Date: 1919
Source: ru:PSS/v39

Source: CW vol 39

(Applause.) Comrades! The report of the Central Committee, formally speaking, should have given you, primarily, a summary of the experience we have gone through during this time. But I must say that such a task – to limit ourselves to history, or even to give only an account focusing mainly on history – is too much at odds with the spirit of the times we are living through and the tasks that stand before us. Therefore, I will allow myself to shift the focus in the present report, which I wish to present to the Congress of Soviets, not so much to a description of what we have experienced, but to the indications from experience that we receive and must receive for our immediate practical activity.

Although during the time we have lived through, it can be said without any exaggeration, we have achieved tremendous successes, and although the main difficulty is already behind us, we still face undoubtedly very, very great difficulties. Naturally, the party's attention must be entirely focused on solving these tasks, and we can delve into history only to the extent that it is absolutely necessary for resolving the tasks before us.

Of course, during the time the Soviet power has existed, the most important question that has occupied us more than anything else is inevitably the military question. The civil war, understandably, has taken over everything, and it goes without saying that in this struggle for existence, we had to divert the best forces of the party from all other branches of work and activity and transfer them to military work. It could not have been otherwise under the conditions of war. But as a result, no matter how much this diversion of effort has harmed creative work in many areas of our Soviet and party activities, we have indeed managed to achieve such a concentration of forces in the military sphere and to attain such successful results, which would have been considered impossible not only by our opponents, not only by the waverers, but even by the majority in our own ranks. For to hold out for two years with direct and indirect support from all our enemies, first by German imperialism and then by the even stronger, world-dominating imperialism of the Entente – to hold out for two years in a country so devastated and so backward, was a task whose solution was undoubtedly a "miracle." Therefore, it seems to me, we need to look closely at how this "miracle" came about and what practical conclusions can be drawn from it, on the basis of which we could firmly say – and it seems to me, we can indeed firmly say – that no matter how great the difficulties of internal construction, we will overcome them just as successfully in the near future as we have successfully resolved the questions of military defense.

World imperialism, which essentially provoked the civil war in our country and is responsible for its prolongation, has suffered defeats over these two years, and we must first of all ask: how did it happen that in the struggle against world imperialism, which is undoubtedly still many times stronger than us, we achieved such a tremendous success? To answer this question, it is necessary to take a general look at the history of the civil war in Russia, at the history of the Entente's intervention. We must first of all establish that there were two fundamentally different periods or two basic methods of the Entente's military actions against Russia.

First of all, after defeating Germany, the Entente, in its plan to strangle the Soviet Republic in Russia, naturally relied on its own troops. And, of course, if the Entente had been able to move even a small fraction of its gigantic armies, which were freed up after the defeat of Germany – if it had been able to move even one-tenth of these troops effectively against the Russian Soviet Republic, it is clear that we would not have been able to hold out. And the first period of the civil war in Russia is characterized by the fact that the Entente's attempt to break the Soviet Republic with its own troops failed. The British troops, which operated on the Archangel front, the Entente had to withdraw. The landing of French troops in southern Russia ended in a series of uprisings by French sailors, and at present, despite the ferocity of the military censorship – although there is no war, but the former military, now non-military censorship continues to exist in supposedly free countries like England and France – and despite the rarity of the newspapers that reach us, we still have completely accurate documentary evidence from England and France, which show that, for example, information about the uprising of sailors on French warships in the Black Sea, the condemnation of several French sailors to hard labor, became known in France, that the entire communist, the entire revolutionary working press in France and England refers to these facts, that, for example, the name of Comrade Jeanne Labourbe, whom the French shot in Odessa for Bolshevik agitation, has become a slogan for the French socialist working press, not only for the communist wing: even a newspaper like L'Humanité, which, in essence, in its fundamental principles, stands closest to the viewpoint of our Mensheviks and SRs, even this newspaper has made the name Labourbe a slogan in the struggle against French imperialism, for non-intervention in the affairs of Russia. Similarly, letters from British soldiers who had been on the Archangel front were discussed in the British working press. We have completely accurate documentary evidence of this. Therefore, it is clear to us that a truly great shift has indeed occurred, which we always pointed to, on which we deeply hoped, and which, although with extraordinary slowness, has undoubtedly become a fact in recent times.

This shift was inevitably caused by the very course of events. Precisely those countries that were and are considered the most democratic, civilized, and cultured, precisely they waged war against Russia with the most brutal means, without the slightest hint of legality. The Bolsheviks are accused of violating democracy – this is a common argument against us among the Mensheviks and SRs and in the entire European bourgeois press. But none of these democratic states dared or would dare, according to the laws of their own country, to declare war on Soviet Russia. Alongside this, there is an outwardly unnoticeable but very deep protest from the working press, which says: where in our constitution, in the constitutions of France, England, and America, are the laws that allow for a war to be waged without declaring it and without consulting parliament? In the press of England, France, and America, there were proposals to bring the heads of their states to trial for state crimes, for declaring war without the permission of parliament. Such proposals were made. True, they were made in leaflets that appeared no more than once a week, probably confiscated no less than once a month, with a circulation of several hundred or several thousand copies. The leaders of the ruling government parties could afford to ignore such leaflets. But here it is necessary to note two main currents: the ruling classes throughout the world publish millions of copies daily of certain capitalist newspapers, which are full of unheard-of lies and slander against the Bolsheviks. Below, among the working masses, they know from the soldiers who have returned from Russia about the falsity of this entire campaign. Thus, a necessity arises for the Entente to withdraw its troops from Russia.

The Mensheviks. But at the bottom, among the working masses, they know from those soldiers who have returned from Russia about the falsity of this entire campaign. Thus, there arises a necessity for the Entente to withdraw its troops from Russia.

When we said from the very beginning that we were banking on the world revolution, people laughed and declared it impossible hundreds of times, and still do so now. But in two years, we have obtained precise material for verification. We know that if one speaks of this bet in the sense of hoping for a rapid, direct uprising in Europe, this did not happen. But that this bet proved to be fundamentally correct and that it undermined the ground for armed intervention by the Entente from the very start—after two years, and especially after the defeat of Kolchak, after the withdrawal of British troops from Arkhangelsk and the entire Northern front—this is an indisputable historical fact. A very small number of the armies available to the Entente would have been enough to crush us. But we were able to defeat the enemy because, at the most difficult moment, the sympathy of the workers of the whole world showed itself. And thus, from this first period of the Entente's invasion against us, we managed to emerge with honor. I recall that in one article, I think by Radek, it was said that the contact of the Entente's troops with the hot soil of Russia, which had ignited the fire of the socialist revolution, would also ignite these troops. Reality has shown that this is exactly what happened. It goes without saying that the processes occurring among British and French soldiers and sailors, who know the names of those shot for Bolshevik agitation, no matter how weak these processes and how weak the communist organizations there are—they are doing colossal work. The results are evident: they forced the Entente to withdraw its troops. This gave us our first major victory.

The second tactic of the Entente, the second system of its struggle, was to use small states against us. At the end of August of this year, a Swedish newspaper{117} reported that the British Minister of War, Churchill, had stated that 14 states would attack Russia and that, consequently, the fall of Petrograd and Moscow was assured in the near future, in any case by the end of the year. It seems that Churchill later denied this statement, saying that the Bolsheviks had made it up. But we have precise information about which Swedish newspaper published this report. Therefore, we assert that this report comes from European sources. Moreover, it is confirmed by facts. In the cases of Finland and Estonia, we have established with absolute certainty that the Entente used all its efforts to make them advance against Soviet Russia. I personally read an editorial in the English newspaper "The Times" dedicated to the Finnish question{118}, at a time when Yudenich's troops were just a few versts from Petrograd and the danger to the latter was enormous. This article was seething with indignation and written with an unheard-of, unusual passion for such a newspaper (usually such newspapers write diplomatically, like Milyukov's "Rech"{119}). This was the most furious proclamation, addressed to Finland and putting the question bluntly: the fate of the world depends on Finland, which is being watched by all civilized capitalist countries. We know that the moment when Yudenich's troops were a few versts from Petrograd was decisive. It does not matter whether Churchill said the above words or not, but he pursued such a policy. It is known what pressure the imperialism of the Entente exerted on these small countries, hastily created, powerless, and entirely dependent on the Entente even in the most urgent matters, such as food supply, and in all other respects. They cannot escape this dependence. All methods of pressure, financial, food, and military, were employed to force Estonia, Finland, and undoubtedly Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, to make this entire cycle of states move against us. The history of Yudenich's last campaign on Petrograd finally showed that this second method of waging war by the Entente failed. There is no doubt that the slightest help from Finland or, a little more, from Estonia, would have been enough to decide the fate of Petrograd. There is no doubt that, realizing the importance of the situation, the Entente made every effort to obtain this help, and yet it suffered a fiasco.

This is the second great international victory we have won, and a victory more complex than the first. The first was won because it turned out that French and British troops could not be kept on Russian territory: they do not fight but deliver rebels to England and France, stirring up the British and French workers against their governments. But it turned out that, although Russia is surrounded and deliberately encircled by a ring of small states, created and supported, of course, for the purpose of fighting Bolshevism, this weapon is turning against the Entente. In all these states, there are bourgeois governments, almost always including bourgeois compromisers, people who go against the Bolsheviks due to their class position. Each of these nations is unconditionally and resolutely hostile to the Bolsheviks, yet we managed to turn these bourgeoisie and compromisers to our side. This seems incredible, but it is precisely so, because each of these states, after experiencing the imperialist war, cannot but hesitate on the question of whether it is worth fighting against the Bolsheviks now, when the only other contender for power in Russia, a contender giving grounds to consider him allied, is Kolchak or Denikin, i.e., representatives of the old imperialist Russia, and there is no doubt that Kolchak or Denikin here represent the old Russia. Therefore, we have gained the opportunity to lean on another crack in the camp of imperialism. If in the first months after our revolution we held out because German and British imperialism were in a deadly grip with each other, and if after this half-year we held out for another half-year because the Entente's troops proved incapable of fighting against us, then the following year, for which we mainly have to account now, we successfully held out because the attempt of the great powers, under whose influence all the small countries are undoubtedly and unconditionally, to mobilize the small countries against us failed due to the contradiction between the interests of international imperialism and the interests of these countries. Each of these small countries has already felt the claws of the Entente. They know that when French, American, and British capitalists say, "We guarantee your independence," in practice, it means, "We buy up all the sources of your wealth and keep you in bondage. Moreover, we treat you with the arrogance of an officer who has come to a foreign country to rule and speculate and does not wish to reckon with anyone." They know that often the British ambassador in such a country means more than any local tsar or parliament. And if the petty-bourgeois democrats could not understand these truths until now, reality is now forcing them to understand. It turns out that in relation to the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois elements of small countries, whom the imperialists rob, we present ourselves, if not as allies, then as neighbors more reliable and valuable than the imperialists.

This is the second victory we have won over international imperialism.

For this reason, we can now rightly say that the main difficulties are behind us. There is no doubt that the Entente will make many more attempts at military intervention in our affairs. If the recent victories over Kolchak and Yudenich have forced the representatives of all these powers to speak now about the hopelessness of a campaign against Russia and to offer peace, we must give ourselves a clear understanding of the significance of such statements. I would ask that this not be recorded…

If all these powers are now speaking of the hopelessness of a campaign against Russia and proposing peace, we must clearly understand the significance of such statements. I would ask that this not be taken down...

If we have wrung such admissions from representatives of the bourgeois intelligentsia, from our relentless enemies, we can rightly say here that not only the sympathy of the working class but also that of broad circles of the bourgeois intelligentsia is on the side of the Soviet power. Representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, those who wavered in the fierce struggle between labor and capital, have decisively sided with us, and we can now partly count on their support.

This victory must be taken into account, and if we link it with how, in the end, we achieved victory over Kolchak, the conclusion will be even more convincing... and here you can start writing, because the diplomacy ends here.

If we pose the question of what forces brought about our victory over Kolchak, we must acknowledge that, despite his operating in a territory where there was the least proletariat and where we could not give the peasantry immediate, tangible assistance to overthrow the landowners' power as we did in Russia, despite the fact that Kolchak began with a front supported by Mensheviks and SRs, who formed the Constituent Assembly front, and despite the fact that there were the best conditions for creating a government authority relying on the support of world imperialism—nevertheless, this experiment ended in complete defeat for Kolchak. From this, we have the right to draw the most essential conclusion for us, one that should guide us in all our activities: historically, the class that can lead the majority of the population behind it wins. If the Mensheviks and SRs still talk about the Constituent Assembly, the will of the nation, etc., during this time we have been convinced by experience that in revolutionary times, class struggle takes the most terrible forms, but can lead to victory only when the class leading it is capable of leading the majority of the population. In this respect, the comparison made not by voting with ballots, but by more than a year's experience of the heaviest, bloodiest struggle, which required sacrifices a hundred times greater than any other political struggle, showed in relation to Kolchak that we are implementing the rule of the very class that we know how to lead, better than any other party, by winning the peasantry as friends and allies. This was proven by the example of Kolchak. This example, in terms of social relations, is our most recent lesson. It shows whom we can count on and who is against us.

The working class, though weakened by the imperialist war and devastation, has achieved political dominance, but it could not have done so if it had not won the majority of the toiling population, in Russian conditions—the peasantry—as its allies and friends. This was realized in the Red Army, where we were able to use specialists, most of whom were hostile to us, and create an army that, according to the admission of our enemies, the SRs, in the resolution of their party's last council, is not an army of mercenaries but a people's army{120}. The working class was able to create this army, the majority of which does not belong to its class, and to use specialists hostile to it, only because it could lead, could turn into its friends and allies, that mass of toilers connected with small-scale farming, with property, and therefore striving unswervingly for free trade, i.e., for capitalism, for the return of the power of money. This is the basis of everything we have achieved in two years. In all our further work, in all our future activity, in the activity we must undertake in liberated Ukraine, and in the construction, the full weight and importance of whose tasks will unfold after the victory over Denikin, we must above all remember this fundamental lesson. The political results of our activity, it seems to me, boil down to and are summed up in this.

Comrades! It has already been said that war is the continuation of politics. We have experienced this in our own war. The imperialist war, which was the continuation of the policy of the ruling classes, the landowners and capitalists, aroused hostility among the masses and was the best means of revolutionizing them. It facilitated for us in Russia both the overthrow of the monarchy and the overthrow of landlord ownership and the bourgeoisie, which occurred with unprecedented ease only because the imperialist war was the continuation, intensification, and exacerbation of imperialist policy. And our war was the continuation of our communist policy, the policy of the proletariat. Up to now, we read from the Mensheviks and SRs and hear from non-partisans and waverers: "You promised peace, but gave war; you deceived the toiling masses." But we say that the toiling masses, although they have not studied Marxism, nevertheless, with their class instinct of oppressed people, who for decades have felt on their own skin what a landowner and capitalist are, have perfectly grasped the difference between an imperialist war and a civil war. For all those who have experienced oppression for decades, for all of them, this difference between wars is clear. The imperialist war was the continuation of imperialist policy. It turned the masses against their masters. But the civil war against the landowners and capitalists was the continuation of the policy of overthrowing these landowners and capitalists, and every month of this war strengthened the bond of the toiling masses with the proletariat, which leads this war. No matter how many trials there were, no matter how frequent and heavy the defeats, no matter how often there were moments when the enemy achieved great victories and the existence of the Soviet power hung by a thread—such moments did occur, and there is no doubt that the Entente will try to fight against us again—but we must say that the experience we have undergone is a very solid one. This experience has shown that the war strengthens the consciousness of the toiling masses and demonstrates to them the advantages of Soviet power. Naive people or those living entirely under the prejudices of old bourgeois democracy and bourgeois parliamentary democracy expect the peasant to decide by ballot whether to go with the Bolshevik-Communists or the SRs; they do not wish to recognize any other decision because they are supporters of popular sovereignty, freedom, the Constituent Assembly, etc. But life decided otherwise, and the peasant had to check this in practice. After giving the SRs a majority in the Constituent Assembly, after the SRs' policy collapsed, and the peasants had to deal practically with the Bolsheviks, the peasant saw that this was a firm power, a power that demanded much, a power that knew how to achieve these demands at all costs, a power that recognized the lending of bread to the starving as an unconditional duty of the peasant, even without equivalent, a power that would stop at nothing to get this bread to the hungry. The peasant saw this, compared this power with that of Kolchak and Denikin, and made his choice not by voting, but by practical experience, when he had to experience both powers. The peasant decides and will continue to decide this question in our favor.

Just as with Kolchak and Denikin, the peasant made his choice not through voting, but by resolving the issue in practice, when he had to experience both powers. The peasant is deciding and will decide this question in our favor.

This is what the history of Kolchak's defeat and our victories in the south have proven to us. This is why we say that indeed the masses, the millions of people living in the villages, the millions of peasants, are finally siding with us. In this, it seems to me, lies the main political lesson we have drawn from this period, a lesson which we must apply to the tasks of internal construction that now stand before us, as we have completed our victory over Denikin and can now focus on internal construction.

Until now, the petty bourgeoisie in Europe has most often accused us of terrorism, of our brutal suppression of the intelligentsia and the petty bourgeois. To this, we say: "All of this was imposed on us by you, by your governments." When they shout about terror, we reply: "Was it not terror when the powers, with their global fleets and military forces a hundred times greater than ours, descended upon us and forced all the small states to fight against us?" It was real terror when all the powers united against one of the most backward and war-weakened countries. Even Germany, which constantly aided the Entente since the time when, undefeated, it supported Krasnov, and up to the present, when the same Germany is blockading us and directly aiding our opponents. This campaign of world imperialism, this military campaign against us, this bribery of conspirators within the country—was this not terror? Our terror was provoked by the fact that such military forces were unleashed against us that required an unprecedented mobilization of all our forces. We had to act within the country with the utmost determination, to gather all our strength. Here we did not want to—and decided we would not—end up in the position of those who collaborated with Kolchak in Siberia, or in the position that German collaborators will find themselves in tomorrow, imagining that they represent the government and are supported by the Constituent Assembly, while in reality, a hundred or a thousand officers could at any moment overthrow such a government. This is understandable because this officer class is a trained, organized mass, excellently versed in military affairs, holding all the threads, perfectly informed about the bourgeoisie and the landowners, and assured of their sympathy.

This is what the history of all countries after the imperialist war has shown, and now, in the face of such terror from the Entente, we had the right to resort to this terror.

From this, it follows that, to the extent that the accusation of terrorism is justified, it falls not on us, but on the bourgeoisie. They imposed terrorism on us. And we will be the first to take steps to reduce it to the absolute minimum once we have dealt with the main source of terrorism, the invasion of world imperialism, and the military conspiracies and military pressure of world imperialism on our country.

And here, speaking of terrorism, we must also address the relationship with the middle stratum, with the intelligentsia, which complains the most about the harshness of Soviet power, complaining that the Soviet power has put them in a worse position than before.

What we can do for the intelligentsia with our meager resources, we do in their favor. Of course, we know how little the paper ruble is worth, but we also know what private speculation, which provides some support to those who cannot feed themselves through our food supply organs, represents. In this regard, we give the bourgeois intelligentsia certain advantages. We know that at the moment when world imperialism descended upon us, we had to enforce the strictest military discipline and resist with all the forces at our disposal. And, of course, waging a revolutionary war, we cannot act as all the bourgeois states did, shifting the entire burden of the war onto the working masses. No, the burden of the civil war must be and will be shared by the entire intelligentsia, the entire petty bourgeoisie, and all the middle elements—they will all bear this burden. Of course, it will be much harder for them to bear this burden, because for decades they were privileged, but in the interests of the social revolution, we must place this burden on them as well. This is how we reason and act, and we cannot do otherwise.

The end of the civil war will be a step toward improving the situation of these groups. Even now, our tariff policy demonstrates, and our program declares, that we recognize the necessity of placing these groups in a better position, because the transition from capitalism to communism is impossible without the use of bourgeois specialists, and all our victories, all the victories of our Red Army, led by the proletariat, which has won over the semi-labor, semi-propertied peasantry, we achieved in part thanks to the ability to use bourgeois specialists. This policy, expressed in military matters, must become the policy of our internal construction.

The experience we have gone through during this time tells us that we very often, alongside laying the foundation of the building, took up the construction of the dome, various decorations, etc. Perhaps this was necessary to a certain extent for the socialist republic. Perhaps we had to build in all areas of public life. It is quite natural for this enthusiasm for construction in all areas. If we look at the experience of our state construction, we would see many started and abandoned constructions, where one might say to oneself: perhaps we should have waited with this construction and first done the essential. It is quite understandable that all activists, naturally, get carried away with tasks that can only be accomplished after the foundation is laid. But from this experience, we can now say that in the future, we will concentrate our efforts more on the essentials, on the foundation, on the simplest tasks that are the hardest to solve, but which we will nevertheless solve. These are the tasks of bread, fuel, and the fight against lice. These three simplest tasks will give us the opportunity to build a socialist republic, and then we will triumph over the whole world a hundred times more victoriously, triumphantly, and triumphantly than we repelled the attacks of the Entente.

On the issue of bread: we have made great progress in applying the grain requisition. Our food policy has allowed us to collect three times as much grain in the second year as in the first. In the last three months of the current campaign, more grain has been collected than in the three months of the previous year, although, as you will hear from the report of the People's Commissariat of Food, this happened under undoubtedly greater difficulties. One raid by Mamontov, which captured the southern part of the central agricultural belt, cost us dearly. But we have learned to apply the grain requisition, i.e., to force the delivery of grain to the state at fixed prices, without equivalent. Of course, we know well that a credit note is not an equivalent for grain. We know that the peasant gives grain on credit; we tell him: should you withhold grain, waiting for an equivalent, while the worker starves? Do you want to trade on the free market, thus returning us to capitalism? Many intellectuals, who have read Marx, do not understand that free trade is a return to capitalism, but the peasant understands this much more easily. He understands that selling grain at free prices, when the hungry are ready to pay anything, to give everything they have to avoid starving, is a return to exploitation, a freedom of profit for the rich and ruin for the poor. And we say that this is a state crime, and in the struggle against this, we will not give an inch.

This is a return to exploitation, it is freedom of profiteering for the rich and ruin for the poor. And we say that this is a state crime, and in the struggle against this, we will not give an inch.

In this struggle for grain requisitioning, the peasant has to lend to the starving worker – this is the only way to start proper construction, to restore industry, etc. If the peasant does not do this, it is a return to capitalism. If the peasant feels his connection with the workers, he is ready to give up surplus grain at fixed prices, i.e., for a simple colored piece of paper – this is necessary, without this, the starving worker cannot be saved from death, without this, industry cannot be restored. This task is incredibly difficult. This task cannot be solved by violence alone. No matter how much they shout that the Bolsheviks are a party of violence against the peasants, we say: gentlemen, this is a lie! If we were a party of violence against the peasants, how could we have held out against Kolchak, how could we have created an army with universal conscription, where eight-tenths are peasants, where everyone is armed, where everyone, through the experience of the imperialist war, saw that the same rifle can easily turn in different directions? How can we be a party of violence against the peasants, we – a party that implements the alliance of workers with peasants, which tells the peasants that the transition to free trade is a return to capitalism and that our forcible seizures of surpluses are applied to speculators, not to the toilers?

Grain requisitioning must form the basis of our activities. The food question underlies all questions. We must devote a lot of effort to the struggle against Denikin. Until there is a complete victory, turns are always possible, and there must be no slightest doubt or frivolity. But, at the slightest improvement in the military situation, we must allocate as much strength as possible to food work, for this is the foundation of everything. Requisitioning must be carried through to the end. Only when we solve this task and have a socialist foundation can we build on this socialist foundation all that luxurious building of socialism, which we have often begun to build from the top and which has often been destroyed.

Another fundamental question is the question of fuel, the main foundation of our construction. This is the issue we have now encountered, as we cannot use our food successes because we cannot transport the grain, we cannot fully utilize our victories because there is no fuel. We still do not have a real apparatus to deal with the fuel issue, but there is a possibility to handle it.

All of Europe is now experiencing a coal famine. Even in the richest victorious countries, such as America, which did not experience campaigns or invasions, if the fuel question is so acutely posed there, it naturally reflects on us. We cannot restore the coal industry even under the best conditions before several years.

We need to save ourselves with firewood. For this, we are throwing new and new party forces into this work. In the Council of People's Commissars and in the Council of Defense, during the last week, the main attention was given to this question, and a series of measures have been taken, which should bring about the same turning point as we achieved regarding our armies on the Southern front. It must be said that we cannot weaken our activity in this regard, that every step we take must be a step of victory in the struggle against the fuel famine. We have the material means. While we do not properly set up the coal industry, we can get by with firewood and provide fuel for industry. On this fundamental task, comrades, we must give all party forces.

Our third task is the fight against lice, those lice that spread typhus. This typhus among the population, exhausted by hunger, sick, without bread, soap, fuel, can become such a disaster that it will not allow us to cope with any socialist construction.

Here, the first step of our struggle for culture and here the struggle for existence.

These are the basic tasks. I would like to draw the most attention of the comrades belonging to the party to them. To these basic tasks, we have so far paid disproportionately little attention. Nine-tenths of our forces, remaining from military work, which cannot be weakened for a second, must be directed to this primary task. We now clearly see the acuteness of this question. Each, according to their ability, must apply their efforts to this cause. We must direct all our forces to this.

With this, I conclude the political part of the report. As for the international part, Comrade Chicherin will illuminate it in detail and read the proposal that we want to make on behalf of the Congress of Soviets to the warring states.

I will touch very briefly on party tasks. Our party, in the course of the revolution, has faced one of the greatest tasks. On the one hand, it is natural that the worst elements join the ruling party simply because it is the ruling party. On the other hand, the working class is exhausted, and in a devastated country, it is naturally weakened. However, only the advanced part of the working class, only its vanguard, is capable of leading its country. To carry out this task in terms of overall state construction, we have used, as one of the means, subbotniks (voluntary work days). We put forward the slogan: into our party go those who, above all, mobilize for the front; those who cannot fight must prove on the spot that they understand what a workers' party is, must show the application of the principles of communism in practice. And communism, if we take this word in its strict sense, is unpaid labor for the public good, not taking into account individual differences, erasing all memory of domestic prejudices, erasing inertia, habits, the difference between various branches of work, the difference in the size of remuneration for labor, etc. This is one of the greatest guarantees that not only in the field of military but also in the field of peaceful construction, we include the working class and the toilers. The further development of communist subbotniks should be a school. Every step must be accompanied by the fact that we attract into our party working-class elements and the most reliable elements from other classes. We achieve this through re-registration. We are not afraid to proceed with the removal of those who are not entirely reliable. We also achieve this by trusting the party member who comes to us in a difficult moment. Those party members, as today's report of the Central Committee shows, those thousands and hundreds of thousands who came to us when Yudenich was a few versts from Petrograd, and Denikin north of Orel, when the entire bourgeoisie was already rejoicing, these party members deserve our trust. Such an expansion of the party we value.

After we have carried out such an expansion of the party, we must lock the gates, we must be especially cautious. We must say: now that the party is victorious, we do not need new party members. We know perfectly well that in a decaying capitalist society, a mass of harmful elements will try to attach themselves to the party. We must create a party that is a party of workers, in which there is no place for hangers-on, but we must also attract to the work the masses standing outside it. How to do this? The means here are non-party workers' and peasants' conferences. Recently, an article on non-party conferences was published in Pravda. This article, by Comrade Rastopchin, deserves special attention. I know of no other means that would solve this task of the deepest historical importance. The party cannot open its gates wide, for in the era of the decay of capitalism, it is absolutely inevitable that it will absorb the worst elements. The party must be narrow enough to absorb, outside the working class, only those who come from other classes whom it can test with the greatest caution.

The worst elements. The party must be narrow enough to include from outside the working class only those who come from other classes whom it has the opportunity to test with the greatest caution.

But we have several hundred thousand party members in a country with a population of hundreds of millions. How can such a party govern? First, it has and must have as its helper the trade unions, which encompass millions; the second helper is the non-party conferences. At these non-party conferences, we must know how to approach the non-proletarian milieu, we must overcome prejudices and petty-bourgeois vacillations—this is one of the most fundamental and basic tasks.

We must gauge the success of our party organizations not only by the number of party members working in this or that job, not only by how successfully re-registration is carried out, but also by whether these non-party workers' and peasants' conferences are held correctly and frequently enough, i.e., by the ability to approach the mass that cannot now enter the party but which we must draw into the work.

If we defeated the Entente, perhaps it was because we won the sympathies of the working class, of this very non-party mass. If we ultimately defeated Kolchak, perhaps it was precisely because Kolchak lost the ability to draw further strength from the reservoir of the laboring masses. We have such a reservoir, which no government in the world has and which no government in the world can have, except for the government of the working class, because only the government of the working class can confidently draw, with absolute certainty of success, from among the most oppressed, the most backward of the laboring masses. We can and must draw from among the non-party workers and peasants, because they are our most reliable friends. For the tasks of ensuring bread, fuel, and for the victory over typhus, we can draw strength precisely from these masses, the most oppressed by the capitalists and landlords. And the support of these masses is assured to us. We will continue to draw more and more deeply from this milieu, and we can say that in the end, we will defeat all our opponents. And in the field of peaceful construction, which we will fully unfold after the victory over Denikin, we will do even more wonders than we have done in the military field over these two years.