First of all, I must say something about Comrade Bukharin's speech: I already noted in my first speech that we agree with him on nine-tenths of the issues, and therefore I think it is regrettable that on one-tenth we diverge from him; he finds himself in such a position that he must spend half his speech defending himself and categorically disavowing everyone who has spoken in his favor. And however excellent may be the intentions of him and his group, the falseness of their position is proven precisely by the fact that he constantly has to spend time on justifications and on disavowing the question of state capitalism.

Comrade Bukharin is completely wrong; and I will say so in print, because this question is extremely important[31]. Let me say briefly now: the "left communists" reproached us for showing a tendency toward state capitalism; now, however, Comrade Bukharin incorrectly argues that there cannot be state capitalism under Soviet power. Thus, he contradicts himself when he says that state capitalism cannot exist under Soviet power – this is patent nonsense. A whole series of enterprises and factories under the control of Soviet power and belonging to the state already demonstrate the transition from capitalism to socialism, and Comrade Bukharin does not wish to stop concretely on this point, but instead recalls how we sat at the left Zimmerwald and wrote against it, but that was in King Herod's time, and to recall this now, half a year after the existence of Soviet power, and after the experiments we have conducted, after we expropriated, confiscated, and nationalized – to recall what we wrote in 1915 is ridiculous… Now we cannot avoid posing the question of state capitalism and socialism, of how to conduct ourselves in the transitional epoch – here under Soviet power a piece of capitalism and socialism exist side by side. Comrade Bukharin does not wish to understand this question – and it seems to me that we cannot simply discard it, and Comrade Bukharin does not propose to discard it and does not deny that this state capitalism is higher than the remnants of petty-proprietorial sentiments and economic conditions of life and everyday existence, which are very great, and which Comrade Bukharin has not refuted – and indeed, one cannot refute it without forgetting the word: Marxist.

And it is ridiculous to stand at Ge's point of view, that the proletariat is plague-stricken in Europe, that the proletariat in Germany is corrupted{112}. This point of view is one of national barbarism, such stupidity that I hardly know where to go further. The proletariat in Europe is in no way more plague-stricken than in Russia; revolution is harder to begin there because there is not at the head of power neither idiots like Romanov nor boasters like Kerensky, but serious leaders of capitalism, which did not exist in Russia.

I shall finally turn to the main objections that have been raining down on my article and my speech from all quarters. The slogan "rob the robbers" was particularly attacked here – a slogan in which, however much I examine it, I cannot find anything incorrect if history steps upon the stage. If we use the words: expropriation of the expropriators, then – why cannot we manage here without Latin words? (Applause.)

And I think that history will completely vindicate us, and even before history, the working masses take our side; but if the slogan "rob the robbers" manifested itself without any restrictions in the activities of the Soviets, and if it turns out that in such a practical and fundamental question as hunger and unemployment, we encounter the greatest difficulties, then it is timely to say that after the words "rob the robbers" begins the divergence between the proletarian revolution, which says: count what was robbed and do not let anyone drag it away, and if they do drag it away directly or indirectly, then execute such violators of discipline…

And so, when they begin to wail against this, crying that – it is dictatorship, they begin to wail about Napoleon III, Julius Caesar, they say that this is unserious of the working class, when they accuse Trotsky, there is that confusion of ideas, that political sentiment which is revealed precisely by petty-bourgeois elements, which protested not against the slogan "rob the robbers," but against the slogan: count and distribute correctly. There will be no hunger in Russia if we count the bread, verify the availability of all products, and for violation of the established order, the harshest punishment will follow. There is the divergence. This depends on the fact that only the proletariat seriously takes up the socialist revolution, while the petty bourgeoisie approaches it vacillating, which we have always seen, which we have always taken into account, and in this vacillation they are against us. This will not make us waver, and we will continue on our path in the confidence that half the proletariat will follow us, because they know perfectly well how the manufacturers plundered what was robbed only so that the poor would not benefit from it.

All this – verbal tricks, that it is dictatorship, Napoleon III, Julius Caesar, and so forth. One can throw dust in people's eyes on this account, but in the localities, at every factory, in every village, people know perfectly well that we have lagged behind in this, no one will dispute this slogan, everyone knows what it means. And that we shall direct all our forces to the organization of accounting, control, and proper distribution – in this there also cannot be any doubt.

Bukharin said to us: "I disassociate myself from those who kiss me," but there are so many of them that Comrade Bukharin cannot extricate himself. We are not told what they propose, because they do not know what to propose. And do you know what to propose? I have reproached you both in print and in speeches. Regarding the railway decree, we had the pleasure of recalling April 4, to which there is a reference in your journal, and I said, if you are not entirely satisfied with this decree, then give us a new decree. But not a word about this in the first issue, and in the second issue, the proofs of which you were kind enough to provide me for review – not a word, and in Comrade Bukharin's speech also not a word, and the coincidence is complete. Both Comrade Bukharin and Comrade Martov ride the hobbyhorse – the railway decree – and pull this hobbyhorse about. They talk about the dictatorship of Napoleon III, Julius Caesar, and so forth, providing material for a hundred issues that no one will read. There is something closer. This concerns workers and railways. And without railways: not only will there be no socialism, but everyone will simply die of hunger like dogs, while bread lies next to them. Everyone knows this perfectly well. Why did you not give an answer? You close your eyes. You throw dust in the eyes of workers – the Novaya Zhizn people and the Mensheviks consciously, Comrade Bukharin by mistake – you obscure from the workers the main question when you talk about construction. What can one build without railways? And when I see a merchant who tells me at some meeting or reception of delegations that there has been an improvement on such-and-such a railway, such praise is worth a million times more to me than 20 resolutions of communists and any others and than various speeches.

And when business people – engineers, merchants, and so forth – say that if this power manages even a little, even a bit, to set the railways in order, then we shall recognize this as power. And this evaluation of power is the most important of all. For railways are the nail, they are one of the manifestations of the most vivid connection between city and countryside, between industry and agriculture, on which socialism is based entirely. To unite this for planned activity in the interests of the entire population, railways are needed.

All these phrases about dictatorship and so forth, in which all these Martovs and Karelins agreed, which have been chewed twice over by the Cadet press, all of them amount to nothing.

I gave you as an example those worker organizations that are doing this, and state capitalism of other enterprises, other branches of industry; among the tobacco workers, leather workers, there is more state capitalism than among others, and more order, and their path to socialism is more assured. And this cannot be hidden. One also cannot make such absurd phrases as Ge does, to the effect that with a rifle he will force each one. This is complete absurdity and a misunderstanding of what a rifle serves. After this one might think that a rifle is a bad thing, if the bad thing is not the head of anarchist Ge. (Applause.) A rifle is a very good thing when it was necessary to shoot a capitalist waging war against us, when it was necessary to catch thieves red-handed and shoot them. But when Comrade Bukharin said that there are people who receive 4,000 and they must be shot – that is incorrect. No, they must be found. We do not have very many places where they receive 4,000. They are being pulled here and there – we have no specialists, there is the nail of the matter, that is why we need to attract 1,000 people, first-class specialists in their fields, who value their work, who love large-scale production, because they know that here there is technological advancement. And when people say here that socialism can be taken without learning from the bourgeoisie, then I know that this is the psychology of an inhabitant of Central Africa. We do not imagine any other socialism except one based on the foundations of all the lessons acquired from large capitalist culture. Socialism without mail, telegraph, machines – is the emptiest phrase. But you cannot at once sweep away the bourgeois environment and bourgeois habits; they need that organization upon which all modern science and technology stands. For this work to speak of rifles is the greatest stupidity. It depends on the organization of the entire people that the entire population pays income tax, that labor conscription is introduced, that each person is registered; while he is not registered, we must pay him. When Bukharin said he did not see the principle, this does not apply here. Marx assumed the redemption of the bourgeoisie as a class. He wrote about England, when England had no imperialism, when a peaceful transition to socialism was possible – this is not at all a reference to earlier socialism{113}. The question now is not about the bourgeoisie, but about attracting specialists. I gave an example, one could give thousands. Here simply the attraction of people who can be attracted either by purchase at high pay or by ideological organization, for you cannot erase here that all wages are paid to them. We know from the example I gave – indeed, until now you have criticized only in silence, and the left SRs know perfectly well that high wages are paid, the left communists know it and the Novaya Zhizn people know it.

And here they do not criticize. There is their true criticism of Soviet power! When they observed that their engineers began to be paid 1,500, they – say nothing. It is much more useful to pay such engineers. And there is neither Julius Caesar nor dictatorship here. This is precisely the political education of the popular masses. And if I say that we begin to pay 1,500 to 2,000 per month, this is a step backward. And then onto the stage step Julius Caesar, Napoleon III, the Brest-Litovsk peace, and anything you please; but about your specialists, about your engineers not a sound, silence. And when they say, and when Bukharin says that this is not a violation of principle, I say that here there is a violation of the principle of the Paris Commune. State capitalism consists not in money but in social relations. If we give 2,000 according to the railway decree, this is state capitalism. If Comrade Bukharin gave directives about the Zimmerwald resolution of 1915, then he will not get out of this poorly digested theory. Get out, Comrade Bukharin. Now Comrade Bukharin said that I attack petty-bourgeois elements.

I did not attack the laboring peasantry when I spoke of petty-bourgeois elements. Let us leave the laboring peasantry – it is not about them. But among the peasantry there is laboring peasantry and petty-bourgeois peasantry, which lives as a petty proprietor at others' expense, while the laboring peasantry is exploited by others, but it wants to live at its own expense. Therefore, if they began to fall upon the laboring peasantry, then Comrade Karelin is wrong. The poor peasantry, which gains nothing from the robbery of what was robbed, is on our side. Our slogans will pass there. We know excellently and observe how the slogan is understood in the villages – rob the robbers. If they go there with agitation about dictatorship and with phrases about the Brest peace and so forth, then people objecting to us will remain isolated and receive no support. The proletariat, the mass of peasantry ruined and hopeless in terms of individual farming, will be on our side, because it understands perfectly well that one cannot hold Russia by simple robbery. We all know this well, and each in his place sees and feels this.

Here we go together with the economic necessity and the sentiment of the working masses. And therefore, when the declassed intelligentsia of the "left communists" bursts forth with their thunderbolts against us, we must be confident that, however much they abuse us, this slogan of the socialist revolution – the only correct slogan, which the working masses must understand and use in order that we strengthen and complete the socialist revolution. One cannot evade this question at any workers' meeting; you will be pursued by this decree, by this question; we do not claim infallibility, we have many bad decrees. Correct them: you have various journals and groups of writers – tell us what is bad in the railway decree; we proposed this be done at the meeting of April 4, and today it is already April 29 – 25 days have passed, and a whole group of fine writers says nothing, because they can say nothing.

You know that our railway decree, despite all its errors, which we are ready to correct, grasped the very essence of what is needed; it relies on that mass of workers that is faithful to the strictest discipline, which must be united by single-person authority, which the Soviets appoint and which the Soviets remove, and which requires unconditional fulfillment during work, during labor, in the process, when it is necessary that large-scale production work like a machine – so that at this time thousands of people are guided by a single will only, obey the command of a single Soviet leader. (Applause.) And to recall Napoleon and Julius Caesar on this account means – either to go mad or completely to lose oneself in the lines of censored literature, which consists in abusing the Bolsheviks. The railway decree, comrades, is a step that shows we have taken the correct path, that we have taken to the road. And in my speech I told you why we took to this road; we did not argue in the Council of People's Commissars about the great Napoleon and Julius Caesar, but discussed hundreds of times how to fix the railway, and we know the reports from the localities, and we know from many conversations with railway organizations that the proletarian element is with us, that it seeks discipline and expects order, it sees how people are starving in central Russia, while bread exists, but owing to disorderliness in transport it is difficult to deliver.

But if there are wavering people, confused, with petty-bourgeois sentiments, who were frightened by single-person authority, who fall into hysteria and do not go with us, why? Is it because there is a right wing, or because they fell into hysteria, especially the left SRs, here there is complete confusion that no one can sort out – and in order not to conduct useless disputes, we say: take the fundamental question and approach it concretely.

When people speak here of reconciliation with the bourgeoisie, as Karelin and Martov speak, then this is trifles. I will remind you from an authoritative pamphlet by Kautsky, how he imagined life the day after the social revolution. I shall say approximately what he wrote: the organizers of the trust would not have to sit idle. This was written by a man who understood that to organize tens of millions of people for the production and distribution of products – this is quite a trick! We were not taught this and there is nowhere to learn it, but the trust organizers know that without this there will be no socialism. And we must know this. And therefore all phrases about reconciliation and agreement with the bourgeoisie – empty talk. You cannot refute Kautsky's position that large-scale production must be known from experience.