opinion, be determined by the following instructions by Lenin.
In the “Infantile Sickness”, Lenin writes: “In struggling against what enemies in the labour movement has bolshevism grown up and become strong?” Lenin replies:
“First chiefly in the struggle against opportunism which in 1914 finally sprouted into Social chauvinism and definitely went over to the side of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. Naturally enough this was the chief foe of Bolshevism within the labour movement. This foe still remains the principal enemy on an international scale”. (German edition, CI, 1920, p. 13.)
In the report to the Second Congress of the CI Lenin said:
“Opportunism is our chief enemy… Here is our principal foe and this foe we must conquer. We must leave the Congress with the firm determination to fight it to the very end in all parties. That is the chief task. In comparison with this task it is an easy job to make good the mistakes of the `Left' trend in Communism ...” (German: Minutes of the Second Congress of the CI, 1921 pp. 36 and 37.)
If one takes up the practice of the most important Sections of the Comintern in recent months then it is clear that towards the “Left” there has been applied a policy not of cure but of expulsion, whilst towards the Right (Poland, Great Britain) an altogether too soft policy was applied.
The period of relative capitalist stabilisation will inevitably be a period of the growth of opportunism in certain Communist Parties, a period of the strengthening of Right groups and “leaders”. If we forget this and throw ourselves with all severity against the ultra-Left, then this will bring serious harm to the Comintern.
Among the Rights well as among the ultra-Left there are elements that are really breaking with the Comintern. It is unnecessary to say that anyone who does not agitate for the USSR, is no Communist. Anyone who whispers any sort of distrust of the USSR to the Social Democratic workers who travel with the delegations to the USSR commits a crime against the proletarian revolution. Such people are enemies of Communism. Against them we must fight as against our worst foes.
Anyone who has taken this path is no longer either a “Right” or an “ultra-Left” — he has simply gone over to the other side of the barricade.
The Right tendencies undoubtedly play a very serious role, e. g. in the Communist Party of Czecho-Slovakia (in the central organ of the Party an article is “suddenly” published which solidarizes itself with Otto Bauer on the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, violence, etc.). Articles containing Social Democratic deviations — on the question of the presidential election — are no rarity. And although in the first case the CC corrected the author — all this is no accident. In Norway (a tendency for the liquidation of the Party); in Holland (on the occasion of the Java uprising the Dutch Communist Party proposed jointly with the Social Democrats ... the sending of a mixed commissions to \investigate the affair); in Poland (the tactics at the time of Pilsudski revolt); in Great Britain (in the course of recent events it developed that in one group of the Party there prevails a stubborn Right, deviation, and especially in England this Right danger can become extremely harmful). In Germany also the “Right” danger is an undeniable fact.
I hope that no one will tell me here that I have any sort of spiritual or political sympathy with any of the real Right tendencies and groups, or with their leaders, mentioned here. All these groups are grim foes of the opposition in the CPSU.
With regard to Souvarine only this is correct that Comrade Humbert Droz discussed with me the question of the further attitude towards Souvarine, just before his departure for the Fifth Congress of the CP of France. I expressed the view that if Souvarine discontinues his factional organ, as demanded from him by the VI Enlarged Plenum, it might perhaps be well for the Party to give him site opportunity to go for a year to China or America, and if he acts in a disciplined manner, to take up the question of his readmission, since he was expelled for one year. With the specific viewpoint of Souvarine I have absolutely nothing in common and I stand, and have stood, in no contact with him. (Interjection: “Then why do you want to re-admit him to the Party?”).
Of course what is involved here consists only of dangers, of tendencies, and not of accomplished facts.
The question of the danger of degeneration can be put the way Herr Korsch puts it, or as Martov put it in 1920-21, i. e., with the intention of discrediting and vilifying the Soviet Union. But one can also and must put it — the way Lenin did.
“What is the New Economic Policy of the Bolsheviks — revolution or tactics?”
Lenin put this question on the occasion of an attack by Professor Ustrialov in the spring of 1922.
Other Bolsheviks also wrote about this, and especially also Comrade Bukharin in the book “Attack” (pp. 237-239) in which he spoke of the dangers of a transformation into an appendage of the NEP oligarchy, etc.
These dangers are therefore not hatched out. They must not be exaggerated but they must not be forgotten either.
In what do these dangers consist?
1) In the international capitalist encirclement, in the temporary and relative stabilisation of capitalism. It would be ridiculous to deny that such a situation inevitably calls forth “stabilisation moods”, over-estimation of the forces of international capitalism.
2) In the negative aspects of the NEP. The NEP is necessary. In no other way than through the NEP can we, in the Soviet Union, reach Socialism. But it would be ridiculous to deny that this partial revival of capitalism, which we have permitted, does not contain its dangers. Lenin constantly reminded us of that.
3) In, the petty bourgeois environment. The working class holds power in a country in which the tremendous majority of the population consists of peasants. As to the dangers contained in a petty bourgeois environment, Lenin reminded us unceasingly.
4) In the monopoly position of our Party. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not possible without the dictatorship of the Communist Party. Our present opponent, Comrade Bukharin, said about this now disputed question, at the Third Congress of the CI.
“As Marxists and orthodox Communists, we are all convinced that the dictatorship of one class is passible only as the dictatorship of the vanguard of this class, that means that the dictatorship of the working class can be realised only through the dictatorship of the Communist Party. We have long ago rejected the senseless theory of the counter-position of dictatorship of class to dictatorship of Party”.
The dictatorship of the proletariat cannot tolerate the existence of other Parties. The monopoly position of our Party is absolutely necessary. But it is impossible not to see that the monopoly position of our Party also has its negative aspects. That is what we pointed out in a number of resolutions at our Party Congresses, e. g., at the Eleventh Party Congress, while Lenin lived and under his complete agreement. Especially the Eleventh Party Congress pointed out that the monopoly position of our Party results in that considerable groups of political functionaries, who under other circumstances would be with the Mensheviki and Social Revolutionaries, will now inevitably approach our Party and surround it, or simply enter the Party and thereby inject non-Bolshevik moods and views into the Party.
5. In the State apparatus. It is unnecessary for us to talk about how impossible it is to change it in a short time in really proletarian spirit. We must remain conscious of the fact that not only does the Party exert its effect on the State apparatus, but also the State apparatus upon the Party. All the greater is therefore the negative significance of bureaucratism in the State apparatus.
6. In the camp-followers. The “specialists” (experts), the higher categories of employees and the intelligentsia are necessary for our cause. It is not to be doubted, however, that through this group of workers an unproletarian influence penetrates our State and economic apparatus, and sometimes also our Party apparatus.
All these dangers must be recognised — not in order to surrender to them, or to exaggerate them, but in order to fight them with proper measures, as Lenin taught us.
In the period in which private capital is growing in the towns, and the kulak in the village, the Party must watch these dangers particularly painstakingly, in order to launch the struggle against them with all possible means. Given a correct policy the Party will he completely successful in this, since the forces which counteract the tendencies and dangers mentioned are very great. The proletarian revolution has awakened tremendous forces. In our revolution, in our Party, there are tremendous forces.
Now as to the question of two parties: I am accused of a certain tolerance of the idea of two parties in our country. That is false. That cannot be proven by anything. I was the first to fight against the revision of the formula regarding the dictatorship of the Party. It is surely quite clear that anyone who is for the dictatorship of the CPSU(b) cannot have a tolerant attitude towards the idea of a second Party.
At the Twelfth Party Congress of the CPSU (1923) a resolution was adopted on my report in which one of the fundamental tennets of Leninism was repeated, namely, the sentence that the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be realised in any other way than through the dictatorship of the Communist Party. A year later Comrade Stalin on the Twelfth Party Congress opposed this formula and maintained that Lenin was supposed to have spoken of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and not of the dictatorship of the Communist Party.
The passage in question in the resolution of the Twelfth Party Congress reads:
“The dictatorship of the working class cannot be assured in any other way than through the form of the dictatorship of its advanced vanguard, that is the Communist Party.”
Comrade Stalin replied to this:
“I remember that in one of the resolutions of our Congress, it seems even in the resolution of the Twelfth Party Congress, such an expression was included, of course, through an oversight...”
“For is not Lenin correct when he spoke not about the dictatorship of the Party but of the dictatorship of the proletariat.” (Stalin “Results of the Thirteenth Party Congress of the RCP”, 1924, p. 22.)
This is of course not a Leninist formulation of the question. Lenin said: We have the dictatorship of the proletariat and precisely for this reason the dictatorship of the Communist Party. The whole kernel of our Central Committee was unanimously of the view that in this question Comrade Stalin made a great fundamental error.
On the basis of this incorrect declaration of Comrade Stalin I wrote an article (“On the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Dictatorship of the Party”) which appeared as an editorial in the Pravda No. 190, 1924). Prior to this there took place a conference of 25 members of the CC — Leninists (among them all members of the Pol-Bureau with the exception of Comrade Trotsky) — which with an overwhelming majority repudiated the fundamental mistakes of Comrade Stalin and ratified my article. Comrade Trotsky likewise never expressed himself in his works in the sense that the dictatorship of the proletariat is actually conceivable only in the form of the dictatorship of its vanguard, that is of the Party. Of course, I stand completely on this standpoint, now also, that the victorious dictatorship of the proletariat is possible only under the dictatorship of the Communist Party. Even for this reason alone, I shall always fight with all the means at my disposal against the slightest tendency towards two Parties, against the slightest attempts to weaken the dictatorship of the Bolshevik Party.
I withdraw not a single word of what I have written in the course of many years about the harmfulness and dangers of factional politics, especially for a Communist Party in power. If the general evolution of the struggle within the CPSU has led to the result that the advocacy of our fundamental views took on the character of factional struggle, then in our declaration of October 16, 1926, we have openly admitted our mistake and have called upon all our supporters to refrain from factional politics. We will remind you, however, of the decision of the Thirteenth Party Congress of the CPSU:
“Only a constant, pulsating ideological life can preserve the Party in the manner in which it crystallised itself before and during the Revolution, this includes a constant critical study of our past, correction of our mistakes and the collective discussion of the weightiest questions.
For the safeguarding of this, it is desirable that the leading Party organs, heeding the voice of the broad Party masses, do not look upon every criticism as an expression of factional spirit and thereby crowd conscientious and disciplined Party members onto the path of exclusion and factionalism.”
The pledges that we took upon ourselves in the Declaration of October 16, we shall carry out in every respect. This we declare also in the forum of the Comintern.
The unity of the CPSU(b) and of the whole Comintern must be assured at any price.
Lenin considered blocs permissible. In 1920 at the Ninth Party Congress of our Party, Lenin said:
“A bloc — well, is a bloc! We need not be afraid of it, but must welcome it and effectuate it more solidly and broadly in the central organs of the Party Itself” (Lenin, Collected Works Vol. XVII, pp. 90-91) [Speech On Economic Development].
Perhaps Lenin formed a bloc with Comrade Trotsky against other members of the CC on the eve of the October urprising of 1917, in the question of the structure of the Red Army, economic organisation, the national question, the foreign trade monopoly.
The Executive of the Comintern also endorsed and organised blocs of two (and more) groups within the Communist Parties of various countries, e. g. in Germany, France, Czecho-Slovakia, Italy and America.
The representatives of the present Majority also tried to form a bloc with Trotsky for a time subsequent to the Fourteenth Party Congress.
The differences of the past have an important significance. But a bloc must be judged on the basis of the theoretical ideas and political tasks on which it is based, and analysed without distortion from its own documents. From this viewpoint, we calmly leave to the future the verdict on these ideas and slogans which we defend — in the way and with the means that our Party allows.
That which differentiate historical Trotskyism from Leninism up to 1917, and which is not defended by Comrade Trotsky himself, was in no way the property of the bloc, and will of course always encounter my sharpest resistance. Especially am I most sharply opposed to the theory of the permanent revolution, and I have fought this false theory on many occasions. Comrade Trotsky himself has declared:
“We proceed from the fact, as irrefutably proven, by practice, that in all in any manner fundamental questions in which anyone of us differed from, Lenin was absolutely right ...
... In the question of the relations between proletariat and peasantry we stand completely on the theoretical and tactical teachings which Lenin formulated on the basis of the experiences in the Revolutions of 1905 and 1917, as well as upon the basis of the experiences of Socialist construction (smytchka) …”
If we wanted to occupy ourselves with retrospective discussion of all differences at this time, there would probably be very serious differences of opinion on various essential questions of the past. But it is fundamentally false to think that any imaginable question dealing with the appraisal of the driving forces of the Revolution can be referred back to the old fight about the theory of the permanent revolution, etc. The driving forces of revolution (and counter-revolution) in each new state are subject to concrete Marxist appraisal on the basis of the sum total of past experiences.
As heretofore, of course stand also at present on the basis of Leninism.
I have by far not taken up all of the charges brought against me — for obvious reasons. I have only picked out some of the most important questions of principle.
I have said nothing about our differences of opinion concerning; 1) the tempo of industrialisation in the USSR; 2) the necessity of greater restrictions and greater burdens on private capital; 3) the same with respect to the kulaks; 4) the necessity of maintaining and gradually raising the real wages of the workers; 5) the necessity of realising the fundamentals of inner Party democracy; 6) the necessity for a more serious struggle against burearucratism; 7) the necessity of a more decisive resistance against the extension of suffrage and property rights of the upper strata in the villages, as well as the land lease terms and our proposed liberation of 40% of the poor peasants from tax burden; 8) the price policy (I have never proposed and do not propose a policy of raising prices); 9) the NEP and State capitalism; 10) the social composition of our Party.
What I have said is sufficient to show that 1 have been guilty in no manner of “Social Democratic” deviations.
Since I have differed with the majority of the CC of the CPSU, since I have remained in the Minority, I can no longer participate in the leadership of the Comintern. This was clear to me already after the Fourteenth Party Congress. In my speech at the Fourteenth Party Congress I already said this. Already at the first Plenum of the CC of the CPSU, subsequent to the Fourteenth Party Congress, I submitted a written request to be freed from my position as chairman of the CI.
In leaving direct work in the Comintern in consequence of the prevailing situation, I shout with you:
Long live the Comintern!
Long live the unity of the Comintern and the Communist Parties!
Long live the Soviet Union!
Long live Leninism!
Long live the world revolution!
[1] CPSU = Communist Party of the Soviet Union
[2] New Economic Policy
[3] Bukharin: Program of the Communist International (Draft)
[4] Russian Communist Party
[5] Union of Soviet Socialist Republics