Date: 1917-04
Source: ru:PSS/v36

Comrades, regarding the question of changing the name of the party, as you know, a rather thorough discussion has unfolded in the party since April 1917, and therefore the Central Committee immediately managed to reach a decision that does not seem to cause much controversy, or perhaps even almost none: namely, the Central Committee proposes that you change the name of our party, calling it the Russian Communist Party, in parentheses – Bolsheviks. We all recognize this addition as necessary, because the word "Bolshevik" has acquired citizenship not only in the political life of Russia, but also in all the foreign press, which follows the development of events in Russia in general terms. That the name "Social-Democratic Party" is scientifically incorrect has also already been explained in our press. When the workers created their own state, they approached the point where the old concept of democracy – bourgeois democracy – turned out to be surpassed in the process of development of our revolution. We have come to the type of democracy that has never existed anywhere in Western Europe. It had its prototype only in the Paris Commune, and Engels said of the Paris Commune that the Commune was not a state in the proper sense of the word{26}. In a word, since the working masses themselves take up the task of managing the state and creating an armed force that supports this state order, the special apparatus for management disappears, the special apparatus for a certain state violence disappears, and therefore, consequently, we cannot stand for democracy in its old form.

On the other hand, starting socialist transformations, we must clearly set before ourselves the goal to which these transformations are ultimately directed, namely the goal of creating a communist society, not limited only to the expropriation of factories, plants, land and means of production, not limited only to strict accounting and control over the production and distribution of products, but going further to the implementation of the principle: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. That is why the name of the Communist Party is the only scientifically correct one. The objection that it may give rise to confusion with the anarchists was immediately rejected in the Central Committee, because the anarchists never call themselves simply communists, but with certain additions. In this respect, there are all sorts of varieties of socialism, but they do not lead to confusion between social-democrats and social-reformists and national socialists and other such parties.

On the other hand, the most important argument for changing the name of the party is that so far the old official socialist parties in all the advanced countries of Europe have not gotten rid of that intoxication with social-chauvinism and social-patriotism, which led to the complete collapse of European socialism, the official one, during the present war, so that so far almost all the official socialist parties have been a real brake on the working-class revolutionary socialist movement, a real obstacle to it. And our party, sympathy for which among the working masses in all countries is currently, undoubtedly, extremely great – our party is obliged to come forward with the most decisive, sharp, clear, unambiguous statement that it is severing its connection with this old official socialism, and for this, changing the name of the party will be the means most capable of achieving the goal.

Further, comrades, a much more difficult question was the question of the theoretical part of the program, of its practical and political part. As for the theoretical part of the program, we have some materials, namely: the Moscow and St. Petersburg collections on the revision of the party program were published{27}; in the two main theoretical organs of our party: "Prosveshchenie"{28}, published in St. Petersburg, and "Spartak"{29}, published in Moscow, articles were published substantiating one or another direction of changing the theoretical part of our party's program. In this regard, there is known material. Two main points of view were outlined, which, in my opinion, do not diverge, at least fundamentally, in principle; one point of view, which I defended, is that we have no reason to throw out the old theoretical part of our program, and it would even be wrong. It is only necessary to supplement it with a characterization of imperialism as the highest stage of development of capitalism, and then – with a characterization of the era of socialist revolution, based on the fact that this era of socialist revolution has begun. Whatever the fate of our revolution, of our detachment of the international proletarian army, whatever the further vicissitudes of the revolution, in any case, the objective situation of the imperialist countries, embroiled in this war, which have brought the most advanced countries to hunger, ruin, and savagery – the situation is objectively hopeless. And here it is necessary to say what Friedrich Engels said thirty years ago, in 1887, assessing the likely prospect of a European war. He spoke about how crowns would lie in dozens in Europe, and no one would want to pick them up, he spoke about what incredible devastation would be the fate of European countries and how the ultimate result of the horrors of the European war could only be one thing – he put it this way: "either the victory of the working class, or the creation of conditions making this victory possible and necessary"{30}. Engels expressed himself extremely accurately and cautiously on this matter. Unlike people who distort Marxism, who present their belated pseudo-reasoning that socialism cannot exist on the basis of ruin, Engels understood perfectly well that any war, even in any advanced society, will create not only ruin, savagery, suffering, and misery in the masses, who will be overwhelmed in blood, that it cannot be guaranteed that this will lead to the victory of socialism, he said that it would be: "either the victory of the working class, or the creation of conditions making this victory possible and necessary," i.e., consequently, a number of difficult transitional stages are still possible here with the enormous destruction of culture and productive forces, but the result can only be the rise of the vanguard of the working masses, the working class, and the transition to it taking power into its own hands to create a socialist society. For, whatever the destruction of culture – it cannot be erased from historical life, it will be difficult to renew it, but no destruction will ever lead to this culture disappearing completely. In one or another of its parts, in one or another material remnant, this culture is ineradicable, the difficulties will only be in its renewal. So, here is one point of view, that we should leave the old program, supplementing it with a characterization of imperialism and the beginning of the social revolution.

I expressed this point of view in the draft program, which was printed by me[5]. Another draft was printed by Comrade Sokolnikov in the Moscow collection. Another point of view was expressed in our conversations, in particular – by Comrade Bukharin, in print – by Comrade V. Smirnov in the Moscow collection. This point of view consisted in the fact that it is necessary to either completely delete or almost remove the old theoretical part of the program and replace it with a new one, characterizing not the history of the development of commodity production and capitalism, as our program did, but the modern stage of the highest development of capitalism – imperialism – and the direct transition to the era of social revolution. It does not seem to me that these two points of view diverge fundamentally and in principle, but I will defend my point of view. It seems to me that it is theoretically incorrect to delete the old program, which characterizes the development from commodity production to capitalism. There is nothing wrong in it. That's how it went, that's how it goes, because commodity production gave birth to capitalism, and it led to imperialism. This is a general world-historical perspective, and the foundations of socialism should not be forgotten. Whatever the further vicissitudes of the struggle, however many particular zigzags we have to overcome (and there will be very many – we see from experience what gigantic fractures the history of the revolution makes, and only in our country; things will go much more complicated and faster, the pace of development will be more frenzied, and the turns will be more complex when the revolution turns into a European one) – in order not to get lost in these zigzags, fractures of history and to preserve the general perspective, to see the red thread connecting the entire development of capitalism and the entire road to socialism, which naturally seems straight to us, and we must represent it as straight, in order to see the beginning, continuation and end – in life it will never be straight, it will be incredibly complex – in order not to get lost in these fractures, in periods of steps back, retreats, temporary defeats or when history or the enemy throws us back, in order not to get lost, it is important in my opinion and theoretically the only correct thing will be not to throw out our old basic program. For we are now only at the first transitional stage from capitalism to socialism in our country, in Russia. History has not given us the peaceful environment that was theoretically conceived for a certain time and which is desirable for us, which would allow us to quickly pass through these transitional stages. We immediately see how the civil war has complicated many things in Russia and how this civil war is intertwined with a whole series of wars. Marxists have never forgotten that violence will inevitably be the companion of the collapse of capitalism on its entire scale and the birth of socialist society. And this violence will be a world-historical period, a whole era of the most diverse wars – imperialist wars, civil wars within the country, the intertwining of both, national wars, the liberation of nationalities crushed by imperialists, various combinations of imperialist powers, inevitably entering into certain alliances in the era of huge state-capitalist and military trusts and syndicates. This era – the era of gigantic collapses, mass military violent solutions, crises – has begun, we clearly see it – this is only the beginning. Therefore, to throw out everything that relates to the characteristics of commodity production in general, capitalism in general – we have no reason. We have just taken the first steps to completely shake off capitalism and begin the transition to socialism. How many more stages will be transitional to socialism, we do not know and cannot know. It depends on when the European socialist revolution begins on a real scale, on how easily, quickly or slowly it will cope with its enemies and get on the beaten path of socialist development. We do not know this, and the program of the Marxist party must proceed from absolutely accurately established facts. Only in this is the strength of our program, which has been confirmed through all the vicissitudes of the revolution. Only on this basis should Marxists build their program. We must proceed from absolutely accurately established facts, consisting in the fact that the development of exchange and commodity production throughout the world has become a predominant historical phenomenon, has led to capitalism, and capitalism has grown into imperialism – this is an absolutely undeniable fact, this must be established first of all in the program. That this imperialism is beginning the era of social revolution is also a fact that is obvious to us, about which we must clearly say. In full view of the whole world, stating this fact in our program, we raise the torch of social revolution not only in the sense of an agitational speech – we raise it as a new program, saying to all the peoples of Western Europe: "This is what we have learned from the experience of capitalist development. This is what capitalism was like, this is how it came to imperialism, and this is the era of social revolution that is beginning and in which the first role in time has fallen to our lot." We will come before all civilized countries with this manifesto, which will not only be a fervent appeal, which will be absolutely accurately substantiated, resulting from facts recognized by all socialist parties. The clearer will be the contradiction between the tactics of these parties, which have now betrayed socialism, and those theoretical premises that we all share, which have passed into the flesh and blood of every conscious worker: the development of capitalism and its transition to imperialism. On the eve of the imperialist wars, the congresses in Chemnitz and Basel gave in their resolutions such a characterization of imperialism, the contradiction between which and the current tactics of social-traitors is blatant{31}. We must therefore repeat this basic thing in order to show the working masses of Western Europe more clearly what their leaders are accused of.

This is the main thing, according to which I consider such a construction of the program to be the only theoretically correct one. To discard, as if it were old junk, the characteristics of commodity production and capitalism – this does not follow from the historical nature of what is happening, because we have not gone beyond the first stages of the transition from capitalism to socialism, and our transition is complicated by such features of Russia that most civilized countries do not have. Consequently, it is not only possible, but inevitable, that in Europe these transitional stages will be different; and therefore, to focus all attention on those national specific transitional stages that are necessary for us, but may not become necessary in Europe, will be theoretically incorrect. We must start with the general basis of the development of commodity production, the transition to capitalism and the transformation of capitalism into imperialism. By this we theoretically occupy, strengthen the position from which no one who has not betrayed socialism will knock us down. From this, an equally inevitable conclusion is drawn: the era of social revolution is beginning.

We do this, remaining on the basis of undeniably established facts.

Further, our task is to characterize the Soviet type of state. On this issue, I tried to present theoretical views in the book "The State and Revolution"[6]. It seems to me that the Marxist view of the state was extremely distorted by the dominant official socialism of Western Europe, which was remarkably clearly confirmed by the experience of the Soviet revolution and the creation of Soviets in Russia. There is still a lot of crude, unfinished things in our Soviets, there is no doubt about that, it is clear to everyone who has looked at their work, but what is important in them, what is historically valuable, what represents a step forward in the world development of socialism is that a new type of state has been created here. In the Paris Commune, it was for several weeks, in one city, without awareness of what they were doing. The communes were not understood by those who created it, they created it with the brilliant intuition of the awakened masses, and not a single faction of French socialists was aware of what it was doing. We are in conditions when, thanks to the fact that we stand on the shoulders of the Paris Commune and the long-term development of German social democracy, we can clearly see what we are doing, creating Soviet power. By the popular masses, despite all the crudeness, indiscipline that exists in the Soviets, which is a relic of the petty-bourgeois character of our country – despite all this, a new type of state has been created. It is applied not for weeks, but for months, not in one city, but in a huge country, in several nations. This type of Soviet power has shown itself, if it has spread to such a country that is so different in all respects as Finland, where there are no Soviets, but the type of power is again new, proletarian{32}. So this is proof of what is theoretically indisputable, that Soviet power is a new type of state without bureaucracy, without police, without a standing army, with the replacement of bourgeois democracy with a new democracy – a democracy that puts forward the vanguard of the working masses, making them both the legislator and the executor, and the military guard, and creates an apparatus that can re-educate the masses.

In Russia, this has barely begun, and it has begun badly. If we realize what is bad in what we have begun, we will overcome it, if history gives us the opportunity to work on this Soviet power for any decent amount of time. Therefore, it seems to me that the characterization of the new type of state should occupy a prominent place in our program. Unfortunately, we had to work on the program now in the conditions of the work of the government, in the conditions of such incredible haste that we did not even manage to convene our commission, to develop an official draft program. What has been distributed to the comrade delegates is called only a rough draft[7], and everyone will clearly see this. It devotes a rather large place to the question of Soviet power, and it seems to me that the international significance of our program should be reflected here. It would be extremely wrong, it seems to me, if we limited the international significance of our revolution to appeals, slogans, demonstrations, appeals, etc. This is not enough. We must specifically show the European workers what we have undertaken, how we have undertaken it, how to understand it, this will push them specifically to the question of how to achieve socialism. Here they should look: the Russians are taking on a good task, and if they are taking on it badly, then we will do it better. For this, as much concrete material as possible needs to be given and said what new we have tried to create. In Soviet power, we have a new type of state; let's try to outline its tasks, construction, let's try to explain why this new type of democracy, in which there is so much chaotic, absurd, what constitutes its living soul – the transfer of power to the working people, the elimination of exploitation, the apparatus for suppression. The state is an apparatus for suppression. It is necessary to suppress the exploiters, but they cannot be suppressed by the police, they can only be suppressed by the mass itself, the apparatus must be connected with the masses, must represent it, like the Soviets. They are much closer to the masses, they make it possible to stand closer to it, they give more opportunities to educate this mass. We know perfectly well that the Russian peasant strives to learn, but we want him to learn not from books, but from his own experience. Soviet power is an apparatus – an apparatus for the mass to immediately begin to learn how to manage the state and organize production on a national scale. This is a gigantic task. But it is historically important that we are taking on its solution, and the solution not only from the point of view of our country alone, but also calling on the help of European workers. We must make a concrete explanation of our program precisely from this general point of view. That is why we believe that this is a continuation of the path of the Paris Commune. That is why we are sure that, having embarked on this path, European workers will be able to help us. They will do better what we are doing, with the center of gravity from a formal point of view being shifted to specific conditions. If in the old days such a requirement as a guarantee of the right of assembly was especially important, then our point of view on the right of assembly is that no one can now prevent assemblies, and Soviet power should only provide a hall for assemblies. For the bourgeoisie, the general proclamation of high-sounding principles is important: "All citizens have the right to assemble, but to assemble in the open air – we will not give you premises." And we say: "Less phrases and more substance." It is necessary to select palaces – and not only the Tauride Palace, but also many others – and we are silent about the right of assembly. And this must be extended to all other points of the democratic program. We must judge ourselves. Citizens must participate en masse in the court and in the management of the country. And for us, it is important to involve all working people en masse in the management of the state. This is a gigantic task. But socialism cannot be introduced by a minority – a party. It can be introduced by tens of millions when they learn to do it themselves. We see our merit in the fact that we strive to help the mass take on this themselves immediately, and not learn this from books, from lectures. That is why, if we express these our tasks concretely and clearly, we will push all European masses to discuss this issue and to its practical formulation. We may be doing badly what needs to be done, but we are pushing the masses to what they should be doing. If what our revolution is doing is not an accident – and we are deeply convinced of this – not a product of the decision of our party, but an inevitable product of every revolution that Marx called popular, i.e., one that is created by the popular masses themselves with their slogans, their aspirations, and not by repeating the program of the old bourgeois republic – if we put it this way, then we will achieve the most essential thing. And here we come to the question of whether to eliminate the differences between the maximum and minimum programs. Both yes and no. I am not afraid of this elimination, because the point of view that existed in the summer should not take place now. I said "early" then, when we had not yet taken power – now, when we have taken this power and tested it – it is not early[8]. We must now write a new program of Soviet power instead of the old program, without in any way renouncing the use of bourgeois parliamentarism. To think that we will not be thrown back is a utopia.

Historically, it cannot be denied that Russia created the Soviet Republic. We say that in any throwing back, without refusing to use bourgeois parliamentarism – if class, hostile forces drive us to this old position – we will go to what has been conquered by experience – to Soviet power, to the Soviet type of state, a state of the type of the Paris Commune. This must be expressed in the program. Instead of the minimum program, we will introduce the program of Soviet power. The characterization of the new type of state should occupy a prominent place in our program.

It is clear that we cannot develop a program now. We must develop its basic provisions and submit them to the commission or to the Central Committee for the development of basic theses. Even simpler: development is possible on the basis of that resolution on the Brest-Litovsk conference, which has already given the theses[9]. On the basis of the experience of the Russian revolution, such a characterization of Soviet power should be made and then a proposal for practical transformations. Here, it seems to me, in the historical part it is necessary to note that the expropriation of land and production has now begun{33}. Here we set a concrete task of organizing consumption, universalizing banks, turning them into a network of state institutions, covering the entire country and giving us public accounting, accounting and control carried out by the population itself, which underlies further steps of socialism. I think that this part, the most difficult, should be formulated in the form of concrete demands of our Soviet power – what we want to do right now, what reforms we intend to carry out in the field of banking policy, in the organization of production of products, the organization of exchange, accounting and control, the introduction of labor conscription, etc. When we succeed, we will supplement what steps, small steps and half-steps we have taken in this regard. Here it should be absolutely accurate, clearly defined what we have started, what we have not finished. We all know perfectly well that a huge part of what we have started has not been finished. Without exaggerating in the slightest, completely objectively, without departing from the facts, we must say in the program about what is and what we are going to do. We will show this truth to the European proletariat and say: this must be done – so that they say: the Russians are doing this and that badly, and we will do it better. And when this aspiration captivates the masses, then the socialist revolution will be invincible. Before everyone's eyes, an imperialist war is taking place, thoroughly predatory. When before everyone's eyes the imperialist war exposes itself, turns into a war of all imperialists against Soviet power, against socialism – this will give another new impetus to the proletariat of the West. It is necessary to expose this, to describe the war as the unification of imperialists against the socialist movement. These are the general considerations that I consider it necessary to share with you and on the basis of which I make a practical proposal now to exchange basic views on this issue and then to develop, perhaps, several basic theses here as well, and now, if this is recognized as difficult, to abandon this and submit the question of the program to the Central Committee or a special commission, which is instructed, on the basis of available materials and on the basis of stenographic or detailed secretarial reports of the congress, to draw up a program of the party, which must now change its name. It seems to me that we can implement this at the present time, and I think that everyone will agree that with the unpreparedness of our program in editorial terms, in which events caught us, nothing else can be done now. I am sure that in a few weeks we can do this. We have enough theoretical forces in all currents of our party to get a program in a few weeks. There may, of course, be many erroneous things in it, not to mention editorial and stylistic inaccuracies, because we do not have months to sit down for this work with the calmness necessary for editorial work.

We will correct all these errors in the process of our work with full confidence that we are giving Soviet power the opportunity to implement this program. If we, at least, formulate accurately, without departing from reality, that Soviet power is a new type of state, a form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, that we have set other tasks for democracy, that we have translated the tasks of socialism from the general abstract formula of "expropriation of the expropriators" into such concrete formulas as the nationalization of banks{34} and lands – this will be an essential part of the program.

The land question will have to be transformed in the sense that here we see the first steps of how the small peasantry, wishing to side with the proletariat, wishing to help it in the socialist revolution, how, with all its prejudices, with all its old views, has set itself the practical task of transition to socialism. We do not impose this on other countries, but this is a fact. The peasantry has shown not in words, but in deeds, that it wants to help and helps the proletariat, which has conquered power, to implement socialism. It is in vain that we are attributed to the fact that we want to forcibly introduce socialism. We will fairly divide the land, from the point of view of predominantly small farms. At the same time, we give preference to communes and large labor artels{35}. We support the monopolization of the grain trade. We support – so said the peasantry – the expropriation of banks and factories. We are ready to help the workers in the implementation of socialism. I think it is necessary to publish the basic law on the socialization of land in all languages. This publication will take place – if it has not already taken place{36}. We will express this idea concretely in the program – it must be expressed theoretically, without departing a single step from concretely stated facts. In the West, this will be transformed differently. Perhaps we are making mistakes, but we hope that the proletariat of the West will correct them. And we appeal to the European proletariat with a request to help us in our work.

We can develop our program in this way in a few weeks, and the mistakes that we make – they will be corrected by life – we will correct them ourselves. They will all be as light as a feather compared to the positive results that will be achieved.

A brief summary was published on March 20 (7), 1918 in the newspaper "Raboche-Krestyansky Nizhegorodsky Listok" No. 55