Date: 1918
Source: ru:PSS/v36

# 1. Report on the Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government
Source: CW vol 36

Comrades! In relation to the report, I have to pose the question somewhat unusually today. The fact is that my article on the immediate tasks of the Soviet government[25], which appeared in two newspapers on Sunday, and with which I assume most of those present are familiar, is the actual report.

Therefore, I believe that at this time there is no need for me to repeat here what was said in the report, and we can limit ourselves to additions and clarifications to the report. I think that the most suitable form for such clarifications now would be a polemic, because the question I raised in these theses on the immediate tasks is nothing other than the development of the resolution adopted by the All-Russian Emergency Congress in Moscow on March 15, a resolution that did not confine itself to the then-urgent question of peace, but also noted the main task of the current moment, the organizational task, the task of self-discipline, the task of combating disorganization[26].

And on this basis, it seems to me, our political currents or the main streams of our political currents have become quite clearly defined recently; and therefore, in a polemical form, I think, one can most vividly confirm what I tried to outline positively in the article on the immediate tasks.

Comrades! If you look at the political currents of modern Russia, the first task that will confront you, and here, as always, in order not to make a mistake in the assessment, is to try to look at all the political currents taken together, because only in this way, only under this condition, can we safeguard ourselves from errors when drawing individual examples. Of course, one can find as many examples as one likes to confirm any given position. But that is not the point. Only under such a condition can we attempt to come to an understanding of the connection between the fates of political currents in the country, taking these currents as a whole, and the fates of class interests, which always manifest themselves in large, serious, and major political currents, if we consider these currents as a whole, in their entirety.

And so, casting a glance at the major political currents in Russia, I think it cannot be disputed that they are clearly and unambiguously divided into three major groups. In the first, we have the entire bourgeoisie, united solidly and firmly, like one man, in the most resolute, one might say, reckless, "opposition" against the Soviet power. Of course, the word "opposition," in application to this example, can only be used in quotation marks, because in reality we have a frenzied struggle, which has now attracted to the side of the bourgeoisie all those petty-bourgeois parties that were in agreement with Kerensky during the revolution—these are the Mensheviks, the New Lifers, and the right SRs, who even outdid the bourgeoisie in the fury of their attacks on us, for it is well known that very often the fury of the attacks and the loudness of the barking are inversely proportional to the strength of the political element from which the fierce attacks emanate. (Applause.)

The entire bourgeoisie and all their echoers and all their servants, of the type of Chernov and Tsereteli, all of them converged in their frenzied attacks on the Soviet power. They all yearn for the pleasant prospect that their friends, their political like-minded people, were implementing in Ukraine, to conclude such a peace that would allow them, with the help of the German bayonet and the native bourgeoisie, to suppress the influence of the Bolsheviks. This is too well known. A fine example of such friends we have in the person of Chkhenkeli in the Caucasus. Everyone remembers this from the newspapers.

It is clear that the proletariat, having seized power and begun to carry out the dictatorship of the toilers, the dictatorship of the poorest against the exploiters, could, of course, meet with nothing else.

On one side, we have one flank, one front, full of unity. If sometimes we are presented with dreams of a single democratic front, then at least in those rare moments when I have to pick up bourgeois newspapers, in that rare case when I experience pleasure reading such newspapers as Our Epoch, People's Cause, etc., all these newspapers, even just skimming through them, I always think, what more do you need for the "unity of the democratic front"?

All this "unity of the democratic front" is complete among them, and we can only rejoice at this unity, for insofar as crumbs of this bourgeois journalism reach the masses, this is not the unity of the democratic front, but the unity of attacks on the Bolsheviks. And this unity of the front, from Milyukov to Martov, deserved that on May 1 we should present it with a certificate of merit for excellent propaganda in favor of the Bolsheviks.

Comrades! If you take the other, opposite camp, in this camp you now see only our party, the party of the Communist-Bolsheviks. Events have turned out such that our allies during most of the post-October period—the left SRs—are currently no longer formally participating in the government. Their last congress especially vividly marked the extreme vacillation in this party{99}, and this has now become clearer than ever, although in the press this party also expresses complete confusion and complete vacillation.

If you were to draw a curve showing how this party, from February 1917—of course, before the split of the SRs into left and right wings—if you were to draw a curve showing month by month on whose side this party stood, on the side of the proletariat or on the side of the bourgeoisie, if you were to draw this curve over a year, you would get a curve, something like a wavy line, looking at which everyone would say to themselves: what a remarkable, remarkably persistent fever!

Indeed, such constant and continuous vacillations, as this party has experienced, hardly any other party in the history of the revolution has gone through.

And so, if we take all these three basic currents and look at them, it will become clear to us that such a grouping is not accidental, that it fully confirms what we, the Bolsheviks, had to point out back in 1915, still from abroad, when the first news began to come that the revolution in Russia was growing, that it was inevitable—and when we had to answer the question of what position the party would be in if events during the war put it in power. We then had to say: it is possible that the revolution will achieve a decisive victory, this can be from the point of view of the class, if in the decisive moments, at the decisive points, the leading elements of the petty bourgeoisie vacillate towards the proletariat[27]; and it has literally turned out that way, and so the history of the Russian revolution has gone and is going. Of course, from these vacillations of the petty-bourgeois elements, we in no way can draw any grounds for pessimism, let alone despair—and it is clear that the revolution in a country that turned against the imperialist war earlier than other countries, the revolution in a backward country, which, due to its backwardness, events placed, of course, for a short time and, of course, in specific issues, ahead of the other, more advanced countries—of course, this revolution is inevitably condemned to go through the most difficult, the heaviest, and in the near future, the most hopeless moments—that in such moments it will hold its front and its supporters, that it will do without the vacillating ones—this would be completely unnatural; this would mean completely disregarding the class character of the upheaval, the nature of the parties and political groupings.

then it would do without the vacillating elements – this would be completely unnatural; it would mean completely disregarding the class character of the revolution, the nature of the parties and political groupings.

And now, if we look at the sum of political currents in Russia from the standpoint of the tasks of the moment, from the standpoint of how the real, immediate, and foremost tasks are set before us – the tasks of organization, discipline, the tasks of accounting and control – here we see that there is not the slightest attempt to evaluate this task in its essence in the camp that unites the "united democratic front" from Milyukov to Martov. There is none and cannot be because there is only one malicious desire – and, the more malicious, the more honorable for us – to find any possibility, or hint, or dream of overthrowing the Soviet power – and nothing more. Unfortunately, precisely the representatives of the Left SR party expressed the most, despite the enormous loyalty to the revolution shown by a whole series of members of this party, who always showed a great deal of initiative and energy – they showed precisely vacillation on the question of the immediate tasks of the current moment in the sense of proletarian discipline, accounting, organization, and control – those tasks which became natural for socialists when power was seized, when military attacks from Kerenskys and Krasnovs to Kornilovs, Gegechkoris, and Alekseyevs were repelled.

Now, when we have for the first time entered the core of the course of the revolution, the question is whether proletarian discipline and organization will triumph, or the elemental force of petty-bourgeois property owners, which is especially strong in Russia.

The main arena of struggle against us for our opponents from the petty-bourgeois camp is the field of internal policy and economic construction; their weapon is undermining everything that the proletariat decrees and strives to implement in the matter of establishing an organized socialist economy. Here, the petty-bourgeois element – the element of small property owners and unbridled egoism – emerges as a resolute enemy of the proletariat.

In this curve that the petty bourgeoisie has given over all the events of the revolution, we see the sharpest departure from us; naturally, in this camp, we have the main opposition to the immediate and current tasks of the moment in a more precise sense of the word; here, the opposition is from people who do not refuse principled agreement with us, who support us on more essential issues than those on which they criticize – opposition combined with support.

We will not be surprised if, from the pages of the Left SR press, we encounter such statements as I encountered in *Trud*{100} on April 25. And here is what is written in it: "Right Bolsheviks – ratifiers" (a terribly contemptuous epithet). What if we put an opposite epithet for the soldiers? Would it give a less terrible impression? Well, if we have to deal with such currents in Bolshevism, it says something. On April 25, I had to look at the theses in one newspaper, which gave us a political characterization. When I read this thesis, I thought: isn't there someone from the "left communist" newspaper *Kommunist* or from their magazine{101} – so much does it resemble them; but I had to be disappointed, because it turned out that this was Isuv's thesis, published in the newspaper *Vperyod*{102}. (Laughter, applause.)

Comrades, when we have to observe such political phenomena as the solidarity of *Trud* with a particular current of Bolshevism, or with some formulated Menshevik theses of the very party that pursued a policy of a bloc with Kerensky, the very party in which Chkheidze implemented an agreement with the bourgeoisie, we have to meet attacks, exactly coinciding with those we hear from the group of "left communists" and from the new magazine – here something is not right. Here something sheds light on the real significance of these attacks, and attention should be paid to these attacks already because here we have the opportunity to assess the main tasks of the Soviet power in disputes with people with whom it is interesting to argue because we have here both Marxist theory, taking into account the significance of the events of the revolution and the undeniable desire to get to the truth. Here, the basic ground for a substantive dispute is given by loyalty to socialism and the undisputed decision to stand on the side of the proletariat, against the bourgeoisie, whatever mistakes, according to the opinion of one or another person, group, or current, may be made by the proletariat fighting against the bourgeoisie.

If I say that it is interesting to argue with them, then, of course, I understand under an interesting argument with them not polemics, but that this question concerns a dispute that is the most essential, fundamental question of the present day. It is no coincidence that precisely along this line, disputes are being conducted. Along this line, the fundamental task objectively lies – the task of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, dictated by the real conditions of Russia, and which must be carried out in full measure, despite the abundance of the most diverse petty-bourgeois currents, despite the necessity for the proletariat to tell itself: on this point, it can make no concessions, because the socialist revolution, which began with the seizure of power from the bourgeoisie and continued with the breaking of all resistance of the bourgeoisie, decisively puts the questions of proletarian discipline and the organization of the working people, and the ability to approach work with strict businesslike efficiency and knowledge of the interests of large industry. These questions the proletariat must solve in practice, otherwise, it will suffer defeat. Here is the main, real difficulty of the socialist revolution. Precisely for this reason, it is so interesting, so important, in the historical and political sense of the word, to argue with the representatives of the group of "left communists," despite the fact that, taking their position and theory, examining it, we do not see in it, I repeat – and now I will prove it – anything but the same petty-bourgeois vacillations. Comrades from the group of "left communists," no matter how they call themselves, strike, first of all, at their own theses. I assume that the vast majority of those gathered know their views, because in Bolshevik circles we have essentially discussed them since early March, and those who were not interested in major political literature could not help but know about them, not to discuss them in connection with the debates that unfolded at the last All-Russian Congress of Soviets.

And here we see, first of all, in their theses the very same thing that we now see in the entire SR party, the very same thing that we now see in the right-wing camp and in the bourgeois camp from Milyukov to Martov, for whom the current hardships of the situation in Russia are especially heavy, from the standpoint of the loss of its great-power status, from the standpoint of its transformation from an old nation, from a state of the oppressor to a country of the oppressed, from the standpoint where it is necessary to decide not on paper, but in practice, the question of whether the burden of the path to socialism, the burden of the begun socialist revolution, is worth it for the country to endure even the heaviest situations in terms of its statehood, in terms of its national independence.

Here, the deepest division is between those for whom that state sovereignty and independence, which for the entire bourgeoisie is an ideal and limit, its holy of holies, a limit beyond which one cannot go, and to encroach upon which is to deny socialism, and those who say that the socialist revolution in the era of the frenzied slaughter of imperialists for the division of the world, without the heaviest defeats for many nations that were previously considered oppressors, cannot do without. And no matter how hard this may be for humanity, conscious socialists will go through all such trials.

On this ground, the most unacceptable, on this ground, the Left SRs wavered the most, and precisely on this ground, we see the most vacillation among the "left communists."

Now, in their theses, which, as we know, they discussed together with us on April 4{103}, and which they published on April 20, they still return to the question of peace.

"left communists".

Now, in their theses, which, as we know, they discussed with us on April 4{103}, and which they published on April 20, they still return to the question of peace.

They pay the greatest attention to the assessment of the peace issue and thus strive to prove that peace is a manifestation of the psychology of tired and declassed masses.

How comical their arguments are when they cite their figures, that 12 were against and 28 for concluding peace{104}. But should not, if one is to gather figures, if one recalls the voting a month and a half ago, take the figures closer. If one is to attach political significance to this voting, then should not one recall the voting at the All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets{105}, before saying that the healthy south was against peace, while the tired, declassed, industrially weakened north was supposedly for peace. Should not one recall the voting of the majority of the faction at the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, where not even a tenth part was found against peace. If one is to recall figures and attach political significance to them, then one must take the overall political vote, and then you will immediately see that the parties which had learned certain slogans, which had made a fetish out of these slogans, turned out to be on the side of the petty bourgeoisie, while the mass of toiling and exploited, the mass of workers, soldiers, and peasants, did not reject peace.

And now, when, along with the criticism of this position on peace, it is presented to us that it was carried out by the tired and declassed masses, when we clearly see that it was precisely the declassed intelligentsia that was against peace, when we are given an assessment of events, which I read in the newspapers—this fact shows us that on the question of concluding peace, the majority of our party was absolutely right. When we were told that it was not worth the candle, that all the imperialists had already united against us, that they would strangle us anyway, bring us to disgrace, etc.—we still concluded peace. It not only seemed shameful to them, but it also seems useless. We were told that we would not get a respite. And when we replied: one cannot know how international relations will develop, but we know that the imperialist enemies are at each other's throats, events have confirmed this, and this has been acknowledged by the group of left communists, our ideological and principled opponents, who stand generally on the standpoint of communism.

This one phrase is a complete acknowledgment of the correctness of our tactics and the fullest condemnation of those vacillations on the question of peace, which most of all repelled from us a certain wing of our supporters, as well as the entire wing grouped in the party of left SRs, and the wing which was, is, and, with certainty, can be said, will remain with our party, and which, in its vacillations, especially vividly reveals the source of these vacillations. Yes, the peace to which we have come is extremely unstable; the respite we have gained can be disrupted every day, both from the west and from the east—there is no doubt about this; our international situation is so critical that we must strain all our forces to hold out as long as possible, until the Western revolution, which is maturing much more slowly than we expected and wished, but undoubtedly maturing, absorbs and captures more and more combustible material.

If we, as a separate detachment of the world proletariat, have first moved forward, it is not because this detachment is better organized. No, it is worse, weaker, less organized than others, but it would be the greatest absurdity and pedantry to reason, as many do: well, if the best-organized had started, and then the less organized, and then the third-rate organized, then we would all gladly have become hangers-on of the socialist revolution. But since it did not happen according to the book, since it turned out that the advanced detachment was not supported by the other detachments, then our revolution is doomed to destruction. But we say: no, our task is to change the general organization; our task, since we are alone, is to hold the revolution, to preserve for it at least some fortress of socialism, however weak and moderate it may be, until the revolution matures in other countries, until other detachments approach. But to expect from history that it will move the socialist detachments of different countries in strict sequence and regularity means having no understanding of revolution or, out of stupidity, renouncing support for the socialist revolution.

To move the socialist detachments of different countries in strict sequence and planning means to have no understanding of revolution or, out of one's stupidity, to renounce support for the socialist revolution.

At the moment when we clarified for ourselves and proved that we have a solid position in Russia and that we do not have the strength against international imperialism, our task is one, and our tactics are defined as tactics of maneuvering, waiting, and retreating. I know very well that these words cannot claim popularity, and if they are appropriately twisted and placed in connection with the word "coalition," then there is a wide-open road for piquant comparisons, all sorts of reproaches, and every kind of mockery. But, no matter how much our opponents – the bourgeoisie – on the right and our former friends on the left, the left SRs, and our – I am sure, former, present, and future friends – "left communists" – no matter how many arrows of their wit they direct at this and what evidence of their petty-bourgeois vacillations they bring, they cannot refute these facts. Events have confirmed us; we have gained a respite only because the imperialist slaughter continues in the West, and the imperialist competition in the Far East is flaring up more widely – this explains the existence of the Soviet republic, which, for now, is the weakest rope by which we are holding on at this political moment. Of course, it is not a piece of paper, not a peace treaty that will protect us, nor the fact that we do not wish to go to war with Japan; indeed, she is plundering without any restraint from treaties or formalities – it is not a paper treaty or a "state of peace" that will protect us, but the ongoing struggle between the two "giants" of imperialism in the West and our endurance. We have not forgotten the basic Marxist lesson, so vividly confirmed by the Russian revolution: one must take into account forces numbering in the tens of millions; less is not counted in politics, less is discarded by politics as a quantity of no significance; if we look at the international revolution from this side, the matter is clearer than clear: a backward country can easily begin because its opponent is rotten, because its bourgeoisie is disorganized, but to continue, it requires a hundred thousand times more caution, prudence, and endurance. In Western Europe, it will be different; it is immeasurably harder to start there, immeasurably easier to go further. This cannot be otherwise because the organization and cohesion of the proletariat there are immeasurably greater. And while we are alone, taking into account the forces, we must tell ourselves: we have only one chance, until the European revolution breaks out, which will free us from all difficulties; we have one chance – the continuation of the struggle between the international giants-imperialists; we have correctly assessed this chance, we have held it for several weeks, but it may collapse tomorrow. Hence the conclusion: in our foreign policy, to continue what we began in March, which is formulated in the words: to maneuver, to retreat, to wait. When in this left "Communist" there are words like "active foreign policy," and when the expression "defense of the socialist fatherland" is taken in quotation marks, intended to be ironic, then I say to myself: these people understand nothing about the situation of the Western proletariat. If they call themselves "left communists," they fall into the viewpoint of the petty wavering bourgeoisie, which sees in the revolution a guarantee of a peculiar order. The international relations speak clearer than clear: the Russian who would think, based on Russian forces, to set the task of overthrowing international imperialism would be a madman. And while the revolution is maturing over there in the West, although it is maturing faster now than yesterday, our task is only this: we, being a detachment that has found itself ahead, despite our weakness, must do everything, use every chance, to hold on to the conquered positions. All other considerations must be subordinated to this – to use the chance fully, to delay the moment when international imperialism unites against us by a few weeks; if we do this, we will be following the path that every conscious worker in the European countries will approve, for he knows that what we learned only since 1905, and France and England learned over centuries – he knows how slowly the revolution grows in a society of a united bourgeoisie, he knows that such forces will need an agitation bureau that will carry out propaganda in the true sense of the word, when we stand alongside the rising German, French, and British proletariat. Until then, however painful it may be, however much it may go against revolutionary traditions, the tactic is one and only one: to wait, to maneuver, and to retreat.

And when they say that we have no external international policy, I say: any other policy, consciously or unconsciously, falls into the role of provocation and turns Russia into a tool for an alliance with imperialists of the type of Chkhenkeli or Semenov.

And we say: it is better to endure and suffer, to bear infinitely great national and state humiliations and hardships, but to remain at our post as a socialist detachment, separated from the ranks of the socialist army by events and forced to wait until the socialist revolution in other countries comes to our aid. And it is coming to our aid. Slowly, but it is coming. And the war that is now being waged in the West is revolutionizing the masses more than before and bringing closer the hour of uprising.

The propaganda that has been carried out so far said that the imperialist war is the most criminal and reactionary war for conquests. But now it is confirmed that on the Western front, where hundreds of thousands and millions of French and German soldiers are engaged in the slaughter, the maturation of the revolution cannot but proceed faster than before, although this revolution is proceeding more slowly than we expected.

I dwelled on the question of foreign policy longer than I wanted, but it seems to me that here we see clearly how, essentially, in the question of foreign policy, we face two main lines – the proletarian line, which says that the socialist revolution is more precious and higher than anything, and we must consider whether it will soon arise in the West, and the other line – the bourgeois one, which says that for it, state greatness and national independence are more precious and higher than anything.

On internal issues, we see the same from the group of "left communists," who repeat the basic arguments directed against us from the camp of the bourgeoisie. For example, the main argument of the group of "left communists" against us is that a right-Bolshevik deviation is observed, which threatens the revolution with the path of state capitalism.

Evolution towards state capitalism – this is the evil, this is the enemy, with which we are invited to fight.

And so, when I read these references to such enemies in the newspaper of the "left communists," I ask: what has happened to these people, how can they forget reality because of fragments of a book? Reality says that state capitalism would be a step forward for us. If we could realize state capitalism in Russia in a short time, it would be a victory. How could they not see that the small property owner, the small capital – is our enemy. How could they see the main enemy in state capitalism? Transitioning from capitalism to socialism, they should not forget that our main enemy is the petty bourgeoisie, its habits, its customs, its economic position. The small property owner first of all fears state capitalism because his one desire is to grab, to get more for himself, to ruin, to finish off the large landowners, the large exploiters. And in this, the small property owner willingly supports us.

...of state capitalism, because he has only one desire – to grab, to get as much for himself, to ruin, to finish off the large landowners, the large exploiters. And in this, the small property owner willingly supports us.

Here he is more revolutionary than the workers, because he is more embittered, more indignant, and therefore, to finish off the bourgeoisie, he goes willingly, but not as a socialist, to begin building a socialist economy on the principles of firm labor discipline, within the framework of strict organization, under the condition of proper control and accounting, but to grab as much for himself, to use for his own purposes and in his own interests the fruits of victory, without any interest in the general state interests and the interests of the working class as a whole.

What is state capitalism under Soviet power? At present, to implement state capitalism means to carry out that accounting and control which the capitalist classes carried out. We have an example of state capitalism in Germany. We know that it was superior to us. But if you think even a little about what it would mean in Russia, in Soviet Russia, to ensure the foundations of such state capitalism, then any person who has not gone mad and has not filled his head with fragments of bookish truths should say that state capitalism would be our salvation.

I said that state capitalism would be a salvation for us; if we had it in Russia, then the transition to full socialism would be easy, would be in our hands, because state capitalism is something centralized, calculated, controlled, and socialized, and what we lack is precisely this, we are threatened by the elemental force of petty-bourgeois slovenliness, which history and the economy of Russia have most prepared, and which does not allow us to take this step, on which the success of socialism depends. I will remind you that my words about state capitalism I had to write some time before the revolution, and the outrageous absurdity of scaring us with state capitalism. I will recall that in my pamphlet "The Threatening Catastrophe" [28] I wrote then... (Reads.)

This I wrote about the revolutionary-democratic state, the state of Kerensky, Chernov, Tsereteli, Kishkin, and their ilk, about the state that stood on bourgeois ground and did not and could not leave it; I said then that state capitalism is a step towards socialism; I wrote this in September 1917, and now, in April 1918, after the proletariat took power in October, when it proved its ability: many factories and plants were confiscated, enterprises and banks nationalized, the military resistance of the bourgeoisie and saboteurs was broken, - now, when they scare us with capitalism - this is such a ridiculous, so utterly absurd invention that it becomes surprising, and one asks oneself: how could people come to this? They forgot that minor detail, that in Russia we have a mass of petty bourgeoisie, which sympathizes with the destruction of the big bourgeoisie of all countries, but does not sympathize with accounting, socialization, and control, - here is the danger for the revolution, here is the unity of social forces that ruined the great French Revolution and could not but ruin it, and which can, if the Russian proletariat turns out to be weak, only one thing can ruin the Russian Revolution. The petty bourgeoisie, as we see, permeates the entire public atmosphere with petty-proprietor tendencies, - aspirations that are simply expressed in: I took from the rich, and I don't care about the others.

This is the main danger. If the petty bourgeoisie were subordinated to other class elements, were subordinated to state capitalism, then the conscious worker should welcome this with both hands, because state capitalism under the democracy of Kerensky would have been a step towards socialism, and under Soviet power would have been 3/4 of socialism, - because whoever organizes state-capitalist enterprises can be made into an assistant; and the "left communists" relate to this differently, they relate with contempt, - and when we had the first meeting with the "left communists" on April 4, incidentally proving that this question, having long discussions, is already past, - I said that if we correctly understand our tasks, we must learn socialism from the organizers of trusts.

These words of the "left communists" terribly outraged them, and one of them - Comrade Osinsky - devoted his entire article to discrediting these words. This is the essence of his arguments. - After all, we do not want to teach them, but to learn from them. - We, the "right" Bolsheviks, - we want to learn from the organizers of the trust, and here the "left communists" want to teach{106}. - But what do you want to teach them? Perhaps, socialism? - To teach merchants, dealers, socialism? (Applause.) No, engage in this business if you wish, we will not assist you, this is an empty matter. - We have nothing to teach these engineers, dealers, merchants. - There is nothing to teach them about socialism. - If we had a bourgeois revolution, then we would have nothing to learn from them, - perhaps only to grab what can be grabbed, and that's enough, there is nothing more to learn. - No, this is not yet a socialist revolution. - This is what happened in France in 1793, where there was no socialism, but it was only a prelude to socialism.

The landowners must be overthrown, the bourgeoisie must be overthrown, and millions of times right in the eyes of history, all the actions of the Bolsheviks, all their struggle, violence against the landowners and capitalists, expropriation, forcible suppression of their resistance, will be justified. In general and in sum, this was a great historical task, but it was only the first step. Here the matter is, for what purpose we suppressed them; to say that now, having finally suppressed them, we will bow to their capitalism? No, now we will learn from them, because we lack knowledge, because we do not have this knowledge. We have the knowledge of socialism, but we do not have the knowledge of organizing on a scale of millions, the knowledge of organizing and distributing products, etc. - we do not have this. The old Bolshevik leaders did not teach us this. The party of the Bolsheviks cannot boast of this in its history. We have not yet passed through this course. And we say, let him be an arch-swindler, but if he has organized a trust, if this is a merchant who has dealt with the organization of production and distribution for millions and tens of millions, if he has experience, - we must learn from him. If we do not learn this from them, then we will not get socialism, then the revolution will remain at the stage it has reached. Only the development of state capitalism, only the careful establishment of accounting and control, only the strictest organization and labor discipline will lead us to socialism. Without this, there is no socialism. (Applause.)

We have no need to undertake the ridiculous task of teaching the organizers of trusts, - there is nothing to teach them. We need to expropriate them. There is no difficulty in this. (Applause.) We have sufficiently demonstrated and proven this.

And every workers' delegation with whom I have had to deal, when they came to me and complained that the factory was stopping, I said: do you wish your factory to be confiscated? Fine, we have the decree forms ready, we will sign in one minute. (Applause.) But tell me: have you managed to take production into your own hands and have you calculated what you produce, do you know the connection of your production with the Russian and international market? And it turns out that they have not yet learned this, and in the Bolshevik books, this has not yet been written, and in the Menshevik books, nothing is said about it.

How about the connection of production with the Russian and international market? And here it turns out that they have not yet learned this, and in the Bolshevik books, nothing has yet been written about it, nor is anything said in the Menshevik books.

The situation is best for those workers who are implementing this state capitalism: the leather workers, textile workers, and sugar production, because with the sobriety of a proletarian, they know their production and want to preserve and make it larger—because in this lies the greatest socialism{107}. They say: I am not yet up to such a task; I will put the capitalists in charge, give them 1/3 of the seats, and learn from them. And when I read the ironic words of the "left communists" that it is still unknown who will use whom, I find their lack of foresight strange. Of course, if after taking power in October and after the victorious campaign against the entire bourgeoisie from October to April, we could doubt whether the worker organizers of the trust or the profiteer and scoundrel use the workers, if that were so, then we would need to pack our things and leave, giving place to Miliukovs and Martovs. But this is not so. And the conscious worker will not believe, and the fear of the petty bourgeoisie is laughable; they know that socialism begins where larger-scale production begins, that merchants and profiteers learned this business through their own experience.

And we said: only these material conditions, the conditions of large-scale machine industry, of giant enterprises serving tens of millions, only they are the basis of socialism, and to learn this in a country of petty bourgeois, peasant, is difficult, but possible. The revolution comes at the cost of civil war, but this is all the more a serious matter, the more civilized and developed the state; in Germany, state capitalism prevails, and therefore the revolution in Germany will be a hundred times more destructive and ruinous than in a petty bourgeois country—and there will be gigantic difficulties and chaos and imbalance. And therefore, I see no shadow, no slightest ground for despair and dejection in the fact that the Russian revolution first decided on the easier task—to overthrow the landowners and the bourgeoisie, and now stands before the more difficult socialist task: to organize a nationwide accounting and control, the task with which real socialism begins, the task for which the majority of workers and conscious toilers stand. Yes, the majority of organized workers, who have gone through the school of trade unions, fully stand with us.

Those questions that the gentlemen from "Vpered" try to dismiss mockingly, about piecework wages and the Taylor system, the majority raised these questions in the councils of trade unions, even before the Soviet power came with its Soviets—they rose and took up the work to develop norms of labor discipline. These people showed that in their proletarian modesty, they knew the conditions of factory labor, they grasped the essence of socialism better than those who threw around revolutionary phrases but consciously or unconsciously descended to the level of the petty bourgeoisie, who stood on the point of view: knock down the rich, but it is uninteresting to put oneself under the accounting and control of the organization; this is unnecessary for small property owners, they do not need it—but in this alone lies the guarantee of the strength and victory of our revolution.

Comrades, I will not go into further details and quotes from the newspaper "Left Communist"{108}, but in two words, I will say: it is time to shout when people have come to the point that the introduction of labor discipline will be a step back—and I must say that I see in this such an unheard-of reactionary thing, such a threat to the revolution, that if I did not know that this is a group without influence and that at any conscious meeting of workers, this would be refuted, I would say: the Russian revolution is doomed.

The left communists write: "the introduction of labor discipline, in connection with the restoration of the leadership of capitalists in production, cannot significantly increase the productivity of labor, but it will lower the class initiative, activity, and organization of the proletariat. It threatens the enslavement of the working class...". This is not true; if this were so, our Russian revolution in its socialist tasks, in its socialist essence, would stand on the brink of collapse. But this is not true. This is the declassed petty-bourgeois intelligentsia that does not understand that for socialism, the main difficulty lies in ensuring labor discipline. Socialists wrote about this long ago, in the distant past, socialists thought most about this, they exerted the greatest care and analysis, they understood that here the real difficulties of the socialist revolution begin. And until now, there have been revolutions repeatedly, which mercilessly overthrew the bourgeoisie, no less energetically than we, but when we reached the point of creating the Soviet power, thereby we showed that we are making a practical transition from economic liberation to labor self-discipline, that our power is indeed the power of labor. When we are told that the dictatorship of the proletariat is recognized in words, but in practice, phrases are written, this actually shows that they have no idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat, for it is not only to overthrow the bourgeoisie or to overthrow the landowners—this happened in all revolutions—our dictatorship of the proletariat is the assurance of order, discipline, productivity of labor, accounting and control, the proletarian Soviet power, which is more solid, more firm than the previous one. This is what you cannot resolve, this is what we have not taught, this is what the workers need, this is why it is good to show them a mirror in which all these shortcomings are clearly visible. I consider this a useful task, for it will force all thinking, all conscious workers and peasants to direct their main efforts to this. Yes, by overthrowing the landowners and the bourgeoisie, we cleared the way, but we have not built the edifice of socialism. For on the soil cleared of one generation of the bourgeoisie, new generations constantly appear in history, as long as the soil gives birth, and it gives birth to as many bourgeoisie as you like. And those who look at the victory over the capitalists as small property owners do—"they grabbed, let me take advantage too"—each of them is a source of a new generation of the bourgeoisie. When we are told that the introduction of labor discipline in connection with the restoration of capitalist leaders is supposedly a threat to the revolution, I say: these people have not understood precisely the socialist character of our revolution, they repeat exactly what easily unites them with the petty bourgeoisie, which fears discipline, organization, accounting, and control, like the devil fears holy water.

If they say: but here you propose to bring in capitalists as leaders among the workers' leaders. Yes, they are brought in because in the practical organization, they have knowledge that we do not have. A conscious worker will never be afraid of such a leader, because he knows that the Soviet power is his power, that this power will firmly stand for his protection, because he knows that he wants to learn the practice of organization.

We organized thousands during the tsar and hundreds of thousands under Kerensky. This is nothing, it does not count in politics. This was preparatory work, this was a preparatory class. And until the advanced workers learn to organize tens of millions, until then they are not socialists and not creators of a socialist society, and they will not acquire the necessary organizational knowledge. The path of organization is long, and the tasks of socialist construction require persistent, prolonged work and corresponding knowledge, which we lack. Even the nearest future generation, more developed, will hardly make a complete transition to socialism.

Construction requires persistent, prolonged work and the corresponding knowledge, which we lack. It is doubtful that even the next, more developed generation will make a full transition to socialism.

Recall what previous socialists wrote about the future socialist revolution; it is doubtful that one could transition to socialism without learning from the organizers of trusts, for they were engaged in this production on a large scale. We do not need to teach them socialism, we need to expropriate them, break their sabotage. These two tasks we have accomplished. We must force them to submit to workers' control. And if our critics from the "left communists" reproached us for not leading to communism with our tactics, but moving backward, then their reproaches are ridiculous: they forget that we lagged behind in accounting and control because it was very difficult to break this resistance and bring the bourgeoisie and its technicians and bourgeois specialists into our service. And their knowledge, their experience, and labor are needed by us, without which it is impossible in practice to take over the culture created by the old social relations and left as the material basis of socialism. If the "left communists" did not notice this, it is because they do not see real life, but compose their slogans by contrasting ideal socialism with state capitalism. And we must tell the workers: yes, this is a step back, but we must help ourselves find a means. The means is one: organize to the last person, organize an account of production, organize an account and control of consumption, and do so that we do not throw hundreds of millions of rubles from under the printing press{109}, and not a single hundred-ruble note, incorrectly falling into someone's hands, would escape the state treasury. This cannot be done by any revolutionary surge, by any crushing of the bourgeoisie. This can only be done through self-discipline, only through the organization of workers' and peasants' labor, only through accounting and control. We do not yet have this, and for this we paid tribute with higher salaries than capitalist organizers paid you. We have not learned this, but we must learn, this is the path to socialism, the only path – to teach workers the practical business of managing colossal enterprises, organizing large-scale production and the largest distribution.

Comrades, I know very well how easy it is to talk about accounting, control, discipline, and self-discipline when a person who occupies a certain social position speaks. But how much of this can be made into material for witticisms and to declare: when your party was not in power, it promised the workers milk rivers and kisel shores, and when these people came to power, there is the usual transformation, they begin to talk about accounting, discipline, self-discipline, control, etc. I know very well what a grateful material this is for publicists of the type of Milyukov and Martov.

I know very well what a rich material this is for people who are interested in lines or effects and are inclined to use the slightest arguments, which among conscious workers meet with little sympathy.

In the newspaper "Left Communist," I encountered a review by such an outstanding publicist as Bukharin of my book{110}, and moreover, a sympathetic review, but everything valuable in it lost all value for me when I read the review to the end; I saw that Bukharin did not see what needed to be seen, and this happened because he wrote his review in April, and took in quotes what was already outdated for April, what was yesterday, namely, that it is necessary to break the old state; we have already done this, this is the task of yesterday, and we must move forward and look not at the past, but at the future and create the state of the commune; he wrote about what is already embodied in the Soviet organizations, and was silent about what concerns accounting, control, discipline. How the mindset of these people, how their psychology coincides with the moods of the petty bourgeoisie: to overthrow the rich, but no control, so they look at it; this captivates and separates the conscious proletarian from the petty bourgeoisie and even from the most extreme revolutionaries; this is when the proletarian says: let's organize and tighten up, or some small, dirty fellow, numbering a million, will overthrow us.

Here the conscious proletarian diverges from the petty bourgeois; here the revolution moves away from the petty bourgeoisie. And how blind such people are, they do not talk about this.

I will still allow myself to remind you of a few of my quotes; I said that people will be able to do without violence when they get used to acting this way; of course, such a habit can be the result of long education.

When the "left communists" hear this, they clutch their heads and say: how did we not notice this; Bukharin, why didn't you criticize this? We showed our strength in suppressing the landowners and the bourgeoisie, and now we must show our strength in self-discipline and organization, because from the past millennia of experience this is known, and we must tell the people that only in this is the strength of our Soviet power, the workers' dictatorship, our proletarian authority. And the petty bourgeoisie hides from this truth behind the shield of revolutionary phraseology.

We must show our strength. Yes, small proprietors, small owners are ready to help us, the proletarians, to overthrow the landowners and capitalists. But further, our paths with them are different. They do not like organization, discipline, they are enemies of it. And here we will have to wage the most decisive, ruthless struggle with these owners, with these small proprietors. For here, in the field of organization, begins for us the construction of socialism. And when I object to those people who say that they are socialists, promising the workers as much as they want and to use whatever they want, I say that communism presupposes not the current productivity of labor. Our productivity is too low, this is a fact. Capitalism leaves us, especially in a backward country, a mass of such habits where everything state, everything official, is viewed as material to maliciously spoil. This psychology of the petty-bourgeois mass is felt at every step. And in this area, the struggle is very difficult. Only the organized proletariat can withstand everything. I wrote: "Until the higher phase of communism arrives, socialism requires the strictest control by society and by the state"[29].

I wrote this before the October revolution and I insist on it now.

At present, the time has come when, having suppressed the bourgeoisie, having broken the sabotage, we have the opportunity to engage in this matter. Until this was done, the heroes of the day and the heroes of the revolution were the Red Guards, who did their great historical deed. They took up arms against the consent of the propertied classes. They did this great historical deed. They took up arms to overthrow the exploiters and turn their weapons into tools for protecting the workers, to monitor the measure of production and labor and the measure of consumption.

We did not provide this, and in this lies the crux and foundation of socialism. If anyone finds such work boring and uninteresting, then this is a representative of petty-bourgeois laziness.

and of labor and the measure of consumption.

We did not provide this, and in this lies the crux and foundation of socialism. If anyone finds such work boring and uninteresting, it is a sign of petty-bourgeois laziness.

If our revolution had stopped here, it would have entered history no less than the revolution of 1793. But they will say: that was in the 18th century. For the 18th century, that was enough, but for the 20th – that is not enough. Accounting and control – these are the main things required for the proper functioning of a communist society. This is what I wrote before the October revolution[30]. I repeat, it was impossible to take up this task until Alekseevs, Kornilovs, and Kerenskys were suppressed. Now the military resistance of the bourgeoisie has been suppressed. Our task is to place all saboteurs under our control, under the control of Soviet power, to create administrative bodies so that accounting and control are strictly established. The country is perishing because after the war there are no elementary conditions for normal existence. Our enemies, who are coming at us, are only terrible because we have not coped with accounting and control. When I hear hundreds of thousands of complaints about hunger, when I see and know that these complaints are justified, that we have bread, but we cannot deliver it, when we encounter ridicule and objections from "left communists" to measures like our railway decree – they mentioned it twice – these are trifles.

At the meeting with "left communists" on April 4, I said: give your draft of the decree, for you are citizens of the Soviet republic, members of Soviet institutions – you are not those critics from the sidelines, from the back alleys, like bourgeois merchants and saboteurs, who criticize to vent their malice. You, I repeat, are leaders of Soviet organizations; try to give your draft of the decree. They will not be able to give it and will never give it, because our railway decree is correct, because, by introducing a dictatorship, it meets with the sympathy of all the masses and conscious workers of the railway business – and it meets with opposition from those administrators who grab and take bribes; because those who waver between the Soviet power and its enemies waver in their attitude towards it – and the proletariat, which learned discipline from large-scale production, knows that there can be no socialism as long as larger-scale production is not organized and as long as there is not even stricter discipline. – This proletariat is on our side in the railway movement; it will go into battle with the element of small property owners and show that the Russian revolution, capable of achieving brilliant victories, will also be able to overcome its own disorganization. And from the slogans of May 1, in terms of the tasks of the moment, it will be able to appreciate the slogan of the Central Committee, which says: "we have defeated capital, we will defeat our own disorganization." Only then will we come to the complete victory of socialism! (Stormy applause.)