Comrades, I want now to reply to the notes, of which two are not entirely clear. In one of them, nonetheless, it seems there are two basic ideas. First, the author of the note is dissatisfied with the Bolsheviks, who allegedly have gotten too big for their boots, and sympathizes with the Mensheviks for their gradualism. Second, he raises a question about peasant uprisings.

As for the first question, I must say that if one is to level such an accusation against the Bolsheviks, then one ought to have indicated in what way they got too big for their boots and what is good about gradualism. What fundamentally separated us from the Mensheviks was that we insisted on the transfer of all power to the Soviets and we got so "big for our boots" that in October two years ago we took it. The Mensheviks demanded gradualism, unwilling to allow this transfer of power. And, for example, the well-known socialist Kautsky, who sympathizes with the Mensheviks, wrote in a brochure in August 1918 that the Bolsheviks ought not take power because they would not be able to hold it, and they would perish and thereby destroy an entire party. I think this view has been refuted by the course of events, so that it is not worth dwelling on it, especially if there are no clear objections. In Germany, Kautsky insisted on democracy, on the Constituent Assembly. One must not give power to the Soviets—this was said by the Mensheviks here and the Germans. In Germany the Constituent Assembly was convened, and there in January and in March a series of enormous workers' uprisings occurred, a civil war, as a result of which the German Mensheviks headed by Hilferding proposed in their latest articles to combine the Constituent Assembly and the Soviets in such a way that the Central Committee of the Soviets be given the right to suspend the decisions of the Constituent Assembly and refer the question to a popular vote. This shows how completely confused the German Mensheviks, and even the best of them, have become. To combine the Constituent Assembly with the Soviets, to combine the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie with the dictatorship of the proletariat—this idea deserves only mockery.

As for peasant uprisings, here a question on this theme was asked. Of course, we have experienced and continue to experience a series of kulak uprisings. Last summer there was an entire wave of kulak uprisings. The kulak is our irreconcilable enemy. And here there is nothing to hope for except his suppression. It is different with the middle peasant; he is not our enemy. For there to be peasant uprisings in Russia that would encompass a significant number of peasants, and not kulaks—this is false. Individual villages and districts join the kulaks, but peasant uprisings that would encompass all peasants in Russia have not occurred under Soviet power. There have been kulak uprisings and they will occur under such a government as insists that every surplus grain must be surrendered at fixed prices to the hungry. Such uprisings are inevitable, because the kulak, who has a large grain reserve, can sell it for several hundred rubles per pud, and we all know the prices at which bagmen sell. If we were to give the kulaks such freedom, then the rich man, who has hidden reserves of paper rubles, Kerensky notes, would be fed, while the majority, who hide nothing, would starve. We therefore do not close our eyes to the fact that kulak uprisings against Soviet power are inevitable. When there existed the power of capitalists, there inevitably occurred uprisings of workers against them, of peasants against landlords. When the landlord and capitalist have been crushed, uprisings of kulaks will occur ever more rarely. One must choose. And if someone wants everything to happen without any uprisings at all and wants the rich to present on a platter a confession of love and a promise peacefully to give up all surplus, I think we will not take such a person seriously.

Another note, unclear, contains the following: how to proceed in such cases when workers, besotted by the call of the Socialist Revolutionaries, on the basis of food shortages do not work, strike, and go against Soviet power. Of course, I cannot count on the fact that every single worker stands for Soviet power. When in Paris in 1871 there was an uprising of Parisian workers, a considerable number of workers from other cities fought against them in the ranks of the White Guard forces and suppressed the Parisian workers. This did not prevent conscious socialists from asserting that the Paris Communards represented the entire proletariat, that is, all that is best and honest, while in the White Guard ranks were the backward strata of workers. And we have unconscious, backward workers who still have not understood Soviet power; we strive to enlighten them. No government before has given so much for constant mass meetings of workers as the Soviets, which give every factory representative a place in a state institution. We, as much as possible, attract workers so that they themselves create state policy; under capitalism and even under republics workers were driven away from this, while Soviet power attracts workers with all its strength, but for quite a long time still some will be drawn to the old ways.

Among you there are few people, perhaps even very few individuals who remember serfdom; only old people can remember that, but people who remember what was 30–40 years ago will certainly be found. Whoever has been in the villages knows that 30 years ago one could find quite a few old men in the villages who said: "It was better under serfdom, there was more order, there was strictness, women were not dressed luxuriously." If one were to read Uspensky now, to whom we are erecting a monument as one of the best writers depicting peasant life, one could find from the 1880s and 1890s descriptions of how sincere, conscientious old men from among the peasants and sometimes even simply middle-aged people said that it was better under serfdom. When old social orders are destroyed, they cannot be destroyed at once in the consciousness of all people; there remains a small number who are drawn to the old ways.

Some workers, for example printers, say that under capitalism things were good, there were many newspapers, but now there are few, then I earned decently and I don't want any socialism. There were not few branches of industry that depended on the wealthy classes or that existed through the production of luxury items. Many workers in large cities under capitalism lived by producing luxury items. In the Soviet republic we will have to leave these workers for a time without work. We will say to them: "Take up other useful work." He will say: "I was engaged in fine work, I was a jeweler, the work was clean, I worked for good gentlemen, but now peasants have come, have driven away the good gentlemen, I want to go back to capitalism." Such people will preach for a return to capitalism or, as the Mensheviks say, for moving forward to healthy capitalism and healthy democracy. Several hundred workers will be found who will say: "We lived well under healthy capitalism." The people who lived well under capitalism were an infinitesimal minority, but we defend the interests of the majority, who lived poorly under capitalism. (Applause.) Healthy capitalism led to a world slaughter in the freest countries. There cannot be healthy capitalism; there is only such capitalism as, in the freest republic like America, cultured, rich, technically advanced, this democratic capitalism, the most republican capitalism, led to the most frenzied world slaughter through the plunder of the entire world. Out of 15 million workers you will find several thousand in the entire country who lived splendidly under capitalism. And in wealthy countries there are more such workers, because they worked for a larger number of millionaires and billionaires. They served these handfuls and received from them especially high pay. If you take hundreds of English millionaires, they accumulated billions because they robbed India and an entire series of colonies. It cost them nothing to throw 10–20 thousand workers a pittance, to pay them twice or more in wages, so that they would work especially well for them. I once read a story from the memoirs of an American barber to whom one billionaire paid a dollar a day for shaving. And this barber wrote an entire book in which he praised the billionaire and his remarkable life. For an hour-long morning visit to his financial majesty he received a dollar a day, was satisfied, and wanted nothing but capitalism. Against such an argument one must be on guard. The vast majority of workers were not in such a position. We, communists of the entire world, defend the interests of the vast majority of the toiling masses, while an infinitesimal minority of the toiling masses were bribed by the capitalists at high pay and were turned into faithful servants of capital. Just as under serfdom there were people, peasants, who said to the landlords: "We are your slaves (this was after freedom), we will not leave you." How many were there? An infinitesimal number. Can one reject the struggle against serfdom by referring to them? Of course not. Just so now, one cannot refute communism by reference to a minority of workers who earned splendidly in bourgeois newspapers, in the production of luxury items, in personal service to billionaires.

Now I will turn to questions that were set forth clearly. First, to the question of concessions in general and especially the Great Northern Railway{6}. They say that this means giving plunderers the nation's wealth to loot. To this I will reply that here the question is connected in significant ways with bourgeois specialists and the question of world imperialism. Can we now overthrow world imperialism? If we could do this, we would be obliged to do it, but you know that we cannot do this now, just as in March 1917 we could not throw off Kerensky; we had to wait for the development of soviet organizations, work on that, and not immediately rise up against Kerensky. Just so now, is an offensive war against world imperialism possible? No, of course not. If we were stronger, and tomorrow received much grain, possessed technical equipment and so forth, we would not allow the Scheidemanns to mow down the Spartacists, but we would overthrow them. But now this is useless fantasy; now one country alone cannot overthrow world imperialism, so long as other countries are in a period when there is no soviet majority, in many countries Soviets are just beginning to arise, therefore it is necessary to make concessions to the imperialists. We cannot now build railways on a large scale, and we are glad to manage with the existing ones. We lack grain, fuel; there is a shortage of locomotives; we have several million puds of grain lying on the Volga-Bugulma railway and we cannot transport it. We in the Council of People's Commissars recently decided to send plenipotentiaries with broad powers to transport this grain. The people are starving in Petrograd and Moscow, while there millions of puds of grain are piled up and we cannot transport it because we lack locomotives and have no fuel. And we say that it is better to pay tribute to foreign capitalists and build railways. We will not perish from this tribute, but if we do not manage to improve railway transport, then we may perish because the people are starving; the Russian worker is enduring, but there is a limit to endurance. Therefore, it is our duty to take measures to improve railway transport, even at the cost of paying tribute to capitalism. Whether this is good or bad, but for now there is no other choice. So long as we have not finally overthrown world capitalism, by paying tribute we will not destroy Soviet power. We paid gold to German imperialists, according to the conditions of the Brest Peace we were obliged to do so, now the countries of the Entente are taking this gold from them—one robber victor takes from a robber vanquished. We now say that, so long as the worldwide movement of the proletariat does not lead to victory, we will either wage war or buy ourselves off from these robbers with tribute and see nothing wrong in this. While we were buying ourselves off from German robbers, we gave them several hundred million, and during that time we strengthened our Red Army, while the German robbers now have nothing left. So it will be with other imperialist robbers. (Applause.)

The comrade further writes that he was arrested for four days for opposing the ruin of middle peasants, and asks what a middle peasant is, and refers to a series of peasant uprisings. Of course, if the comrade was arrested for protesting against the ruin of middle peasants, then that was incorrect, and, judging by the fact that he was soon released, I believe that someone—either the one who made the arrest or another representative of Soviet power—took into account that the arrest was improper. I will now speak about the middle peasant. He differs from the kulak in that he does not resort to exploitation of another's labor. The kulak robs others' money, others' labor. The peasant poor, the semi-proletarians—these are those who themselves are subjected to exploitation; but the middle peasant, who does not exploit others, who lives by his own farm, who has approximately enough grain, who does not engage in kulak practices, but who does not belong to the poor—such peasants waver between us and the kulaks. A small number of them may become kulaks if they have luck, and therefore they are drawn to the kulaks, but the majority cannot become kulaks. And if socialists and communists know how to speak properly with the middle peasant, they will prove to him that Soviet power is more advantageous than any other power, for another power oppresses and crushes the middle peasant. But the middle peasant wavers. Today he is with us, tomorrow for another power; part is with us, and part with the bourgeoisie. And in the program that we will adopt in several days, we stand against any violence toward the middle peasant{7}. This our party declares. If arrests do occur, we condemn them and will correct them. Against the kulak—for violence, against the middle peasant—against violence. We tell him: if you stand for Soviet power, we do not want to forcibly introduce you into communes, we have never forcibly driven peasants into communes, and there is no such decree. If this happens locally—it is an abuse for which officials are removed from office and brought to trial. This is a major question. The middle peasant stands between two camps. But, comrades, the policy here is completely clear: we are against violence toward middle peasants, we are for agreement with them, for concessions. Gradually, the middle peasant can come to communism and will come. In the freest capitalist republic, the middle peasant is threatened by capital, which in one way or another crushes and oppresses him.

Further, they ask my opinion on the Baltic Fleet. I have not examined the question of the Baltic Fleet and cannot answer now; perhaps it has been exhausted by a statement from the comrade from the fleet{8}.

Then the question addresses the fact that locally there is much rot, bureaucratism, and moss has grown, and one must struggle with this. This is completely correct. When the October Revolution overthrew the old bureaucrats, it did so because it created Soviets. It drove out the old judges and made the courts popular. But the courts could have been made more easily; for this it was not necessary to know the old laws, but simply to be guided by a sense of justice. In the courts bureaucratism was easy to destroy. In other areas it was much more difficult to do. We drove out the old bureaucrats, but they came back again; they call themselves "komunists," if they cannot say communist, they pin on a red collar tab, they squeeze into a cushy spot. What is to be done here? Again and again struggle with this filth, again and again, if this filth has squeezed through, clean it, drive it out, supervise and observe through worker-communists, through peasants who are known not for months but for years. Then here was yet another question—a note in which it is said that giving preference to party members is an evil, because then crooks attach themselves. With this, comrades, a struggle is being waged and will be waged; now to the party congress we decided not to admit delegates who had been in the party less than a year, and we will take such measures further. When the party stands in power, it is forced at first to give preference to party members—suppose two people come, one pulls out his party card and says he is a communist, the other without a card, and both are equally unknown, then naturally preference is given to the party member who has a card. How to distinguish whether a person is genuinely in the party by conviction or has attached himself? It is necessary to write on the party card—what date the person entered the party, not to issue a party card until a person has endured the trial, has gone through school, etc.

Then there is a note regarding the revolutionary tax{9}, that it falls on the middle peasants. Regarding this there was a special meeting, there were many complaints, and in order to verify, the following was done: we have a Central Statistical Bureau, into which have been drawn the best specialists in statistics in Russia, the majority of these specialists are Right Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and even Kadets; there are few communists, Bolsheviks—they were more occupied with struggling against tsarism than with practical work. These specialists, as far as I could observe, work satisfactorily; of course, this does not mean that it is not necessary to struggle with individual persons. We gave the task to conduct a pilot investigation of several districts to see how peasants distributed the revolutionary tax. There are very many complaints; of course, if one imagines that a thousand complaints are received from all over Russia, then for all of Russia this is negligible—if out of several million households there is a thousand complaints, then this is trifles; if three people a day come to the Central Executive Committee, over a month there will be 90 complaints, and it makes the impression that we are buried in complaints. To verify, we decided to conduct an investigation of several districts and received a precise answer in a report by Popov, which was repeated at a meeting of the Central Executive Committee in the presence of workers. This report showed that in the majority of cases peasants distribute the tax fairly. Soviet power requires that the poor pay nothing, the middle pay moderately, and the rich pay much; of course, it is impossible to determine precisely who is rich, who is poor—mistakes happen, but in the majority peasants distribute the tax correctly. That is how it should be. (Applause.) Of course, there were mistakes. But, for example, a small railroad employee complained that the house committee had taxed him unjustly. He reported this to Soviet power. Then they said: search him, he is speculating. They found several sacks with a million Kerensky notes. So long as we have not found the way to replace all the old papers with new ones, this will happen. When we replace these papers with new ones, then every speculator will be exposed. Everyone will have to exchange old papers for new ones. (Stormy applause.) If you present a small amount of money that a worker needs, we will give him ruble for ruble; if you present 1–2 thousand, then ruble for ruble. But if you present more, we will give part in cash papers, and the rest we will write in a little book—you can wait. (Applause.) To do such a thing, it is necessary to prepare new papers{10}. We have approximately 60 billion old ones. In order to exchange them for new ones, such a large number is not needed, but specialists reasoned that no fewer than 20 billion new ones are needed. We already have 17 billion. (Applause.) And in the Council of People's Commissars the question has been raised to prepare this measure completely in the near future, which will be a blow against speculators. This measure will expose those who hide Kerensky notes. Its implementation requires great organization; this is not an easy measure.

Then the question addresses how things are with sowing; it is difficult to get enough sown. This, of course, is correct. A Committee for Sown Area has been established{11}. Here, in the Commissariat of Agriculture, a Workers' Committee{12} has been established by one of the decrees of Soviet power, which will be organized by agreement with professional unions. Its task will be to ensure that lands do not lie fallow, where there is fallow landlord land, that it be given to workers. There is a decree that if a peasant does not take up the land, the state will try to adapt it. Of course, there is not enough seed. Here it is necessary for the peasant poor to expose those kulaks who have hidden surplus grain and have not given it for seed. It is important for the kulak to hide this surplus, because in the hungry months he will take a thousand rubles per pud, and that grain will not be sown, that he causes harm to thousands of workers—he cares nothing about that. This is an enemy of the people; he must be exposed.

Next comes the question of pay rates: you give a specialist 3 thousand, he walks from place to place and it is difficult to catch him. On specialists I say that these are people who possess bourgeois science and technique to such a degree that the vast majority of all workers and peasants do not possess them; such specialists are necessary, and we say that we now cannot introduce complete equality of pay and stand for paying more than three thousand. Even if we pay several million a year, this is not expensive if we learn to work well with their help. We see no other means to put things in order so that they work not from under the stick, and while specialists are few, we are forced not to refuse high pay rates. We recently had a conversation on this question with the Commissar of Labor Schmidt, and he agrees with our policy and says that before, under capitalism, the pay of an unskilled laborer was 25 rubles a month, the earnings of a good specialist not less than 500 rubles a month—a ratio of 1:20, now the lowest earnings are 600 rubles, and specialists receive 3 thousand, a ratio of 1:5. Thus, to equalize the lowest and highest rates, we have done pretty well and will continue what has been begun. For the present, we cannot equalize pay while specialists are few; we do not refuse to raise their pay. We say that it is better to give an extra million or billion a year only to make use of all the specialists we have—they will teach workers and peasants much more than this billion is worth.

Next comes the question regarding agricultural communes: can former landlords be left in them? This depends on what sort of landlord. There was no such decree forbidding landlords. Of course, the landlord inspires distrust because for centuries he oppressed peasants who hate him, but if there are such whom the peasants know as honorable people, then they should not only be admitted but must be. We must use such specialists; they have the habit of managing large-scale farms and they can teach peasants and agricultural workers much.

Then they ask: should middle peasants be admitted to collective plowings? Of course, yes. Recently entire districts decided to transition to collective plowings; to what extent this will be implemented I do not know; here it is important to attract precisely the middle peasants, because the poor agree with us, while the middle peasants do not always, and they must be attracted. We stand for violence against capitalists, against landlords and not only for violence, but for complete expropriation of what they have accumulated; we stand for violence against the kulak, but not for his complete expropriation, because he conducts farming on the land and part was accumulated by his own labor. This distinction must be firmly understood. For the landlord and capitalist—complete expropriation; for the kulaks, one cannot take away all their property; there was no such decree; we want to convince the middle peasant, to attract him by example, by persuasion. This is our program. If there are retreats locally, then these are violators of the decree of Soviet power—either people who do not want to carry out our decree, or they have not understood it.

Then the question about spurring on the railroad workers, and they also ask about the stoppage of railway traffic{13}. In the Council of People's Commissars this question was discussed with particular diligence, and many measures were adopted. This is a fundamental question. Millions of puds of grain lie on the Volga-Bugulma railway and can perish because grain sometimes lies in the snow, the spring thaw will begin and the grain will perish. It already now is distinguished by moisture (it has up to 20% moisture). This grain must be transported, otherwise it will perish. The main thing is that the railroad workers themselves are in great need of grain. For this it is necessary to stop passenger traffic from March 18 to April 10, as our comrades in the Commissariat of Transportation calculated. This stoppage of passenger traffic can provide three and a half million puds of grain that can be transported, though with weak passenger locomotives. If bagmen were traveling on these trains, they would at most transport half a million puds of grain. Those who complain about the stoppage of passenger traffic are acting unjustly. Bagmen at best will transport half a million, but we will transport, if we fill the cars completely with grain, if the railroad workers help us, three and a half million puds, and thereby improve food supply. This is why we have said and say that all comrades, more developed, organized, must go to work—military and food work. Give and give people, however difficult it may be. We perfectly well know that Petrograd has given more to Russia than any other city, because in Petrograd the most organized, developed workers are. But this half-year is difficult. The first half-year of 1918 yielded 27 million puds, in the second we had 67 million puds. We have entered a hungry half-year. March, April, May, June will be difficult months. To prevent this, we must strain all forces. At every factory, in every circle one must raise the question—is there not a man who can be put to work in a railroad shop, replaced by a woman, and he put to this work. In every circle, in every group, in every organization one must think about this, one must give new workers, then we will manage this difficult half-year. (Applause.)

First published in 1950 in the 4th edition of the Works of V. I. Lenin, vol. 29

Printed from the stenographic record