SPEECH ON TRADE UNIONS
MARCH 14
Comrades, today Comrade Trotsky engaged in a particularly courteous polemic with me, reproaching me—or rather, calling me—“extremely cautious.” I must thank him for this compliment and express my regret that I am unable to return the favor. On the contrary, I shall be compelled to speak of my imprudent friend in order to address the very error that has cost me so much precious time—and that now forces us to continue debating the question of trade unions without moving on to more pressing issues. Comrade Trotsky delivered his concluding remarks on the trade union debate in Pravda on January 29, 1921. In his article “There Are Disagreements—but Why the Confusion?,” he accused me of being responsible for this confusion, of raising the question: “Who was the first to say ‘e’?” Yet this accusation is entirely turned back upon Trotsky himself: it is he who shifts blame from one head to another. His entire feuilleton was built on the premise that he emphasized the productive role of trade unions and that this was the proper subject of discussion. But that is not what gave rise to the disagreements—and it is not what made those disagreements so acutely painful. And however tedious it may be to repeat, even to the point of excess—though to be sure, I only took part in the debate for a single month—it must be reiterated that the starting point was not this issue, but rather the slogan of “restructuring,” which had been put forward from November 2–6 at the Fifth All‑Russian Trade Union Conference. Even then, to all who had not missed Rudzutak’s resolutions—and among them were the members of the Central Committee, including myself— The Tenth Congress of the RCP(b)
among whom were both the members of the Central Committee and myself—everyone understood that no real disagreement would arise over the question of the trade unions’ productive role; yet the three‑month-long debate ultimately did bring such disagreements to light—and these disagreements were, in fact, a political mistake. Comrade Trotsky reproached me during the debate in the Bolshoi Theatre, before the party’s leading cadres, for allegedly disrupting the discussion.24 I would take that as a compliment: I sought to disrupt the debate as it was unfolding, because such an appearance before a gathering burdened by the weight of the coming spring would have been counterproductive. Only the blind could fail to see that.
Comrade Trotsky now laughs at the fact that I raise the question of who was the first to say “e,” and he wonders why I accuse him of failing to join the commission. The reason is simple: it matters a great deal, Comrade Trotsky—indeed, it matters immensely—because failing to join the trade union commission amounted to a breach of discipline within the Central Committee. And when Trotsky speaks of this, what results is not merely dispute, but a shaking of the Party, a deepening of rancor—and sometimes, to be sure, extremes emerge. Comrade Trotsky even used the phrase “becoming demonized.” I recall a remark made by Comrade Goldmann—I will refrain from quoting him, for the word “Satan” carries a certain ominous resonance, while Goldmann himself evokes something far more endearing—so there is no “demonization” here; but it is true that extremes can arise on both sides, and what is far more monstrous is that certain comrades, some of the most admirable among us, did indeed slip into extreme positions—and we must never forget that. Yet when we add to this the authority of Comrade Trotsky, and when he publicly declares on December 25 that the Congress must choose between two tendencies—those words are unforgivable! They constitute a political error over which we are still struggling. And when people quibble over the fact that meetings are held in two separate rooms, that is naively simplistic. I would like to see the jester who claims that we should forbid delegates from holding meetings at the Congress, lest their votes become divided. That would be an exaggeration far beyond reason. Comrade Trotsky and the Central Committee made a political error on December 25 when they framed the question of “restructuring” in a fundamentally flawed manner. This— is a political error, and it remains uncorrected to this day. As for transportation, there is Resolution 26.
We are speaking here of the workers’ movement, of the relationship between the vanguard of the working class and the proletariat itself. If we remove someone from a high-ranking position, there is nothing inherently shameful about that. It does not besmirch anyone’s reputation. If you have made a mistake, the Congress will acknowledge it and restore mutual understanding and mutual trust between the vanguard of the working class and the working masses. This is the significance of the “Platform of Ten”27. If there are elements in the Platform that can be revised—if Trotsky emphasizes this and Ryazanov elaborates upon it—then those are minor matters. When it is said in speeches that Lenin’s hand is not clearly visible in the Platform, or that his participation is otherwise obscured—well, I would say: if I were to lend my hand or engage in a telephone conversation every time I had to sign off on something, I would have gone mad long ago. What I am saying is this: in order to establish mutual understanding and mutual trust between the vanguard of the working class and the working masses, if the Central Committee made a mistake—after all, it is human nature to become carried away—then that mistake ought to have been corrected. But when such errors begin to be defended, they become sources of political danger. Had we not drawn out to the fullest extent possible, in terms of democratic principles, the sentiments expressed here by Kutuzov, we would have faced political collapse. First and foremost, we must persuade—and only then, if necessary, compel. We must, above all else, first persuade, and only then, if necessary, compel. We failed to persuade the broad masses, and in doing so, we disrupted the proper balance between the vanguard and the masses.
When individuals like Kutuzov direct a portion of their businesslike discourse toward pointing out the bureaucratic abuses within our apparatus, we respond: yes, that is correct—our state is, in essence, a state marred by bureaucratic distortions. To combat this, we call upon non‑party workers to join the struggle. And here I must say that comrades like Kutuzov should be brought closer to this work and placed in positions of greater responsibility. This is the lesson we draw from our own experience.
As for the syndicalist tendency, it suffices to say a few words to Shlyapnikov, who had cited— X CONGRESS OF THE RCP(b)
The notion of a “All-Russia Congress of Producers,” which is explicitly stated in black and white in their platform and reaffirmed by Kolontai—claimed to be defensible on the basis of Engels—is nothing short of absurd. Engels was speaking of communist society, where classes would no longer exist; there would be 28 producers. But do we have classes today? We do. And are we currently witnessing the most ferocious class struggle? Indeed, we are! To come forth at the very height of this raging class conflict and proclaim: “All-Russia Congress of Producers”—what else could this be but a syndicalist deviation that must be resolutely and definitively condemned? In the convoluted array of platforms that have been put forward, we have seen that even Bukharin stumbled over the candidacies of one-third of the candidates. Comrades, we must never forget such vacillations in the history of our Party.
And now, since the “Workers’ Opposition” has championed democracy and advanced sound demands, we will do everything in our power to draw closer to them—and as a congress, it is incumbent upon us to make a certain selection. You claim that we are not fighting bureaucratism vigorously enough; then go and help us, come closer, assist in the struggle—but if you propose a “All-Russia Congress of Producers,” that is neither a Marxist nor a communist standpoint. The “Workers’ Opposition” misinterprets the program through Ryazanov’s lens. The program states: “Trade unions must achieve the actual concentration in their hands of the entire management of the national economy as a unified economic whole.” 29 Shlyapnikov, as ever prone to exaggeration, believes that, in our view, this will only come about twenty-five centuries from now. Yet the program clearly states that trade unions “must achieve” this—and when the congress declares that they have indeed achieved it, then that demand will be fulfilled.
Comrades, when the congress, standing before the proletariat of all Russia and the proletariat of the entire world, proclaims that it regards the proposals put forward by the “Workers’ Opposition” as a syndicalist half‑deviation, I am confident that all that is genuinely proletarian and healthy within the opposition will rally behind us, helping to restore the trust of the masses in us—trust that had been undermined by a minor centrist error—and together, with combined strength, we will be able to consolidate and unite our ranks, emerging as a united front to face the arduous struggle that lies ahead. And by confronting that struggle in a spirit of unity, resolve, and steadfastness, we shall emerge victorious. (Applause.)