V. I. Lenin

Fifth All-Russia Congress of Soviets of Workers’ Peasants’,
Soldiers’ and Red Army Deputies [1]

July 4-10, 1918

Comrades, permit me, even though the previous speaker was at
times extremely excited, [2] to submit my report on behalf of the
Council of People’s Commissars in the usual way, that is,
to deal with the main questions of principle in order of merit,
and not enter into the argument which the previous speaker would
so much like to have, and which, of course, I have no intention
of declining altogether. You know that since the last Congress,
the chief factor which has determined our position, changed our
policy and shaped our tactics and attitude towards certain other
parties in Russia has been the Brest Treaty. You will recall how
many reproaches were hurled at us at the last Congress, how many
accusations were levelled at us, and how many voices were raised
declaring that this famous respite would not help Russia, that
in any case an international imperialist alliance had been
concluded, and that in practice the retreat we were advocating
would lead nowhere. This basic factor determined the whole
position of the capitalist states, too, and we must naturally
dwell on it. I think that the past three and a half months have
made it absolutely indisputable that despite all reproaches and
accusations we were right. We may say that the proletariat and
the peasantry, who do not exploit others, do not make profits
out of the people’s hunger, are entirely and unreservedly
on our side, and at any rate are against those unwise people who
would embroil them in war, who are against the Brest
Treaty. (Commotion.)

Nine-tenths of the people are on our side, and the clearer the situation becomes, the more
certain it is that now, when the West-European imperialist
parties, the two chief imperialist groups, are locked in a
life-and-death struggle, when with every month, every week,
every day they are pushing each other nearer and nearer to the
abyss whose outlines we can clearly perceive, at such a time it
is clearer than ever to us that our tactics were right. That is
best felt and realised by those who have been through the war,
who have seen what war means and do not talk about it in airy
terms. To us it is perfectly clear that as long as each of these
groups is stronger than we are, and as long as that radical
change which will permit the workers, and the working people of
Russia in general, to enjoy the fruits of the revolution, to
recover from the blow that has been dealt them and to rise to
their full stature, so as to create a now, organised and
disciplined army on new lines, in order that we may, not merely
in words, but in deeds ... (loud applause on the Left. Voice from the Right: “Kerensky!”), as long as that
radical change has not come, we have to wait. Therefore, the
deeper we go down among the masses of the people, and the nearer
we get to the workers of the mills and factories and to the
working peasants, who do not exploit hired labour, do not defend
the profiteering interests of the kulak, who conceals his grain
and fears the food dictatorship, the more surely may we say that
there too we shall meet and are meeting in fact we may say with
absolute conviction that we have already met-with full sympathy
and unanimous accord. Yes, it is a fact that at present the
people do not want to fight, cannot fight, and will not fight
these enemies-the imperialists-however much some may try, in
their ignorance or infatuation with phrases, to drive them into
this war, and no matter what catchwords they may use as a
camouflage. No, comrades, anyone who now calls for war directly
or indirectly, in open or veiled form, anyone who howls about
the Brest Peace Treaty being a noose, fails to see that it is
Kerensky and the landowners, capitalists and kulaks who are
putting a noose around the necks of the workers and peasants of
Russia... (Voice: “Mirbach!”
Commotion.) Let them scream, as they do at every meeting; among the people their cause is hopeless! (Applause and commotion.)

I am not a bit surprised that, in view of the predicament these
people are in, the only way they can answer is by shouts,
hysterical outeries, abuse and wild behaviour (applause) , when they have no other arguments
.... (Voice: “We have arguments!”
Commotion.)

Ninety-nine out of every hundred Russian soldiers know what
incredible suffering it cost to get the mastery of this
war. They know that in order to put war on a new socialist and
economic basis (cries of “Mirbacb won’t let you!”), tremendous effort will be required, and first of
all we had to put an end to the war of plunder. Knowing that the
frenzied forces of imperialism are continuing to fight, and that
in the three months which have elapsed since the last Congress
they have moved several steps nearer to the abyss, they will not
join in this war. After we had performed our duty to all the
nations, realising the value of a declaration of peace and
bringing its value home to the workers of all countries through
our Brest delegation, headed by Comrade Trotsky, when we openly
proposed an honest democratic peace, this proposal was frustrated by the frenzied bourgeoisie of all countries. Our
position cannot be any other but to wait, and the people will
yet see these frenzied imperialist cliques, strong though they
still are today, tumble into the abyss which they are now
approaching, as everybody can see .... (Applause)
Everybody can see that who does not deliberately close his
eyes. In these three and a half months, during which the
frenzied imperialist party has been doing its best to drag out
the war, this abyss has undoubtedly drawn nearer. We know, feel
and realise that we are not yet ready for war; that is what the
soldiers, the men under arms, who know what war means in
practice, are saying. And as for the cries that we should throw
off the Brest noose at once, they come from the Mensheviks, the
Right Socialist Revolutionaries and the followers of Kerensky,
the Constitutional-Democrats. You know where the followers of
the landowners and the capitalists, where the hangers-on of the
Right Socialist-Revolutionaries and Constitutional-Democrats
still stand. In that camp, the speeches of the Left
Socialist-Revolutionaries, who also incline towards war, will be
greeted with loud applause. The Left Socialist Revolutionaries,
as the previous speakers have said, find themselves in an
awkward predicament: they have landed in the wrong box. (Applause)

We know that great revolutions arise from the very depths of the
people, that this takes months and years, and we are not
surprised that in the course of the revolution the Left
Socialist-Revolutionary party has shown such incredible
vacillations. Trotsky has told us about these vacillations here,
and it only remains for me to add that on October 26, when we
invited the Left Socialist-Revolutionary comrades to join the
government, they refused, and when Krasnov was at the gates of
Petrograd, they were not with us, with the consequent result
that they helped not us, but Krasnov. We are not surprised at
these vacillations. Yes, this party has been through a great
deal. But, comrades, there is a limit to everything.

We know that revolution is a thing that is learned by experience
and practice, that a revolution becomes a real revolution only
when tens of millions of people rise up with, one accord, as one
man. (Lenin’s words are drowned by applause. Cries of “Long live the Soviets!”) This struggle,
which is raising us to a new life, has been begun by one hundred
and fifteen million people: this great struggle must be examined
with the utmost attention.(Loud applause.) In October, when the
Soviet regime was founded, on October 26, 1917, when
... (commotion, shouts and applause) our party and its representatives on the Central Executive Committee invited the
Left Socialist-Revolutionary party to join the government, it
refused. When the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries refused to join
our government they were not with us, but against us. (Commotion on the Left Socialist-Revolutionary benches.) I am very sorry to have to say things you do not
like. (The commotion on the Right becomes louder.) But what’s to be done? If Krasnov, the Cossack general
.... (The commotion and outcries prevent Lenin from continuing.) When, on October 26, you vacillated, not
knowing yourselves what you wanted, and refused to join us
.... (Commotion lasting several minutes.) The truth is hard to swallow! Let me remind you that those who vacillated,
who do not know themselves what they want and refuse to join us,
willingly listen to the fables of others. I have told you that
the soldier who has been in the war .... (Commotion and applause.) When the previous speaker had the floor the vast
majority of the delegates did not interrupt her. Well, it is
only to be expected. If these people prefer to withdraw from the
Congress, well, then, good riddance! (Commotion and excitement on the Right benches.)

And so, comrades, the whole course of events has shown that we
were right in concluding the Brest peace. And those who tried at
the last Congress of Soviets to crack feeble jokes about the
respite have seen and learnt that we have secured a breathing-space; true, it cost us incredible effort, but during
this breathing-space our workers and peasants have taken a
tremendous step forward to socialist construction, while the
Western powers, on the contrary, have taken a tremendous step
towards that abyss for which imperialism is heading faster and
faster with every week of this war.

And so the only way I can explain the conduct of those who
denounce our tactics because of the difficulty of our situation
is that they are completely bewildered. I repeat that one only
has to recall the past three and a half months. I would remind
those who were at the last Congress of some of the things that
were said there, and would recommend those who were not to read
the minutes or the newspaper reports of that Congress, which
will convince them that events have fully corroborated our
tactics. There can be no boundary line between the victories of
the October Revolution and the victories of the international
socialist revolution; outbursts are bound to begin in other
countries. And in order to hasten them we did all we could in
the Brest period. Those who have been through the revolutions of
1905 and 1917, those who have pondered over them and examined
them thoughtfully and seriously, will know that these revolutions in our country were engendered with incredible
difficulty.

Two months before January 1905 or February 1917 no revolutionary, whatever his experience and knowledge, however
familiar he was with the life of the people, could have foreseen
that Russia would be shaken by such explosions. To fasten on
individual cries and launch appeals to the masses which are
tantamount to terminating the peace and plunging us into war is
the policy of people who are utterly bewildered and have lost
their heads completely. And to prove that this is so, I will
cite the words of a person whose sincerity neither I nor anybody
else will question-the words of Comrade Spiridonoval from the
speech which was published in Golos Trudovovo Krestyanstva [3] , and which has not been
repudiated. In this speech of June 30, Comrade Spiridonova
inserted three totally irrelevant lines to the effect that the
Germans had presented us with an ultimatum to deliver to them
2,000million rubles’ worth of textiles.

A party which drives its most sincere representatives into such
an awful quagmire of lies and deceit, such a party is absolutely
doomed. The workers and peasants cannot help knowing what
tremendous effort and anguish it cost us to sign the Brest
Treaty. Surely, it is not necessary to exaggerate the hardships
of that peace by the kind of fables and fabrications to which
even the sincerest members of that party resort. But we know
that truth is with the people, and we are guided by it, while
this party writhes in hysterics. From that standpoint, conduct
inspired by such utter bewilderment is worse than any provocation. Especially if we compare all the parties of Russia
as a whole, as a scientific attitude towards the revolution
requires. One must never neglect to examine the relations of all
the parties as a whole. Individual persons or groups may be
mistaken, maybe baffled, may not be able to explain their own
conduct; but if we take all the parties of Russia as a whole and
examine their mutual relations, there can be no mistake. Just
see what the Right Socialist-Revolutionaries, Kerensky, Savinkov
and the rest, are saying now, when they hear the appeals of the
Left Socialist-Revolutionaries .... Why, they applaud like
mad. They would be glad to embroil Russia in a war just now,
when it would suit Milyukov’s purpose. And to talk like
that, to talk now about the Brest peace being a noose, is to
cast the landowner’s noose around the neck of the Russian
peasant. When they talk here about fighting the Bolsheviks, like
the previous speaker, who spoke about a quarrel with the
Bolsheviks, my reply is: no, comrades, this is no quarrel, but a
genuine and irrevocable rupture, a rupture between those who are
hearing the whole onus of the situation by telling the people
the truth, and not allowing themselves to be intoxicated by
outcries, and those who are intoxicating themselves with such
outcries and involuntarily doing the work of the enemy, the work
of provocateurs. (Applause)

I will now conclude the first part of my report. During these
three and a half months of frantic imperialist war, the
imperialist states have drawn nearer to the abyss into which
they are driving the people. This wounded beast has torn many a
lump of flesh from our living organism. Our enemies are nearing
this abyss so fast that even if they had more than three and a
half months at their disposal, and even if the imperialist
carnage were again to inflict just as heavy losses on us, it is
they who would perish, not we; for the rapidity with which their
power of resistance is diminishing is drawing them rapidly
nearer to the abyss. We, on the other hand, in spite of the
tremendous difficulties, which we do not conceal from the
people, after these three and a half months have many a healthy
shoot of a healthy organism to show; both in industry and
everywhere else, small-scale constructive work is going on,
unpretentious and unsensational though it may be. It has already
yielded very fruitful results, and, given another three months,
six months, a whole winter season of such work, we shall march
forward, while the West-European imperialist beast, worn out by
the struggle, will be unable to stand such a contest, because
within it forces are maturing which, although they have no faith
in themselves as yet, will lead imperialism to its doom. And
what has already been begun there, and begun radically and
fundamentally, is not likely to be changed in three and a half
months. Far too little is being said about this constructive,
small-scale, creative work, and it seems to me that we should
talk about it more. I, for my part, cannot pass over this fact
in silence, if only because the attacks of the previous speaker
must be taken into accouiit. I would mention the resolution of
the Central Executive Committee of April 29,

1918. [See Six Theses of the Soviet Government —Editor ] At the time
I made a speech in which I spoke of the immediate tasks of the
Soviet

government, [ Session of the All-Russian C.E.C. —Editor ] and I pointed out that
notwithstanding the incredible difficulties of our position
prime attention at home must be given to constructive work.

And here we must cherish no illusions, and must say that to this
work, difficult though it may be, we must devote all our
efforts. Our experience, which I can tell you about, shows that
in this respect we have undoubtedly made big strides. To be
sure, if one looks only for outward results, as the bourgeoisie
do, seizing on our individual mistakes, one can scarcely speak
of success; but we look at it from a totally different angle. The bourgeoisie picks on the administration of the river
fleet, for example, and points out how often we have set about
reconstructing it and proclaims with malicious glee that the
Soviet government cannot cope with the job. To which I reply
that it is true that we have time and again reconstructed the
administration of our river fleet, as we have the administration
of the railways, and now are about to undertake an even bigger
reorganisation of the Economic Council. That is the whole
meaning of the revolution, namely, that socialism has passed
from the sphere of a dogma, which can be discussed only by
people who understand nothing at all, from the sphere of book
knowledge, of a programme, to the sphere of practical work. And
today the workers and peasants are making socialism with their
own hands.

The times have passed, and in Russia, I am sure, have passed
beyond recall, when we used to argue about the socialist
programme on the basis of book knowledge. Today socialism can be
discussed only on the basis of experience. The whole meaning of
the revolution lies in the fact that it has for the first time
in history discarded the old apparatus of bourgeois officialdom,
the bourgeois system of administration, and has created
conditions which enable the workers and peasants themselves to
set about this job, a job of incredible difficulty, whose
difficulties it would be absurd to conceal from ourselves; for
the capitalists and landowners have for centuries been hounding
and persecuting tens of millions of people even for harbouring
the thought of administering the land. Now, in the space of a
few weeks, a few mouths, in the midst of desperate and frightful
disruption, when the whole body of Russia has been bruised and
battered by the war, so that the people are like a man who has
been thrashed within an inch of his life—at such a time,
when the tsars, the landowners and the capitalists have left us
with a country in a state of utter disruption, the new job, the
new work of building must be shouldered by the new classes, by
the workers and those peasants who do not exploit hired workers
and do not profiteer in grain. Yes, this is an extremely
difficult task, but an extremely rewarding one. Every month of
such work and such experience is worth ten, if. not twenty,
years of our history. Yes, we are not afraid to confess what an
acquaintance with our decrees will show, namely, that we have
constantly to alter them; we have not yet produced anything
finished and complete, we do not yet know a socialism that can
be embodied in clauses and paragraphs. If we are now able to
submit a Soviet Constitution [4] to this Congress, it is only because Soviets have been set up and tested in all parts
of the country, because you yourselves have created that
Constitution and tested it in all parts of the country; only six
months after the October Revolution, and nearly a year after the
First All-Russia Congress of Soviets, are we able to write down
what already exists in practice.

In the economic sphere, where we are only just beginning to
build socialism, and where a new discipline must be built up, we
have no such experience—we are acquiring it by dint of alteration and reconstruction. That is our prime task. We say
that every new social order demands new relations between man
and man, a new discipline. There was a time when economic life
was impossible without feudal discipline, when there was only
one kind of discipline the discipline of the lash; and there was
a time of the rule of the capitalists, when the disciplinary
force was starvation. But now, with the Soviet revolution, with
the beginning of the socialist revolution, discipline must be
built on entirely new principles; it must be a discipline of
faith in the organising power of the workers and poor peasants,
a discipline of comradeship, a discipline of the utmost mutual
respect, a discipline of independence and initiative in the
struggle. Anyone who resorts to the old capitalist methods,
anyone who at a time of famine and want argues in the old,
capitalist way—if I sell grain on my own, I shall make a
bigger profit; if 1 set out on my own to get grain, I shall get
it easier—anyone who argues in that way may be choosing
the easier road, but he will never arrive at socialism.

It is simple and easy to keep within the old realm of customary
capitalist relations; but we want to take a new road. It is one
which demands of us and of all the people a high level of
political consciousness and organisation; it demands more time
and involves graver mistakes. But we say that only those who
attempt nothing practical make no mistakes.

If, in the opinion of the meeting, the period under review
includes experiments in which one frequently meets with changes,
amendments, reversions to the old, that is not the chief thing,
the chief meaning and value of this period. The old government
apparatus of bureaucrats, for whom it was enough to order an
increase of salary, is a thing of the past. We have now to deal
with workers’ organisations which are taking economic administration into their own hands. We have to deal with the
railway workers, who used to be worse off than others, and who
have a legitimate right to demand an improvement of conditions. Tomorrow the river transport workers will submit
their demands, and the day after, the middle peasants—I
shall speak of them at greater length who often feel they are
worse off than the worker, whom we treat with the utmost
attention, and to whose interest all our decrees are devoted—a thing the previous speaker has absolutely failed
to grasp. All this creates enormous difficulties, but they are
difficulties which are due to the fact that the workers and poor
peasants for the first time in centuries are themselves, with
their own hands, organising the whole economic life of
Russia. And so, we have to find means of satisfying just
demands; we have to alter decrees and reconstruct the system of
administration. Side by side with cases of mistakes and
failures—cases which the bourgeois press seizes upon and
which, of course, are numerous—we achieve successes, we
learn by these partial mistakes and failures, we learn by
experience how to build the edifice of socialism. And when we
are showered with new demands from all sides, we say: that is as
it should be, that is just what socialism means, when each wants
to improve his condition and all want to enjoy the benefits of
life. But the country is poor, the country is poverty-stricken,
and it is impossible just now to satisfy all demands; that is
why it is so difficult to build the new edifice in the midst of
disruption. But those who believe that socialism can be built at
a time of peace and tranquillity are profoundly mistaken: it
will everywhere be built at a time of disruption, at a time of
famine. That is how it must be. And when we see before us people
with real ideas, we say: all the thousands, tens of thousands,
hundreds of thousands of workers and working peasants have set
about building the new, socialist edifice with their own
hands. A profound revolution is now beginning in the countryside, where the kulaks are agitating and trying to
interfere with the working peasants who do not exploit the
labour of others or profiteer in grain, and there the task is
different. In the towns the thing is to organise the factories,
the metal industry; and what with the havoc of the war, to
distribute production, to distribute raw materials and other
materials is a very difficult task.

There the workers are learning to do this and are forming
central organs of administration; there we are having to
reconstruct the Supreme Economic Council; for the old laws,
passed at the beginning of the year, are already out of date,
the workers’ movement is marching ahead, the old workers’ control is already antiquated, and the trade
unions are becoming the embryos of administrative bodies for all
industry. (Applause) In this sphere quite a lot has already been done, but still we cannot boast of any brilliant
successes. We know that in this sphere the bourgeois elements,
the capitalists, landowners and kulaks will for a long time yet
have the opportunity to carry on their propaganda and say that,
as usual, a decree has been passed but is not being enforced,
another has only just been passed, yet after three months it is
already being altered, while profiteering is going on just the
same as under capitalism. Yes, it is true that we do not know of
any universal quack panacea for putting an end to profiteering
at one stroke. The habits of the capitalist system are too
strong; to reeducate the people who have been brought up to
these habits for centuries is no easy matter and will take a
long time. But we say that our fighting weapon is organisation. We must organise everything, take everything into
our own hands, keep a check on the kulaks and profiteers at
every step, declare implacable war on them and never allow them
to breathe freely, controlling their every move.

We know from experience that alterations of decrees are
unavoidable, for new difficulties are encountered which are a
source of fresh changes. And if in the matter of food supply we
have now arrived at the point of organising the poor peasants,
and if our former comrades, the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries,
say in all sincerity—which cannot be doubted—that our ways have parted, our firm reply to them is: all the worse
for you, for that means that you have turned your back on
socialism. (Applause)

Comrades? The food question is the main question, it is the one
to which we are devoting most attention in our policy-making. A
host of small measures which are imperceptible to the outsider,
but which the Council of People’s Commissars has adopted—such as the steps to improve the water and rail
transport systems, the clearing up of the war commissariat
stores, the fight against profiteering—were all directed
towards putting food supply on a proper footing. Not only our
country, but even the most civilised countries, which never knew
what famine meant before the war, are now all in a state of
utmost distress, created by the imperialists In their struggle
for the supremacy of one group or another. In the West, tens of
millions of people are suffering the torments of starvation. It
is this that makes social revolution inevitable, for social
revolution stems not from programmes but from the fact that tens
of millions of people say: “Rather than live and starve,
we prefer to die for the revolution.” (Applause)

A terrible disaster—famine—has befallen us, and the more difficult our situation, the more acute the food crisis,
the more the capitalists intensify their struggle against Soviet
power. You know that the Czechoslovak mutiny is a mutiny of men
who have been bought by the British and French imperialists. We
are constantly hearing of revolts against the Soviets in
one. place or another. The kulak risings are spreading from
region to region. In the Don region, there is Krasnov, whom the
Russian workers magnanimously allowed to go free in Petrograd
when he came and surrendered his sword, for the prejudices of
the intellectual are still strong and the intellectuals
protested against capital punishment— Krasnov was allowed
to go free because of the intellectual’s prejudice against
capital punishment. But I would like to see the people’s
court today, the workers’ or peasants’ court, which would not sentence Krasnov, who is shooting workers and
peasants, to be shot. We are told that when people are sentenced
to he shot by Dzerzhinsky [5] commission` it is all right, but if
a court were to declare publicly and openly that a man was a
counter-revolutionary and deserved to he shot, that would be
wrong. People who have sunk to such depths of hypocrisy are
political corpses. (Applause) No, a revolutionary who does not want to be a hypocrite cannot renounce capital
punishment. There has never been a revolution or a period of
civil war without shootings.

Our food supply has been reduced to an almost catastrophic
state. We have reached the direst period in our revolution. We
are facing the most distressful period of all there never has
been a more difficult period in workers’ and peasants’ Russia—the period that remains until the
harvest. I have seen plenty of party differences and revolutionary disputes in my day, and I am not surprised to find
that in such a time of stress an increasing number of people are
giving way to hysterics and crying: “I will resign from
the Soviets,” and talking of the decrees abolishing capital punishment. But be is a poor revolutionary who at a time
of acute struggle is halted by the immutability of a law. In a
period of transition laws have only a temporary validity; and
when a law hinders the development of the revolution, it must be
abolished or amended. Comrades, the worse the famine becomes,
the clearer it becomes that this desperate calamity must he
combated by equally desperate measures. Socialism, I repeat, has
ceased to be a dogma, just as it has perhaps ceased to be a
programme. Our Party has not yet drawn up a new programme, but
the old one is already worthless. The proper and equitable
distribution of bread—that is what constitutes the basis
of socialism today. (Applause) The war has bequeathed to us a legacy of economic disruption; the efforts of Kerensky
and the landowners and kulaks saying, “After us the deluge”, have reduced the country to such a state that
they say, “The worse it gets, the better.” The war has bequeathed us such hardships that in this matter of the food
supply we have the very essence of the whole socialist system,
and we must take this matter into our hands and find a practical
solution for it. And we ask ourselves what is to he done about
bread: are we to continue along the old, capitalist lines, with
peasants taking advantage of the situation and making thousands
of rubles profit out of grain, at the same time calling
themselves working peasants, and sometimes even Left
Socialist-Revolutionaries? (Applause and commotion.) They argue
like this: if people are starving, grain prices will rise; if
the towns are starving, I will stuff my pockets; and if the
starvation becomes worse, I will make thousands more. But I know
very well that the blame for this kind of argument does not lie
with individuals. The whole abominable heritage of landowner and
capitalist society has taught people to argue, to think and to
live like this; and to reform the life of tens of millions of
people is terribly difficult; it will require long and persistent work, and this work we have only just begun. We would
never think of blaming people who, tormented by hunger and
seeing no benefit in the organisation of a socialist system of
bread distribution, scurry to look after themselves and let
everything else go hang. These people cannot he blamed. But we
do say that when it is a case of representatives of parties,
when it is a case of people belonging to a definite party, when
it is a case of large bodies of people, we expect them to look
at the matter, not from the standpoint of the suffering,
tormented, hungry individual, against whom nobody would think of
raising his hand, but from the standpoint of the building of a
new society.

I repeat, it will never be possible to build socialism at a time
when everything is running smoothly and tranquilly; it will
never be possible to realise socialism without the landowners
and capitalists putting up a furious resistance. The worse our
situation is, the more gleefully they rub their hands and the
more they resort to revolt; the worse our situation is and the
more saboteurs there are in our midst, the more eagerly they
embark on all kinds of Czechoslovak and Krasnov affairs. And we
say that the old way is not the way to cope with this, hard
though it may be to drag the cart forward, uphill, instead of
allowing it to slip back downhill. We know very well that not a
week or even a day passed without the Council of People’s
Commissars considering the food problem, without our issuing
thousands of recommendations, orders and decrees, and discussing
how to combat famine. Some say there is no need for special
prices, for fixed prices, for a grain monopoly: give people a
free hand to trade. The rich will get richer still, and if the
poor die of starvation, well, they always have. But a socialist
cannot argue like that; at this moment, when the hill is steeper
than ever and the cart has to be dragged up the steepest
inclines, socialism has ceased to be a matter of party differences and has become a practical issue; it is a question
of whether we can hold out against the kulaks, by allying
ourselves with the peasants who do not profiteer in grain; it is
a question of whether we can hold out now, when we have to
fight, and work of the heaviest kind lies ahead of us. They talk
about the Poor Peasants’ Committees. Those who have seen
the torments of hunger for themselves will clearly realise that
in order to break and ruthlessly crush the kulaks, the most
drastic and ruthless measures are required. When we proceeded to
organise unions of poor peasants, we fully realised what a
severe and drastic measure this was; but only an alliance of the
towns with the rural poor and with those who have stocks but do
not profiteer, with those who want to cope vigorously with the
difficulties and ensure that the grain surpluses go to the state
and are distributed among the working peoplesuch an alliance is
the sole method of waging this struggle. And the way to wage
this struggle is not by means of programmes and speeches; this
struggle with famine will show who is going the direct route to
socialism, despite all trials and hardships, and who is
succumbing to the trickery and deceit of the kulaks.

If there are people in the Left Socialist-Revolutionary party
who, like the previous speaker—one of the sincerest, and
therefore one who is most liable to be carried away, most
subject to changes of opinion—say that they cannot work
with the Bolsheviks and are quitting, we shall not regret it for
a minute. Socialists who quit at a moment like this, when
hundreds and thousands of people are dying of hunger while
others have such large surpluses of grain that they had not sold
them before last August, when the fixed prices for grain were
doubled—against which all democrats protested—those who know that the people are suffering untold torments of hunger
yet do not want to sell their grain at the price at which the
middle peasants are selling it, are enemies of the people, they
are out to ruin the revolution and are landing their support to
oppression—they are friends of the capitalists! War on such people, relentless war on them! (General applause, in which a large number o/ Left Socialist-Revolutionaries take part.) A thousand times wrong, a thousand times mistaken is
he who allows himself even for a moment to he carried away by
enemy talk and to say that this is a fight against the peasantry—as incautious or thoughtless Left
Socialist-Revolutionaries sometimes do. No, this is a fight
against that insignificant minority, the village kulaks, this is
a fight to save socialism and to distribute bread in Russia
properly. (Voices: “What about goods?”) We shall fight in alliance with the overwhelming majority of the
peasants; we shall win this fight, and then every European
worker will see in practice what socialism means.

We shall get help in this struggle from anyone who has been
toiling all his life and who may not know scientifically what
socialism means, but who knows that he earned his bread at a
bard price. He will understand us. That man will be on our
side. As for the kulaks who—possess surpluses of grain and
are capable of concealing that grain at a moment of extreme
national calamity, at a moment when all the gains of the
revolution are at stake, when the Skoropadskys of every hue and
in every part of the country, occupied or not, are craning their
necks and only waiting for the moment to overthrow the power of
the workers and peasants by famine and reinstate the landowners—at such a moment it is our cardinal socialist
duty to proclaim ruthless war on the kulaks. He is a poor
socialist who at this moment of grave difficulty and severe
trial for the starving people and for the socialist revolution
washes his hands and repeats the lying tales of the bourgeoisie.

It is false, a thousand times false, to say this is a fight
against the peasantry! I have seen this said hundreds of times
in the columns of the Constitutional-Democratic news papers, and
I am not surprised to hear them crying that the workers have
split with the peasantry. When they hysterically cry:
“Peasants, open your eyes, come to your senses and have
done with the Bolsheviks!”’when I hear and read things like this, I am not at all surprised. There it is quite
in place. These people are serving the master it is their
function to serve. But I would not like to be in the skin of a
socialist who sinks to talk like this! (Loud applause.)
Comrades, we fully realise what incredible difficulties the
solution of the food problem entails. Here the prejudices are
most profound; here the interests are most deep-rooted kulak
interests; here division, stagnation, the scattered character of
village life, ignorance—all, in many cases, are united against us. But we say that in spite of these difficulties, we
cannot withdraw; famine is not a thing to be trifled with; and
if the masses of the people do not receive assistance in this
famine, hunger is capable of driving them even into the arms of
Skoropadsky. It is false to say that this is a fight against the
peasantry! Anyone who says that is an out-and-out criminal;
those who have allowed themselves to be driven by hysteria to
such talk are victims of a terrible misfortune. No, we are not
even fighting the middle peasant, let alone the poor peasant. All over Russia, the middle peasants have only the
smallest surpluses of grain. The middle peasants for decades
before the revolution lived worse than the workers. Before the
revolution their life was one of unrelieved want and oppression. Our policy towards these middle peasants is one of
agreement. The socialist revolution means equality for all the
working people; it would be unfair for the urban worker to
receive more than the middle peasant, who does not exploit the
labour of others by hiring labour or profiteering; the peasants
suffer from greater want and oppression than the workers, and
fare even worse than the workers. They have no organisations or
trade unions to work for the improvement of their conditions. Even with the workers’ unions we find it
necessary to hold dozens of meetings to try and level out wages
among the various trades, and all the same cannot get them
levelled. Every sensible worker knows that this will require a
long time. See how many complaints are received by the
Commissariat for Labour! You will find that every trade is
raising its head; they don’t want to live in the old way;
they don’t want to live like slaves, they say. In this poverty-stricken, destitute country we want to heal the wounds
it has suffered. We must somehow or other save economic life,
which has almost completely broken down. This can only he done
by organisation. In order to organise the peasantry, we issued
the decree about the Poor Peasants’ Committees. Only the
enemies of socialism can be opposed to this decree. We said that
we considered it fair to lower the price of textiles. We are
registering and nationalising positively everything. (Applause) And that will permit us to
regulate the distribution of the products of industry.

We said: cut the prices of textiles for the poor peasants by
half, and for the middle peasants by 25 per cent. Perhaps these
scales are wrong. We do not claim that our solution of the
problem is right. We do not say that. To solve the problem
rightly, go and do it together. (Applause) Sitting in your armchairs in the chief administrations, fighting
profiteering and trying to catch swindlers who are doing their
dirty work in secret, is not going to solve the problem.

Only when the Commissariat for Food, in conjunction with the
Commissariat for Agriculture, nationalises all goods and fixes
prices—do we really come close up to socialism. It is only
the working people of the towns and the rural poor, all those
who labour, do not rob others, do not exploit the labour of
others either by hiring or by profiteering, only they come close
to socialism—for the man who demands a hundred rubles or
more for grain is no less a profiteer than the man who employs
hired labour; perhaps he is even a worse, a more arrant
profiteer. After a desperately difficult half-year of Soviet
rule, we have now arrived at the organisation of the poor
peasants. It is a pity we did not arrive at it after half a
week—that is where we are to blame! If we had been reproached with having brought in the decree on the organisation
of the poor peasants and the food dictatorship six months too
late, we should have welcomed the reproof. We say that only now
that we have taken this path has socialism ceased to be a mere
phrase and is becoming a practical thing. It is possible that
the decree is unhappily conceived, that the scales are wrong. How were we to determine them? Only by your
experience. How many times have we altered the railwaymen’s scales, even though they have their trade
unions, whereas the poor peasants have none! Let us co-operate
in checking whether the scales laid down in the decree on the
poor peasants are right, whether it is right to lower prices for
the poor peasants by half and for the middle peasants by a
quarter, and to take everything away from the rich peasants—whether these scales are right or not.

If there is to be a fight, we shall wage that fight by bold
decrees without hesitating for a moment. It will be a real fight
for socialism—not for a dogma, not for a programme, for a
party, for a faction, but for living socialism, for the
distribution of bread among hundreds of thousands and millions
of starving people in the foremost districts of Russia, for
taking grain wherever it is to he found and distributing it
properly. I repeat, we do not doubt for a moment that ninety-nine peasants out of every hundred, when they learn the
truth, when they receive the decree, test it, try it in practice
and tell us how to correct it—and we will correct it, we
will alter the scales—when they tackle this job and get an
idea of its practical difficulty, these peasants will be on our
side and will say, we are displaying the healthy instinct of the
working man, and that this, and only this, will decide the real
issue, the fundamental and vital issue socialism. We shall
establish proper prices for goods, we shall establish a monopoly
on grain, on textiles and on all products; and then the people
will say: “Yes, the distribution of labour, the distribution of bread and other products inaugurated by
socialism is better than it has before.” And that is what
the people are beginning to say. In spite of a host of mistakes,
in spite of incidents which we make no attempt to conceal, but
rather drag into the light and hold up to shame—cases when
our detachments themselves succumb to profiteering, sink down
into that slippery gulf into which all the capitalist habits and
customs tend to drag people—yes, there are such cases everywhere, we know that people cannot be remoulded all at once,
that you cannot inspire tens of millions of people with faith in
socialism all at once (where are they to get this faith from?
Not out of their own heads, surely? No, from their experience)—but in spite of all this, people are beginning
to say that bread can be secured without profiteering, and that
the only salvation from famine lies in an alliance of the urban,
factory, industrial workers with the poor peasants, for only the
poor peasant does not profiteer in grain. Yes, as soon as the
middle peasant sees our decrees, reads them for himself,
compares them with the talk and slanders of the Right
Socialist-Revolutionaries and the champions of the kulak, he
will say that in establishing one scale for the poor peasants
and another for the middle peasants, and in taking grain from
the kulaks without compensation, we are acting rightly. He may
not say that we are acting like socialists—he may not know
that word—but he is our sure ally, for he does not profiteer in grain, and he will realise and agree that to
profiteer in grain at a moment of direst danger to the socialist
revolution is a heinous crime against the people.

Bread cannot be distributed by decree. But when, after long and
persistent effort in establishing and improving the alliance of
the factory, urban workers with the rural poor, with the working
peasants who do not hire any labourers and do not engage in
profiteering, we get this thing properly going, no hysterical
outcries against our Party will succeed in rupturing that
alliance. (Applause)

When we promised the peasants socialisation of the land, we made
a concession; for we understood that nationalisation could not
be introduced at one stroke. We know that we may have made a
mistake in embodying your socialisation of the land in our law
of October

26. [See Meeting Of The Petrograd Soviet Of Workers’ And Soldiers’ Deputies — Editor ] It was a concession to
the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, who refused to be in the
government and said they would only remain if this law were
passed. Spiridonova is a thousand times wrong in bringing
forward unconnected facts and saying that she came to see me,
humbled herself and implored. Comrades, many of you have been to
see me and know that that cannot have been the case, that no
comrade could have been treated like that. It must be a bad
party indeed whose best spokesmen stoop to spreading fairy-tales. (Commotion.) I have a letter from Comrade
Spiridonova—she has often written to me. I shall find that
letter tomorrow and make it known. She writes: “Why do you
refuse to grant two million for agricultural communes?”
And this on the very day when Sereda, the People’s
Commissar for Agriculture, whose work she does not understand,
submitted a proposal to assign ten million for agricultural
communes. [6] (Prolonged applause). You heard Comrade Spiridonova say the same thing in her speech; but
it must be a bad party indeed whose sincerest people stoop to
spreading fairy-tales for propaganda purposes. I repeat, it must
be a bad party indeed whose best and sincerest spokesmen go to
the length of spreading such fairy-tales about the Soviet
government! All the worse for them! Every peasant who comes to
the Commissariat for Agriculture and reads that ten million have
been assigned for agricultural communes will see and believe his
own eyes and ears more than somebody else’s speeches, and
will understand that these people have sunk so low as to spread
fairy-tales, and he will turn his back on this party. (Applause) I want to say only one thing in
concluding my speech. Until the new harvest, until that harvest
is brought to the starving localities of Petrograd and Moscow, a
hard period of the Russian revolution lies before us. A really
close alliance between the urban workers and the rural poor, the
rural working masses who do not profiteer in grain, is the only
thing that can save the revolution.

Our Congress shows that in spite of everything the alliance of
all the working people is growing, spreading and gaining
strength not only in Russia, but all over the world. Absurdly
little, terribly little is known abroad about our revolution. The military censorship there lets nothing
through. The comrades who returned from abroad have told us
that; yet, in spite of everything, guided by sheer instinct, the
European workers sympathise with the Bolshevik Government. And
ever more numerous are voices showing that sympathy for the
socialist revolution is growing in Europe in the countries where
the imperialist war is still in progress. The Bolshevik
Government is receiving expressions of gratitude, sympathy and
support from German socialists and other men and women whose
names are known to every enlightened worker and peasant, people
like Clara Zetkin and Franz Mehring. In Italy, Lazzari, the old
secretary of the party, who at Zimmerwald regarded the
Bolsheviks with mistrust, is now in prison for having expressed
his sympathy with us.

Understanding of the revolution is growing. In France, comrades
and workers, who at the Zimmerwald Conference treated the
Bolsheviks with profound mistrust, the other day issued a
manifesto in the name of the Committee of International
Relations [7] earnestly appealing for support of the Bolshevik Government and opposing adventures by any party.

And so, comrades, however difficult and arduous the period that
lies ahead of us may he, it is our duty to tell the truth and to
open people’s eyes to this, for only the people, by their
initiative and organisation, by advancing demand after demand
and defending the socialist republic, can help us. And we say,
comrades, that there is not a shadow of doubt that if we follow
the path which we have chosen and which events have confirmed,
if we follow this path firmly and unswervingly, if we do not
allow ourselves to be diverted from the right path by any
phrase-making, illusions, deceit or hysterics, we have every
chance in the world of maintaining our position and of resolutely furthering the victory of socialism in Russia, and
thus furthering the victory of the world socialist revolution!
(Loud and prolonged applause and cheers.)

2

Reply To The Debate

July 5, 1918

All the objections of the opposition concerning my report begin
with the question of the Brest Treaty. But such a formulation of
the question could be called practical only if it led to
practical results. None of their speeches about this have
produced results, nor can they produce any. (Applause)

If the party of Left Socialist-Revolutionaries happened to have
a majority, they would not be making so much fuss about this
matter as they are making now. What should be discussed are the
real achievements of the Soviet Republic on the road to
socialism. We can assert—and not one speaker has denied
this—that in this respect great success has been achieved
since the last Congress. Nor have the representatives of the
opposition refuted the fact that all who are in favour of
tearing up the Brest peace are acting in the interests of
restoring the power of the landowners and capitalists and rely
for their strength on the support of Anglo-French imperialism. When I said that the Czechoslovaks in return for
ten or fifteen million are also out to bring about this break,
no one denied it. Can anyone deny that the Czechoslovaks, hiding
behind the slogan of the Constituent Assembly, are aiming at
dragging us into war?

The Left Socialist-Revolutionaries said it was impossible to
create an army in a short time, but everything depends on how
soon we put the fuel situation riglit, how the peasants get on,
and what happens to the harvest.

Your appeals for the creation of guerilla detachments to fight a
regular imperialist army are recognised as absurd by any
soldier.

When people force us to go back to the question of the Brest
peace, we say: “That peace will be violated if you overthrow Soviet power, and that will not happen!”
(Applause.) Only then, on the basis of tearing up the
Brest peace, will you be able to drag the masses of the working
people into a war to the delight of the landowners, capitalists
and white guards, who have been bribed with the millions of the
Anglo-French imperialists. Sabotage of the Brest peace will in
practice stem from forces hostile to the masses of the working
people. None of the objections concerning the Brest peace can be
considered practical. They are merely the hysterics of the Left
Socialist-Revolutionaries.

When it was said here that the Bolsheviks were yielding, and
that their reports contained nothing of practical value, I
recalled the words uttered here by one Socialist-Revolutionary,
a Maximalist I think he was, to the effect that the Supreme
Economic Council is passing from the control of production to
its administration. [8] Isn’t that statement of practical value? What, then, are those workers doing, who by
their own efforts, through their trade unions, have begun to
learn from the bosses the business of administering enterprises?
You say that it is an easy thing to learn to administer, but
every day we in the Supreme Economic Council have to settle
thousands of conflicts and incidents which show that the worker
has learnt a lot, and we must conclude that the workers are
beginning to learn—slowly, to be sure, and with mistakes;
but it is one thing to utter fine phrases, and another to see
how with every passing month the worker is beginning to find his
feet, how he is beginning to lose his timidity and to feel that
he is the ruler. Rightly or wrongly, he is acting as the peasant
does in an agricultural commune. Time has shown that the worker
had to learn to administer industry, and all the rest is just
empty talk and not worth a brass farthing. If, after six months
of Soviet rule, we are now beginning to find that control is out
of date, that is a big step forward.

The cry has been raised here that we are marking time, or even
retreating. Nothing of the kind. You may persuade the kulak of
that, but not the ordinary worker; he knows what we mean when we
say, let us have better people than the ones you sent, make them
learn better than you are learning.

And so, when the cry is raised here about concessions, let us
ask any worker or peasant what he prefers: to pay in concessions
the debt the Germans imposed upon us, or to fight? When we
signed the Peace Treaty of Brest, we said of the imperialists
that until they were vanquished by an international socialist
revolution, we should not be able to defend ourselves in any
other way than by retreating. That is unpleasant, but it will
remain a fact’and it is better to tell the people so’until we have built up an army, for which we shall need
only a few years, not decades, provided we introduce a proper
system of bread distribution, so that there will be stocks of
grain for the army, gathered and stored. In what uyezd or
gubernia have the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries done that? They
have done nothing of the kind! And until it is done, we declare
that all your cries are just empty talk; whereas when we take a
step towards administration by the workers, we take a step
forward. My words have been misquoted here. What I said was that
it must be a bad party whose sincere members are obliged to
stoop to such talk.

We have assigned a thousand million to our Commissariat for
Food—isn't that a step forward? Much still remains to be arranged, and you can do it if you only have the
desire. But through whom, I do not know. Not through the old
officials, surely? Our workers and peasants on the Soviets are
learning to do it (applause) , and so the purchases of textiles and the appropriations are having their
effect. Hundreds of times the Council of People’s
Commissars has discussed through whom to purchase textiles, how
to exercise control, and how to get them distributed as quickly
as possible. And we know that as the weeks go by measures have
been devised for combating profiteering and catching profiteers,
and that with every month the workers are getting a firmer
mastery of this job—and this success of ours nobody can
deny. We are advancing, not marking time. On June 28, we carried
out nationalisation [9] to the extent perhaps of several
hundred millions, yet you keep on objecting and repeating the
talk of the bourgeois intellectuals. Socialism is not a job that
can be done in a few months. We are not marking time, but are
continuing to move towards socialism, and since the Brest peace
we have come closer to it The workers have derived experience
from a number of mistakes, they realise the gravity and
difficulty of the struggle, while the peasants have experience
in the socialisation of the land, and there can he no doubt that
the more experienced and intelligent peasants are saying:
“In the first spring we took land for ourselves; in the
autumn we’ll take over the whole job, the whole business
of distributing the land.” Do not forget that we are selling the peasants textiles at a 50 per cent rebate, that is,
at half-price. Who else would have given the poor peasants
textiles at such a price? We shall proceed towards socialism by
way of grain, textiles and implements, which will not fall into
the hands of the profiteers, but will go first and foremost to
the poor peasants. That is socialism. (Applause) After six months of socialist revolution, the people who get all their
ideas from books understand nothing. We have arrived at a stage
where we are taking the concrete step of distributing bread and
exchanging textiles for bread in such a way that it is the poor
that benefit, and not the rich profiteers. We are not a
bourgeois republic; if we were we should not need Soviets. It is
the poor that must benefit from the distribution of grain and
textiles—that is something no republic in the world has
attempted, but we are attempting it now. (Applause) We are doing a noble work; we have the experience; and we are doing
everything in our power to get the poor to organise. Cases of
extortion and hooliganism are practically disappearing; for
every such case there are a dozen others when the poor peasants
and the middle peasants say: we must get rid of the kulak and
the landowner! Since the Brest peace we have made tremendous
strides in the education of the peasants, and they are now no
longer novices in the struggle for socialism.

Endnotes

[1]
Fifth All-Russia Congress of Soviets opened on July 4, 1918 in
the Bolshoi Theatre in Moscow. It was attended by 1,164
delegates with the right to vote. These included 773 Bolsheviks,
353 Left S.R.s, 17 Maximalists (a variety of Left S.R.s), 4
anarchists, 4 Menshevik-Internationalists, 3 members of other
parties and 10 non-party people. Among the delegates there were
representatives of the German-occupied areas of the Ukraine,
Latvia, and Transcaucasia, who brought greetings and described
the situation in these areas. The Congress was greeted by the
representative of the British Socialist Party Joseph Fineberg,
who read out a resolution passed by his party’s conference
declaring its support for the socialist revolution in. Russia. The Congress also received greetings from the
working people of Germany and Norway, and from Russian prisoners-of-war interned in various countries.

The Congress approved the agenda proposed by the Presidium of
the All-Russia C.E.C., which included the following items:
reports of the All-Russia C.E.C. and the Council of
People’s Commissars; the food question; organisation of
the socialist Red Army; Constitution of the Russian Soviet
Republic; elections to the All-Russia C.E.C. The Congress
rejected the Left S.R. demand that reports from the provinces
and a discussion on the Soviet Government’s decision to
introduce capital punishment for treason should be added to the
agenda.

After the agenda had been approved, the Congress discussed a
question that was not on the agenda concerning incidents in the
area bordering on the Ukraine, where Mensheviks and S.Rs were
agitating among the military units in the area with the aim of
causing a clash with the Germans and thus sabotaging the peace
treaty with Germany and drawing the country into war. In their
explanation to the Congress the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries
demagogically accused the Communist Party of not wishing to help
the working people of the occupied areas, refused to discuss the
resolution moved by the Communist group and walked out of the
meeting. The Congress unanimously resolved that “decisions
on matters of war and peace rest solely with the All-Russia
Congress of Soviets” and the central organs of Soviet power-the All-Russia C.E.C. and the Council of People’s
Commissars, and advised the Soviet Government to deal firmly
with all agents provocateurs.

Y. M. Sverdlov delivered the report on the work of the
Aull-Russia C.E.C.; Lenin reported on the work of the Council of
. People’s Commissars. After stormy debates on the two reports the Congress passed the Communist group’s
resolution expressing “complete approval of the foreign
and domestic policy of the Soviet Government”. The Left
S.R. resolution calling for a vote of no confidence in the
Soviet Government, denunciation of the Brest Peace Treaty, and a
change in the home and foreign policy of Soviet power was
rejected.

Defeated at the Congress, the Left S.R.s resorted to use of
force, and on July 6 launched an armed counter-revolutionary
insurrection in Moscow. The Congress adjourned until July
9. When it met again to discuss the events of July 6-7, the
Congress fully approved the government’s resolute measures
to deal with the criminal venture of the Left S.R.s and stated
that the Left S.R.s who shared the views of their ruling clique
“can have no place in the Soviets of Workers’ and
Peasants’ Deputies”.

In a resolution on the report by the People’s Commissar
for Food A. D. Tsyurupa the Congress endorsed the grain
monopoly, stressed the need for resolute suppression of kulak
resistance and approved the setting up of the poor peasants’ committees.

At its final session on July 10, the Congress heard a report on
the organisation of the Red Army and unanimously approved the
Communist group’s resolution outlining essential measures
for organising and consolidating the Red Army on the basis of
compulsory military service by the working people.

The Congress completed its work with an act of the greatest
historical significance. It passed the first Constitution of the
R.S.F.S.R., thus legislatively consolidating the gains of the
working people of Soviet Russia.

[2]
The “previous speaker”. was M. A. Spiridonova, one of the Left S.R. leaders. She had delivered a supplementary
report to the Congress on the work of the peasant section of the
All-Russia C.E.C., which contained a number of attacks on the
policy of the Soviet Government and the Communist Party.

[3]
Golos Trudovovo Krestyanstva (Voice of the Labouring
Peasantry)—daily newspaper that appeared in Petrograd from
the end of November 1917 as the organ of the Executive Committee
of the All-Russia Soviet of Peasants’ Deputies, Second
Convocation (until December 9 [221 it was known as
Izvestia of the All-Russia Peasant Congress). On
January 20 (February 2), 1918, it became the organ of the
peasant section of the All-Russia C.E.C. Up to July 10, 1918,
the paper was controlled by the Left S.R.s. On November 6, 1918,
Became the organ of the People’s Commissariat for
Agriculture. It continued to appear until May 31, 1919.

[4]
The reference is to the Draft Constitution of the Russian
Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, which was submitted for
the approval of the Fifth All-Russia Congress of Soviets.

A decisionon pre aration of a draft constitution of the
R.S. F.S.R. had been pass11 in January 1918 by the Third
All-Russia Congress of Soviets. But the Soviet Government was
able to begin work on the draft only after the peaceful
breathing-space had been gained. Lenin played a decisive part in
drawing up the first Soviet Constitution.

The work of preparing the draft was done by the constitution
commission set up by the All-Russia C.E.C. on April 1, 1918,
under the chairmanship of Y. M. Sverdlov.

On Sverdlov’s suggestion at a meeting of the All-Russia
C.E.C. on June 14 the question of the Soviet Constitution was
included on the agenda of the Fifth All-Russia Congress of
Soviets. The final drafting of the Constitution for submission
to the Congress was entrusted to a commission of the Central
Committee of the R.C.P.(B.) under the chairmanship of Lenin. On
July 3 this commission considered two drafts of the Soviet
Constitution-one made by the constitution commission of the
All-Russia C.E.C. and another submitted by the People’s
Commissariat for Justice. The commission of the Central
Committee of the R.C.P.(B.) took as the basis for the constitution the draft submitted by the constitution commission
of the All-Russia C.E.C., adding some of the proposals put
forward by the People’s Commissariat for Justice. On
Lenin’s suggestion the following amendments were made: a
Declaration of Rights of the Working and Exploited People was
included as a preamble to the Constitution; an article on
national and racial equality in the Soviet Republic, and
articles on the political rights of foreigners resident in the
R.S.F.S.R. for purposes of work (Lenin’s “Rough
Draft of Point 20 of the Second Section of the Constitution of
the R.S.F.S.R.”, which defines their rights) and on the
granting of the right of asylum to all foreigners subjected to
persecution for their political and religious beliefs (Lenin’s amendments, see Decrees of the Soviet Government,
Russ. ed., Vol. 2, 1959, pp. 546-49) were added. The commission
of the C.C. of the R.C.P.(B . ) also introduced a number of
other important amendments and corrections. The draft passed by
the C.C. of the R.C.P.(B.) was submitted for approval by the
Fifth All-Russia Congress of Soviets.

On the first day of the Congress Sverdlov proposed setting up a
commission to consider the draft Constitution and report on it
to the Congress. The commission was formed from among representatives of the various groups; it made a few changes of
a stylistic nature, added several articles to the section on
budget rights and introduced a new section on the arms and flag
of the R.S.F.S.R. At its final session on July 10 the Congress
heard the report of the commission on the draft Constitution,
after which it unanimously approved the Constitution of the
R.S.F.S.R. and entrusted the final work of editing the text to
the new All-Russia C.E.C.

On July 19, 1918, the Constitution of the Russian Socialist Federative
Soviet Republic was published as the Fundamental Law and came
into force as from the date of publication.

[5]
The reference is to the All-Russia Extraordinary Commission of
the Council of People’s Commissars, whose Chairman was
F. B. Dzerzhinsky.

The All-Russia Extraordinary Commission (Cheka) was set upon
December 7 (20), 1917 by decision of the Council of
People’s Commissars for the purpose of “ruthlessly combating counterrevolution, sabotage and
profiteering”. As the strong right arm of the dictatorship
of the proletariat, the Cheka played an enormous part in
checking counter-revolutionary sabotage and in protecting the
security of the Soviet Republic. Appraising the work of this
commission, Lenin pointed out in his report to the Ninth
All-Russia Congress of Soviets in December 1921: “... It
was our effective weapon against the numerous plots and numerous
attacks on Soviet power” (see V. 1. Lenin, Report on
Peace, Moscow, p. 262). In its Resolution on the Cheka the Ninth
Congress noted the commission’s heroic work in protecting
the gains of the October Revolution and, in view of the
consolidation of Soviet power, proposed curtailing the commission’s sphere of activity. This resolution reflected
proposals made by Lenin in a draft decision of the Political
Bureau of the C.C,. of the R.C.P.(B.) on the Cheka, which he
wrote on December 1, 1921 (see Lenin Miscellany XXXVI,
p. 369). On February 6, 1922 the All-Russia C.E.C. passed a
decree abolishing the Cheka.

[6]
In the very first months of its existence Soviet rower gave the
collective farming enterprises considerable material and
financial assistance. Estimates of the Current Land Policy
Department of the People’s Commissariat for Agriculture
show that in the second half of 1918 fifteen million rubles were
assigned to the organisation of agricultural communes and artels
in the form of interest free loans. Additionally the government
assigned 10 million rubles for the same purpose in July 1918. A
decree passed on November 2, 1918 “for the purpose of improving and developing agriculture and bringing about its
speediest reorganisation on socialist principles” set up a
fund of one thousand million rubles for financial and technical
assistance to the labour associations and communes. The actual
amount disbursed to communes and artels on the basis of this
decree was considerably more than one thousand million rubles.

The collective farms enjoyed great advantages during the
distribution of complex agricultural machinery, livestock and
farm implements, and seed. State farms and collective farms were
given priority by the state agricultural machine-hire points and
repair stations that had been set up.

[7]
Committee of International Relations was set up by the French
Internationalists in January 1916. This was the first attempt to
set up in France a revolutionary-internationalist organisation
of socialists to counter the social-chauvinist organisations
there. Lenin saw the value of the committee’s work in rallying internationalists and on his instructions I. F. Armand
took part in the committee’s work.

Thanks to the influence of the October Revolution in Russia and
the growing strength of the French working-class movement the
committee became a centre for people with revolutionary
internationalist views. In 1920 it merged with the French
Communist Party.

The manifesto referred to by Lenin was published on June 29, 1918 in
Pravda No. 131.

[8]
Lenin is referring to a speech by a representative of the
S.R. Maximalist group Svetlov.

[9]
Lenin has in mind the historic Decree of the Council of
People’s Commissars on the Nationalisation of Large-Scale
Industry, passed on June 28, 1918 and published on June 30 in
Izvestia VtsIK No. 134. “According to a plan that had been outlined long before,” Lenin wrote of this
decree, “after extensive preparatory work a decree, whose
appearance was impatiently awaited by the masses of the people
of Russia was finally published on June 28” (Lenin
Miscellany XXXV, p. 27). The decree made all large industrial
enterprises public property. In spite of enormous difficulties
the work of nationalisation was carried out in a short period
thanks to the organising work of the Communist Party and the
energetic participation of the workers. By August 31, 1918 there
were over 3,000 nationalised enterprises in the country.

Under the same decree, all private railways and also the public
utilities (water supply, gasworks, urban transport, etc.) were
made public property and put under the control of the local
Soviets.