Date: 1919
Source: ru:PSS/v39
Source: CW vol 39

(Applause, the delegates rise from their seats and greet Lenin.) Comrades! I have to give you a political report, which, by decision of the presidium, is combined from the report of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the report of the Council of People's Commissars. I hope that you do not expect from me an enumeration of the laws and administrative measures that we have carried out during the reporting year. There is no doubt that you have become acquainted with this through the newspapers. In addition, almost all our commissariats have published short pamphlets, which are distributed to all the delegates of the congress and highlight the main achievements of each commissariat for the reporting period. I would like to draw your attention to some of the overall results, which, in my opinion, can be derived from what we have experienced and can serve as useful guidance and material for the work that all comrade delegates will now be engaged in locally.

First of all, when speaking about the political results of our activity and the political lessons from it, the international position of the Soviet Republic naturally comes to the fore. We always said, both before October and during the October Revolution, that we consider ourselves and can only consider ourselves as one of the detachments of the international army of the proletariat, and such a detachment that has moved forward not in proportion to its development and preparation, but in proportion to the exceptional conditions of Russia, and that, therefore, the final victory of the socialist revolution can only be considered when it becomes the victory of the proletariat, at least in several advanced countries. And in this respect, we had to experience the most difficulties.

Our, if one may put it so, bet on the international revolution has been confirmed in every way, if we look at it in general. But in terms of the speed of development, we have gone through a particularly difficult time, we have experienced that the development of the revolution in more advanced countries turned out to be much slower, much more difficult, and much more complex. This should not surprise us, because – naturally – for a country like Russia, it was much easier to start a socialist revolution than for advanced countries. However, in any case, this slower, more complex, and more zigzag development of the socialist revolution in Western Europe imposed incredible difficulties on us. And first of all, one asks oneself, how could such a miracle happen, that the Soviet power held out for two years in a backward, devastated, and war-weary country, despite the stubborn struggle first with German imperialism, which was then considered almighty, and then with the imperialism of the Entente, which a year ago dealt with Germany, had no rivals, and ruled over all the countries of the earth, without the slightest exception? From the point of view of a simple accounting of forces, from the point of view of a military weighing of forces, this is indeed a miracle, because the Entente was and remains incomparably more powerful than we are. And yet, the reporting year is most significant precisely because we achieved a gigantic victory – such a great victory that, perhaps, without exaggeration, one can say that the main difficulties are already behind us. No matter how great the dangers and difficulties that still await us, the main thing, apparently, is already behind us. It is necessary to understand the reasons for this and, above all, to correctly determine our policy for the future, because the future will almost certainly bring us repeated attempts by the Entente to repeat its intervention, and perhaps the old robber alliance of international and Russian capitalists will reappear to restore the power of the landlords and capitalists, to overthrow the Soviet power in Russia, in a word, pursuing the same goal – to extinguish that hearth of the world socialist fire that the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic has become.

Considering from this point of view the history of the Entente's intervention and the political lesson we have received, I will say that this history is divided into three main stages, each of which gives us one after another a deep and solid victory.

The first stage, naturally more accessible and easier for the Entente, was its attempt to deal with Soviet Russia using its own troops. Of course, after the Entente defeated Germany, it had million-strong armies, which had not yet openly declared peace and had not immediately recovered from the scare of German imperialism, with which they were frightened in all Western countries. Of course, at such a time, from a military and foreign policy point of view, it cost the Entente nothing to take one-tenth of its armies and direct them against Russia. Note that it had complete dominance over the sea, complete dominance over the fleet. The delivery of troops and supplies was always entirely in its hands. If at that time the Entente, hating us as much as the bourgeoisie can hate a socialist revolution, had managed to successfully throw even one-tenth of its armies against us, there is no doubt that the fate of Soviet Russia would have been decided, and it would have met the fate of Hungary.

If it had been able to successfully throw even a tenth of its armies against us, there is no doubt that the fate of Soviet Russia would have been decided and it would have met the fate of Hungary.

Why did this not succeed for the Entente? It landed troops in Murmansk. An expedition into Siberia was undertaken with the help of the Entente's troops, and Japanese troops still hold a remote part of Eastern Siberia, while in all of Western Siberia, although small in number, there were detachments of troops from all the Entente states. Then French troops were landed in the south of Russia. This is the first stage of international intervention in our affairs, the first attempt, so to speak, to strangle the Soviet power with troops that the Entente took from itself, i.e., workers and peasants from more advanced countries, who were splendidly equipped, and in terms of technical and material conditions of the campaign, there was nothing that the Entente could not satisfy. There were no obstacles before it. How can we explain that this attempt failed? It ended with the Entente having to withdraw its troops from Russia because the Entente's troops proved incapable of fighting against revolutionary Soviet Russia. This, comrades, has always been our main and fundamental argument. From the very beginning of the revolution, we said that we represent the party of the international proletariat, and no matter how great the difficulties of the revolution, the time will come when, at the most decisive moment, the sympathy and solidarity of the workers, oppressed by international imperialism, will be felt. We were accused of utopianism for this. But experience has shown us that if we cannot always count on every action of the proletariat, we can say that over these two years of world history, we have been proven right a thousand times. The attempt by the British and French to strangle Soviet Russia with their troops, an attempt that promised them the surest success in the shortest time, ended in failure: the British troops left Archangelsk, the French troops, which landed in the south, were all taken back home. And now we know, despite the blockade, despite the ring surrounding us, news from Western Europe still reaches us; we receive scattered issues of English and French newspapers, from which we learn that letters from British soldiers in the Archangel region did reach England and were published there. We know that the name of the Frenchwoman, Comrade Jeanne Labourbe, who went to work in a communist spirit among French workers and soldiers and was shot in Odessa, became known to the entire French proletariat and became a slogan of the struggle, a name around which all French workers, regardless of seemingly insurmountable syndicalist factional currents, united to act against international imperialism. What Comrade Radek once wrote—who, fortunately, as reported today, has been released by Germany and whom we may soon see—that the soil of Russia, burning with revolutionary fire, would prove inaccessible to the Entente's troops, what seemed like the mere enthusiasm of a publicist, turned out to be a fact, exactly realized in practice. Indeed, on our soil, despite all our backwardness, despite the severity of our struggle, the troops of England and France proved unable to fight against us. The result was in our favor. The first time they tried to move mass military forces against us—and without them, victory is impossible—it only led, thanks to the correct class instinct, to the fact that French and British soldiers brought back from Russia the very plague of Bolshevism against which the German imperialists fought when they expelled our ambassadors from Berlin. They thought they could barricade themselves from the plague of Bolshevism, which now completely envelops all of Germany, intensifying the workers' movement. This victory, which we achieved by forcing the withdrawal of British and French troops, was the main victory we won over the Entente. We took away her soldiers. To her endless military and technical superiority, we responded by taking away that superiority with the solidarity of the toilers against the imperialist governments.

Here it became clear how superficial and unclear the judgment about these supposedly democratic countries is, based on the criteria by which they are usually judged. In their parliaments, there is a solid bourgeois majority. This they call "democracy." That capital dominates and suppresses everything, resorting to military censorship, they also call "democracy." Among millions of newspaper and magazine issues, there is barely a negligible fraction where anything, even incoherently, is said in favor of the Bolsheviks. Therefore, they say, "We are protected from the Bolsheviks; we have order," which they call "democracy." How, then, could a small part of British soldiers and French sailors force the withdrawal of the Entente's troops from Russia? Something is wrong here. It means that the masses of the people are on our side, even in England, France, and America; it means that all these upper echelons are a deception, as socialists, who did not want to betray socialism, always asserted; it means that bourgeois parliamentarism, bourgeois democracy, and bourgeois freedom of the press are only freedoms for the capitalists, the freedom to buy public opinion, to suppress it with the full force of money. This is what socialists always said until the imperialist war divided them into national camps and turned each national group of socialists into lackeys of their own bourgeoisie. This is what socialists said before the war, what internationalists and Bolsheviks always said during the war—this has all turned out to be completely true. All these upper echelons, all this show, are deceptions that are becoming more and more obvious to the masses. They all shout about democratism, but in no parliament in the world have they dared to say that they declare war on Soviet Russia. Therefore, in a whole series of French, English, and American publications that have appeared, we read the proposal: "To bring the heads of state to trial for violating the constitution, for waging war against Russia without declaring it." When, where, which paragraph of the constitution, which parliament resolved it? Where did they gather representatives, even if they first imprisoned all the Bolsheviks and those who Bolshevize, as the French press puts it? Even under these conditions, they could not say in their parliaments that they were at war with Russia. This is what caused the well-armed, never-defeated troops of England and France to be unable to defeat us and to leave the northern Archangel and the south.

This is our first and fundamental victory, because it is not only a military and, indeed, not at all a military victory, but a victory in practice of that international solidarity of the toilers, for the sake of which we began the entire revolution, pointing to which we said that, no matter how many sacrifices we had to make, all these sacrifices would be repaid many times over by the development of the inevitable international revolution. This manifested itself in the fact that in such a matter, where the crudest and most material factors play the greatest role, in a military matter, we defeated the Entente by taking away from it the workers and peasants dressed in soldiers' uniforms.

After this first victory, the second era of the Entente's intervention in our affairs began. At the head of each nation stands a group of politicians who have excellent experience, and therefore, having lost this bet, they placed a bet on something else, using their dominance over the whole world. There is not a single country, not a single piece of the earth's surface, where English, French, and American financial capital does not actually dominate. On this basis, a new attempt was made—they tried to force the small states surrounding Russia, many of which gained independence and the ability to declare themselves independent only during the war—Poland, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Ukraine, and others—to fight against Russia with English, French, and American money.

only during the war – Poland, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Ukraine, and others – to try to make these small states fight against Russia with British, French, and American money.

You may remember, comrades, how our newspapers reported on the speech of the well-known British minister Churchill, who said that 14 states would attack Russia and that by September Petrograd would fall, and by December – Moscow. I heard that Churchill later denied this report, but it was taken from the Swedish newspaper "Folkets Dagblad Politiken" of August 25. But even if this source turned out to be incorrect, we know very well that Churchill's and the British imperialists' affairs were exactly like that. We know very well that all measures of influence were exerted on Finland, Estonia, and other small countries to make them fight against Soviet Russia. I had to read an editorial in the English newspaper "The Times" – the most influential bourgeois newspaper in England – written at a time when Yudenich's troops, clearly supplied, equipped, and transported by the Entente, stood a few versts from Petrograd and Detskoye Selo had been captured. The article was a real campaign where all means of pressure were used – military, diplomatic, and historical. British capital was descending upon Finland and presenting it with an ultimatum: "The whole world is watching Finland," the British capitalists said, "the entire fate of Finland depends on whether it understands its mission, helps to suppress the dirty, murky, bloody wave of Bolshevism, and liberate Russia." For this "great and moral" cause, for this "noble, cultural" cause, they promised Finland so many millions of pounds, such a piece of land, and such benefits. And what was the result? There was a time when Yudenich's troops stood a few versts from Petrograd, and Denikin stood north of Orel, when the slightest help to them would have quickly decided the fate of Petrograd in favor of our enemies, in the shortest possible time and with minimal losses. All the pressure of the Entente fell on Finland, and Finland owed it as much as silk. Not only did it owe: it could not survive a month without the help of these countries. How did such a "miracle" happen that we won the dispute with such an opponent? And we did win it. Finland did not enter the war, and Yudenich was defeated, and Denikin was defeated at a moment when their joint struggle would have most reliably and quickly led to the resolution of the entire struggle in favor of international capitalism. We won the dispute with international imperialism in this most serious, desperate test. How did we win it? How could such a "miracle" happen? It happened because the Entente placed a bet, as all capitalist states do, acting exclusively and entirely through deception and pressure, and thus every one of its actions aroused such counteraction that it benefited us. We stood weakly armed, exhausted, and told the Finnish workers, who were crushed by the Finnish bourgeoisie: "You must not fight against us." The Entente stood in the full strength of its armament, its external might, all its food benefits that it could give to these countries, and demanded that they fight against us. We won this dispute. We won because the Entente no longer had its own troops that it could throw against us; it had to act with the forces of small peoples, and the small peoples, not only workers and peasants, but even a decent part of the bourgeoisie, which had crushed the working class, ultimately did not go against us.

When the Entente imperialists spoke of democracy and independence, these peoples had the audacity, from the Entente's point of view, and from our point of view – the foolishness, to take these promises seriously and understand independence as real independence, not as a means for enriching British and French capitalists. They thought that democracy meant living freely, not that all American billionaires could plunder their country and any petty noble-officer could behave like a lout and turn into a brazen speculator, going for the dirtiest deeds for a few hundred percent profit. This is how we won! The Entente, by pressuring these small countries, each of these 14 countries, met with resistance. The Finnish bourgeoisie, which suppressed tens of thousands of Finnish workers with white terror and knows that this will not be forgotten, that there is no longer that German bayonet that gave it the opportunity to do so – this Finnish bourgeoisie hates the Bolsheviks with all its might, as a predator can hate the workers who overthrew it. Nevertheless, this Finnish bourgeoisie said to itself: "If we follow the Entente's instructions – it means unconditionally losing all hopes for independence." And this independence was given to them by the Bolsheviks in November 1917, when there was a bourgeois government in Finland. Thus, the opinion of broad circles of the Finnish bourgeoisie wavered. We won the dispute with the Entente because it counted on small nations and at the same time repelled them from itself.

This experience, on a huge, world-historical scale, confirms what we have always said. There are two forces on earth that can determine the fate of humanity. One force is international capitalism, and if it wins, it will manifest this force with endless atrocities – this is evident from the history of the development of each small nation. The other force is the international proletariat, which fights for the socialist revolution through the dictatorship of the proletariat, which it calls the democracy of the workers. Neither the wavering elements in Russia nor the bourgeoisie of small countries believed us, calling us utopians or bandits, or even worse, for there is no absurd and monstrous accusation that has not been made against us. But when the question came to a head: to go with the Entente, to help it strangle the Bolsheviks, or to help the Bolsheviks with neutrality – it turned out that we won the dispute and received neutrality. Although we had no agreements, and England, France, and America had all kinds of promissory notes, all kinds of agreements – still, the small countries acted as we wanted, not because the Polish, Finnish, Lithuanian, Latvian bourgeoisie found pleasure in conducting their policy for the beautiful eyes of the Bolsheviks – that, of course, is nonsense – but because we were right in our definition of world-historical forces: either the beastly capital will win and, whatever democratic republic there may be, it will strangle all the small peoples of the world; or the dictatorship of the proletariat will win – and only in this is the hope of all workers and all small, oppressed, weak peoples. It turned out that we were right not only in theory but also in the practice of world politics. When we got into this dispute over the Finnish, Estonian troops, we won this dispute, although they could have crushed us with negligible forces. Despite the fact that the Entente threw all its enormous power, its financial pressure, military might, and food supply – everything on the scales to make Finland act – still, we won this dispute.

Comrades, this is the second stage of international intervention, this is our second world-historical victory. First, we won back the workers and peasants of England, France, and America. These troops could not fight against us. Second, we won back these small countries, which were all against us, where everywhere the bourgeois, not the Soviet, power prevails. They carried out a friendly neutrality towards us and went against the world-mighty Entente, for the Entente was a predator that wanted to crush them.

It is not a Soviet, but a bourgeois power. They practiced a friendly neutrality towards us and went against the world-powerful Entente, for the Entente was a predator that wanted to crush them.

What happened here on an international scale is the same as what happened with the Siberian peasant, who believed in the Constituent Assembly, helped the SRs and Mensheviks to join Kolchak and fight us. When he experienced that Kolchak represented the dictatorship of the most exploitative, predatory dictatorship of landlords and capitalists, worse than the tsarist one, then he organized that huge series of uprisings in Siberia, about which we received accurate reports from comrades, and which now ensure our complete return of Siberia—this time consciously. What happened with the Siberian peasant, despite his backwardness and political ignorance, the same has now happened on a broader scale, on a world-historical scale, with all the small nations. They hated the Bolsheviks; some of them suppressed the Bolsheviks with bloody hands and frenzied white terror, and when they saw the "liberators," the British officers, they understood what English and American "democracy" means. When representatives of the English and American bourgeoisie appeared in Finland, in Estonia, they began to strangle with greater insolence than the Russian imperialists—greater because the Russian imperialists were representatives of the old times and did not know how to strangle properly, while these people know how to strangle and do it to the end.

This is why this victory in the second stage is much more solid than it seems now. I am not at all exaggerating and consider exaggerations extremely dangerous. I have no doubt that the Entente will still try to incite one or another small state living next to us. These attempts will be made because the small states are entirely dependent on the Entente, and all these speeches about freedom, independence, and democracy are mere hypocrisy, and the Entente can force them to raise their hand against us again. But if this attempt failed at such a convenient moment, when it was so easy to fight against us, then, it seems to me, we can say definitively: in this respect, undoubtedly, the main difficulty is behind us. We have every right to say this without the slightest exaggeration and with full awareness that the overwhelming balance of forces is on the side of the Entente. We have won firmly. Attempts will be made, but we will defeat them more easily, because the small states, despite their bourgeois system, have been convinced by experience, not theoretically—for these gentlemen are not suitable for theory—that the Entente is a more brazen and predatory beast than the Bolsheviks, whom they scare children and cultured petty-bourgeois with throughout Europe.

But our victories are not limited to this. First, we have won back the workers and peasants from the Entente; second, we have gained the neutrality of those small peoples who are its slaves; and third, we have begun to win back the petty bourgeoisie and educated petty-bourgeoisie in the Entente's own countries, who were entirely against us. To prove this, I will allow myself to refer to the newspaper *L'Humanité* of October 26, which I have in my hands. This newspaper, which has always belonged to the Second International, was fiercely chauvinistic during the war, stood on the point of view of such socialists as our Mensheviks and right SRs, and even now plays the role of a reconciler—it declares that it has seen a change in the mood of the workers. It saw this not in Odessa, but on the streets and at meetings in Paris, when workers would not let anyone speak a word against Bolshevik Russia. And as politicians who have learned something through several revolutions, as people who know what the masses represent, they do not dare to peep for intervention and all express themselves against it. But that is not enough. Not only do the socialists (they call themselves socialists, although we have long known what kind of socialists they are) declare this, but in the same issue of *L'Humanité* of October 26, which I quoted, there is a statement by a whole series of representatives of French intelligentsia, French public opinion. In this statement, which begins with the signature of Anatole France, where there is the signature of Ferdinand Buisson, I counted 71 names of representatives of the bourgeois intelligentsia, well-known throughout France, who say that they are against intervention in Russia's affairs, because the blockade, the use of starvation death, from which children and the elderly die, cannot be tolerated from the standpoint of culture and civilization, and they cannot bear it. And the well-known French historian Ollard, who stands completely on the bourgeois point of view, says in his letter: "As a Frenchman, I am an enemy of the Bolsheviks, as a Frenchman, I am a supporter of democracy, it is ridiculous to suspect me of the opposite, but when I read that France invites Germany to participate in the blockade of Russia, when I read that France makes this proposal to Germany, then I feel a blush of shame on my face."{132} This may be just a verbal expression of feelings from a representative of the intelligentsia, but one can say that this is the third victory we have won over imperialist France within itself. This is what this appearance, shaky and pitiful in itself, of that intelligentsia, which, as we have seen in dozens and hundreds of examples, can make a million times more noise than it represents strength, but which has the property of being a good barometer, giving an indication of where the petty bourgeoisie is leaning, giving an indication of where public opinion, thoroughly bourgeois, is leaning. If we, within France, where all bourgeois newspapers, except in the most deceitful terms, do not write about us, have achieved such a result, then we say to ourselves: it looks like a second Dreyfus affair is beginning in France, but much bigger.{133} At that time, the bourgeois intelligentsia fought against clerical and military reaction, and the working class could not then consider it their business, for there were no objective conditions, no such deep revolutionary mood as now. But now? If the French bourgeois intelligentsia, after the recent victory of the most rabid reaction in the elections, after the regime that exists there now regarding the Bolsheviks, says that it is ashamed of the alliance of the most reactionary France with the most reactionary Germany to starve the workers and peasants of Russia, then we say to ourselves: this, comrades, is the third and greatest victory. And I would like to see how, under such a situation within the country, Messrs. Clemenceau, Lloyd George, and Wilson will carry out their plan for new attacks on Russia, which they dream of. Try, gentlemen! (Applause.)

one-third, how under such a state of affairs within the country Messrs. Clemenceau, Lloyd George, and Wilson will carry out their plans for new attacks on Russia, of which they dream. Go ahead, gentlemen! (Applause.)

Comrades, I repeat that it would be the greatest mistake to draw from this too hasty conclusions. There is no doubt that they will renew their attempts. But we are absolutely certain that these attempts, whatever great forces they may be undertaken with, will fail. We can say that the civil war which we waged at such an endless cost was victorious. It proved victorious not only in the Russian scale, but also in the world-historical one. Each of the conclusions I have drawn for you, I drew on the basis of the results of the military campaign. That is why, I repeat, new attempts will be condemned to failure—because they have become much weaker than they were, and we have become much stronger after our victory over Kolchak, over Yudenich, and the beginning and apparently complete victory over Denikin. Did not Kolchak have the support of the all-powerful Entente? Did not the peasants of the Urals and Siberia, who in the elections to the Constituent Assembly gave the smallest percentage of votes to the Bolsheviks, support the front of the Constituent Assembly, which was then the front of the Mensheviks and SRs—were they not the best human material against the Communists? Was not Siberia a country where there was no landlord land ownership and where we could not immediately help the peasant masses as we helped all the Russian peasants? What did Kolchak lack for victory over us? He lacked what all imperialists lack. He remained an exploiter; he had to act in the context of the legacy of the world war, in a situation that allowed only talk about democracy and freedom, a situation that offered the possibility of having either one or the other dictatorship: either the dictatorship of the exploiters, who fiercely defend their privileges and declare that tribute must be paid according to those bills by which they want to extort billions from all peoples, or the dictatorship of the workers, which fights against the power of the capitalists and wants to firmly ensure the power of the toilers. Only because of this did Kolchak fall. In this way, not by casting a ballot—and this method, of course, is not bad under certain circumstances—but in practice, the Siberian and Ural peasant determined his fate. He was dissatisfied with the Bolsheviks in the summer of 1918. He saw that the Bolsheviks forced him to give up grain surpluses not at speculative prices, and he turned to Kolchak. Now he has looked, compared, and come to a different conclusion. He understood this despite all the science that was taught to him, because on his own skin he learned what many SRs and Mensheviks do not want to understand from science (applause), that there can only be two dictatorships, that one must choose either the dictatorship of the workers—and this means helping all the toilers throw off the yoke of the exploiters—or the dictatorship of the exploiters. We have won the peasant to our side; we have proven through the most severe experience, passing through unheard-of difficulties, that we, as representatives of the working class, can lead the peasantry better and more successfully than any other party. Other parties like to accuse us of waging a struggle with the peasantry and not being able to conclude a proper agreement, and they all offer their kind, noble services to reconcile us with the peasants. Thank you very much, gentlemen, but we do not think that you will do this. At least, we have long since proven that we were able to do this. We did not paint sweet pictures for the peasant, that he could emerge from capitalist society without the iron discipline and firm power of the working class, that the simple collection of ballots would resolve the world-historical question of the struggle with capital. We spoke directly: dictatorship—a harsh, heavy, and even bloody word—but we said that the dictatorship of the workers would ensure the overthrow of the yoke of the exploiters, and we were right. The peasant, having experienced both kinds of dictatorship in practice, chose the dictatorship of the working class and will go further with it to complete victory. (Applause.)

Comrades, from what I have said about our international victories, it follows—and, it seems to me, there is no need to dwell on this for long—that we must make a businesslike and calm repetition of our peace proposal. We must do this because we have already made such a proposal many times. And every time we made it, in the eyes of every educated person, even our enemy, we gained, and this educated person blushed with shame. This was the case when Bullitt came here, when he was received by Comrade Chicherin, talked with him and with me, and when we concluded a preliminary peace treaty in a few hours. And he assured us (these gentlemen love to boast) that America is everything, and who counts France with the strength of America? And when we signed the treaty, both the French and British ministers made such a gesture. (Lenin makes an eloquent gesture with his foot. Laughter.) Bullitt ended up with a worthless piece of paper, and they told him: "Who could have expected you to be so naive, so stupid, and believe in the democracy of England and France!" (Applause.) As a result, in this very issue, I read the full text of the treaty with Bullitt in French{134}—and this was printed in all English and American newspapers. As a result, they themselves presented themselves before the whole world as either swindlers or boys—let them choose! (Applause.) And all the sympathy, even of the petty bourgeoisie, even of the somewhat educated bourgeoisie, remembering that they too once fought against their kings and tsars, is on our side, because we, in a businesslike manner, signed the most severe peace terms and said: "The price of the blood of our workers and soldiers is too high for us; we will pay for peace, like merchants, with a heavy tribute; we will go for a heavy tribute, just to preserve the lives of workers and peasants." Therefore, I think we have nothing to talk about, and at the end, I will read the draft resolution that would express on behalf of the Congress of Soviets our unwavering desire to pursue a policy of peace. (Applause.)

Now I would like to move from the international and military part of the report to the political part.

We have won three great victories over the Entente, and they were by no means only military victories. They were victories won by the dictatorship of the working class, and each such victory strengthened our position not only because our opponent weakened and was left without troops—our international position was strengthened because we gained in the eyes of the entire toiling humanity and even many representatives of the bourgeoisie. In this respect, the victories we have won over Kolchak, Yudenich, and now over Denikin will give us the opportunity to continue to win the sympathy of people on an ever-increasing scale, more than ever before.

The victories we have won over Kolchak, Yudenich, and now over Denikin, will give us the opportunity to continue to win sympathy for ourselves on an increasingly larger scale than before.

We have always been accused of terrorism. This is a common accusation that never leaves the pages of the press. This accusation is that we introduced terrorism as a principle. We respond to this: "You yourselves do not believe in such slander." The same historian Ollard, who wrote a letter to the newspaper "L'Humanité," writes: "I studied history and taught it. When I read that among the Bolsheviks there are only monsters and bogeys, I say: the same was written about Robespierre and Danton. By this, he says, I am not comparing these great men with the current Russians; there is nothing at all similar in them. But as a historian, I say: one cannot believe every rumor." When a bourgeois historian begins to speak in this way, we see that even the lies spread about us are beginning to dissipate. We say: terror was imposed on us. They forget that terrorism was provoked by the invasion of the all-powerful Entente. Is it not terror when the world fleet blockades a starving country? Is it not terror when foreign representatives, relying on so-called diplomatic immunity, organize White Guard uprisings? One must, after all, look at things at least somewhat soberly. It must be understood that international imperialism has put everything on the line to suppress the revolution, that it stops at nothing and says: "One officer for one communist, and we will win!" And they are right. If we had tried to act on these forces, created by international predation, maddened by war, with words, persuasion, or any other means except terror, we would not have lasted two months; we would have been fools. Terror was imposed on us by the terrorism of the Entente, by the terror of the all-powerful world capitalism, which strangled, strangles, and condemns workers and peasants to starvation for fighting for the freedom of their country. And every step in our victories over this root cause and cause of terror will inevitably and invariably be accompanied by the fact that we will manage without this means of persuasion and influence.

What we say about terrorism, we also say about our attitude towards all wavering elements. We are accused of creating incredibly harsh conditions for the middle classes, for the bourgeois intelligentsia. We say: the imperialist war was a continuation of imperialist policy, and therefore it led to revolution. Everyone felt during the imperialist war that it was being waged by the bourgeoisie in the name of its predatory interests, that in this war the people were perishing, and the bourgeoisie was profiting. This is the basic motive that permeates all its policies in all countries, and it is what is destroying and will destroy it completely. Our war, on the other hand, is a continuation of the policy of the revolution, and every worker and peasant knows, or if they do not know, they feel instinctively and see, that this is a war being waged in the name of defending against the exploiters, a war that imposes the greatest sacrifices on workers and peasants, but stops at nothing to impose these sacrifices on other classes as well. We know that this is harder for them than for workers and peasants because they belonged to a privileged class. But we say that when it comes to liberating millions of toilers from exploitation, a government that would hesitate to impose sacrifices on other classes would be a non-socialist, a treacherous government. If hardships were imposed on the middle classes, it was because the governments of the Entente placed us in unheard-of difficult conditions. And every step of our victories, as we see from the experience of our revolution—I can only briefly touch on this—is accompanied by the fact that through all the vacillations and numerous attempts to return, more and more representatives of the wavering elements are convinced that there is indeed no choice but between the dictatorship of the toilers and the power of the exploiters. If there were hard times for these elements, then the blame for this lies not with the Bolshevik power, but with the White Guards and the Entente, and victory over them will be the real and lasting condition for improving the situation of all these classes. In this regard, comrades, I would like, moving on to the lessons of political experience within the country, to say a few words about the significance of the war.

Our war is a continuation of the policy of the revolution, the policy of overthrowing the exploiters, capitalists, and landowners. Therefore, our war, however infinitely heavy it may be, draws the sympathies of workers and peasants. War is not only a continuation of policy; it is a summation of policy, a schooling in policy in this unheard-of heavy war, which the landowners and capitalists, with the help of the all-powerful Entente, imposed on us. In this fire, workers and peasants have learned much. Workers have learned how to use state power and how to make every step a source of propaganda and education, how to make this Red Army, in which the majority are peasants, an instrument of enlightening the peasantry, how to make the Red Army an instrument for using bourgeois specialists. We know that these bourgeois specialists, in the vast majority, are against us—and must be in the vast majority against us—because here their class nature is revealed, and on this point, we have no doubts. Hundreds and thousands of these specialists betrayed us, while tens and tens of thousands served more and more faithfully, because in the course of the struggle itself, they were drawn to our side, because the revolutionary enthusiasm that worked wonders in the Red Army came from the fact that we served and satisfied the interests of workers and peasants. This environment of masses of workers and peasants acting in unison, knowing what they are fighting for, did its work, and a larger and larger part of the people who moved to our side, sometimes unconsciously, turned and are turning into our conscious supporters.

Comrades, now before us stands the task of transferring the experience we have gained in our military activities to the field of peaceful construction. Nothing fills us with such joy and gives us such an opportunity to welcome the Seventh All-Russian Congress of Soviets, as a turning point in the history of Soviet Russia, as the fact that behind us lies the main period of civil wars, which we waged, and ahead of us is the main period of that peaceful construction, which attracts us all, which we want, which we must create, and to which we will devote all our efforts and all our lives. Now we can say, based on the severe trials of war, that in the main, in terms of military and international relations, we have emerged victorious. The road to peaceful construction is opening up before us. Of course, we must remember that the enemy is lying in wait for us at every step and will make many more attempts to overthrow us by all means available to him: violence, deception, bribery, conspiracies, etc. Our task is to direct all the experience we have gained in military affairs to resolving the fundamental questions of peaceful construction. I will name these main questions. First of all, it is the question of food, the question of bread.

We have waged the most severe struggle against prejudices and habits. On the one hand, the peasant is a toiler who for decades has experienced the oppression of the landowner and capitalist and knows by the instinct of the oppressed man that this is a beast that will stop at nothing, including seas of blood, to regain its power. But, on the other hand, the peasant is a property owner. He wants to sell grain freely, he wants "free trade," he does not understand that the freedom to sell grain in a hungry country is the freedom to speculate, the freedom to profit for the rich. And we say: we will never go for this, we would rather all lie dead than make concessions on this.

It states that the freedom to sell bread in a starving country is the freedom of speculation, the freedom to make profits for the rich. And we say: we will never go for this, we would rather all lay down our lives than make concessions on this.

We know that here we are pursuing a policy where workers convince peasants to give bread as a loan, because paper money is not an equivalent, it is not of equal value to bread. The peasant gives us bread at fixed prices and does not receive goods, since we do not have them, but receives colored pieces of paper. He gives bread as a loan, and we say: "If you are a person of labor, can you speak against the fact that this is just? How can you disagree with the necessity to give the available surplus of bread as a loan at fixed prices, and not to sell it through speculation, because speculation is a return to capitalism, a return to exploitation, to what we fought against?" This is a great difficulty, it cost us great hesitation. We have taken and are taking many steps by trial and error, but we have gained basic experience. When you hear the report of Comrade Tsuryupa or other food supply workers, you will see that the peasants are getting used to the requisitioning—when the state tells the peasants that they must give bread as a loan—and we have news from several volosts about 100 percent fulfillment of the requisition, that despite the insignificance of the successes, there is still success, that our food policy is making it increasingly clear to the peasant: if you want free trade in bread in a devastated country, then go back, try Kolchak, Denikin! Against this, we will fight to the last drop of blood. There can be no concessions here. In this fundamental question, in the question of bread, we will strive with all our might to ensure that there is no speculation, that the sale of bread does not enrich the rich, but that all surpluses of bread, obtained on the common land of the state through the efforts of entire generations of workers, that all these surpluses of bread become the property of the state, so that now, when the state is ruined, these surpluses of bread are given by the peasants as a loan to the workers' state. If the peasant does this, we will get out of all difficulties, we will restore industry, and the worker will repay the peasant many times over. He will secure for him and his children the possibility of existence without working for the landlord and the capitalist. This is what we tell the peasant, and he is convinced that there is no other choice. In this, the peasant is more convinced not so much by us as by our opponents—Kolchak and Denikin. They provide the peasant with the most factual lessons of life, directing him towards us.

But, comrades, after the question of bread comes the second question—the question of fuel. Currently, in the places of procurement, enough bread has been collected to feed the hungry workers of Petrograd and Moscow. But walk through the working-class quarters of Moscow, and you will see terrible cold, terrible hardships, which have now intensified due to the fuel question. Here we are experiencing a desperate crisis, here we are lagging behind the need. Recently, a whole series of meetings of the Defense Council and the Sovnarkom were entirely devoted to developing measures to overcome the fuel crisis{135}. Comrade Ksandrov delivered material to my speech, which shows that we are beginning to emerge from this desperate crisis. At the beginning of October, 16,000 wagons were loaded in a week, by the end of October, this figure had dropped to 10,000 per week. This was a crisis, a catastrophe, a famine for the workers of a whole series of factories and plants in Moscow, Petrograd, and a whole series of other places. The effects of this catastrophe are still being felt. Then, we focused on this matter, strained all our forces, did what we did in relation to military affairs, and said: everything conscious, everything—towards solving the fuel question, not by the old path of capitalism, when speculators were given a premium and profited from this business, receiving some orders—no, we said: solve the question by the socialist way, by self-sacrifice, solve it in the way we saved Red Petrograd, liberated Siberia, in the way we won in all difficult moments, with all difficult tasks of the revolution, and in the way we will always win. And from 12,000 wagons in the last week of October, the loading increased to 20,000. We are emerging from this catastrophe, but we are still far from out of it. It is necessary for all workers to know and remember that without bread for people, without bread for industry, i.e., without fuel, the country is doomed to suffer. And not only our country. Today, newspapers report that in France, the victorious country, the railways are stopping. What can be said about Russia? France will emerge from the crisis by the capitalist path, by the enrichment of capitalists and continuing deprivations for the masses. Soviet Russia will emerge from the crisis by the discipline and self-sacrifice of the workers, by the firm approach to the peasants, that firm approach which, in the end, the peasant always understands. The peasant learns from experience that, however hard the transition, however firm the hand of the state power of the workers, it is the hand of the toiler who fights for the union of the toiling masses, for the complete destruction of all exploitation.

And the third scourge is still looming over us—lice, typhus, which is mowing down our troops. And here, comrades, one cannot imagine the horror that occurs in places affected by typhus, when the population is weakened, there are no material means, all life, all public activity disappears. Here we say: "Comrades, pay full attention to this question. Either lice will defeat socialism, or socialism will defeat lice!" And in this question, comrades, acting with the same methods, we are beginning to achieve successful results. Of course, there are still doctors who are prejudiced and distrustful of the workers' power and prefer to receive fees from the rich rather than go into the heavy struggle against typhus. But such are a minority, and they are becoming fewer, while the majority are those who see that the people are fighting for their survival, see that they want to resolve the fundamental question of saving all culture with their struggle, and these doctors put no less self-sacrifice into this heavy and difficult task than any military specialist. They are willing to give their strength to work for the toilers. I must say that we are also beginning to emerge from this crisis. Comrade Semashko gave me a report on this work. By October 1, according to reports from the front, 122 doctors and 467 paramedics arrived there. 150 doctors were sent from Moscow. We have grounds to expect that by December 15, we will get another 800 doctors to the front, who will help in the fight against typhus. We must pay great attention to this scourge.

but from Moscow, 150 doctors. We have grounds to expect that by December 15th we will receive another 800 doctors for the front, who will help in the fight against typhus. We must pay great attention to this scourge.

Our main attention should be directed towards strengthening our foundation – bread, fuel, and the fight against typhus. Comrades, I especially want to say this because in our socialist construction, a certain lack of focus was noticeable. This is understandable. When people decided to remake the whole world, it is quite natural that inexperienced workers and inexperienced peasants were drawn into this work. There is no doubt that much time will pass before we correctly determine what needs the most attention. It is not surprising that such great historical tasks often gave rise to great fantasies, and great fantasies grow alongside many small, unsuccessful fantasies. There were many cases when we started building from the top, from some kind of annex, cornice, but did not pay proper attention to the foundation. I would like to share with you, as a result of my experience, my observations of the work, my opinion that the pressing task for our policy is to provide this foundation. It is necessary that every worker, every organization, every institution remind themselves of this at every meeting. If we supply bread, if we achieve an increase in the amount of fuel, if we strain all our forces to wipe typhus off the face of Russian land – the result of unculturedness, poverty, darkness, and ignorance – if we apply all the strength, all the experience we gained in the bloody war, in this bloodless war – we can be sure that in this matter, which is, after all, much easier, much more humane than war, we will win more and more success.

We have carried out military mobilization. The parties that were our most irreconcilable opponents, those that defended and still defend the ideas of capitalism, such as the SRs, had to admit, despite all the accusations from the bourgeois imperialists, that the Red Army has become a people's army. This means that in this most difficult task, we have achieved the unification of the working class with the vast mass of peasants moving to its side, and thus showed them what the leadership of the working class is.

The words "dictatorship of the proletariat" scare the peasants. In Russia, this scared the peasants. They turn against those who use this scare. But the peasants now know that the dictatorship of the proletariat, perhaps too complicated a Latin word, in practice is the Soviet power that transfers the state apparatus into the hands of the workers. Thus, it is the most reliable friend and ally of the toilers and the most ruthless enemy of any exploitation. This is why, in the end, we will defeat all the imperialists. Because we have such a deep source of strength, such a broad and deep reservoir of human material, which no bourgeois government has or ever will have. We have the material from which we can draw further and deeper, moving not only from the advanced workers to the middle ones, but even lower – to the toiling, poor, and poorest peasants. Recently, comrades from Petrograd said that Petrograd had given all its workers and could give no more. But when the critical hour came, Petrograd proved to be amazing, as Comrade Zinoviev rightly said, a city that seemed to have given birth to new forces. Workers who were considered below the middle, who had no state or political experience, rose to their full height, gave a mass of strength for propaganda, agitation, organization, and performed new and new miracles. We still have a very large source of these new and new miracles. Every new layer of workers and peasants not yet involved in the work are our most reliable friends and allies. We now have to rely on a very thin layer of advanced workers in the management of the state. We must again and again turn to the non-partisans in our party work and in our Soviet practice, more boldly and more boldly, to the non-partisan workers and peasants, not with the aim of immediately winning them to our side, drawing them into our party – this is not important to us – but with the aim of awakening in them the consciousness that the country's salvation requires their help. When those whom the landlords and capitalists least allowed to participate in state management, when we awaken in them the consciousness that we call them to join us in building the solid foundation of the socialist republic, then our cause will be finally invincible.

This is why, based on the experience of two years, we can say with absolute confidence that every step in our military victories will, with great speed, bring closer the time – now already very close – when we will devote all our forces to peaceful construction. Based on the experience we have gained, we can guarantee that in this matter of peaceful construction, we will create incomparably greater miracles in the coming years than we have accomplished in these two years of victorious war against the world-powerful Entente. (Applause.)

Comrades, allow me to conclude by reading the draft resolution that I propose to you:

"The Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic wishes to live in peace with all peoples and to direct all its forces to internal construction, to organize production, transport, and public administration on the basis of the Soviet system, which until now has been hindered – first by the oppression of German imperialism, then by the intervention of the Entente and the hunger blockade.

The workers' and peasants' government repeatedly offered peace to the Entente powers, namely: on August 5, 1918 – the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs addressed the American representative Mr. Bullitt; on October 24, 1918 – to President Wilson; on November 3, 1918 – to all the governments of the Entente through representatives of neutral countries; on November 7, 1918 – on behalf of the Sixth All-Russian Congress of Soviets; on December 23, 1918 – Litvinov's note in Stockholm to all representatives of the Entente; then appeals on January 12 and January 17, the note to the Entente governments on February 4, 1919; the draft treaty worked out with Bullitt, who came on behalf of President Wilson, on March 12, 1919; the statement on May 7, 1919, through Nansen.

Fully approving all these repeated steps of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, the Council of People's Commissars, and the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs, the Seventh All-Russian Congress of Soviets once again confirms its unwavering striving for peace, offering once more to all the Entente powers – England, France, the United States of America, Italy, Japan – both collectively and individually, to begin immediate peace negotiations, and entrusts the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, the Council of People's Commissars, and the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs to systematically continue the policy of peace, taking all necessary measures for its success."