Date: 1919
Source: ru:PSS/v38
Source: CW vol 38

(Applause.) Comrades, according to the division of topics that we agreed upon with Comrade Bukharin, it has been assigned to me to clarify the commission's viewpoint on a whole series of specific and most controversial or currently most interesting points for the party.

I will begin briefly with those points which Comrade Bukharin touched upon at the end of his report as being contentious between us within the commission. The first is the character of the construction of the general part of the program. In my opinion, Comrade Bukharin did not quite correctly present why the majority of the commission rejected all attempts to construct the program by erasing everything that was said about old capitalism. Comrade Bukharin spoke in such a way that it sometimes came out as if the majority of the commission was afraid of what would be said about this, afraid that the majority of the commission would be accused of insufficient respect for the old. There is no doubt that, with such a presentation of the position of the majority of the commission, it appears rather ridiculous. But this is far from the truth. The majority of the commission rejected such attempts because they would have been incorrect. They would not have corresponded to the actual state of affairs. Pure imperialism without the basic base of capitalism never existed, does not exist anywhere, and will never exist. This is an incorrect generalization of everything that was said about syndicates, cartels, trusts, and financial capitalism, when financial capitalism was depicted as if there were no foundations of old capitalism beneath it.

This is incorrect. It is especially incorrect for the era of imperialist war and for the post-imperialist war era. Engels himself wrote in one of his discussions about the coming war that it would be a much more savage devastation than after the Thirty Years' War, that humanity would to a significant extent revert to barbarism, and that our artificial apparatus of trade and industry would collapse{41}. At the beginning of the war, social-traitors and opportunists boasted about the resilience of capitalism and mocked "fanatics or semi-anarchists," as they called us. "Look," they said, "these predictions have not come true. Events have shown that this was only true for a very small part of countries and for a very short period of time!" And now, not only in Russia and not only in Germany, but also in the victorious countries, there begins precisely such a gigantic destruction of modern capitalism, which completely removes this artificial apparatus and revives old capitalism.

When Comrade Bukharin spoke about the possibility of giving a complete picture of the destruction of capitalism and imperialism, we objected in the commission, and I must object here: try and you will see that it is impossible. Comrade Bukharin made one such attempt in the commission and then abandoned it himself. I am absolutely certain that if anyone could do this, it would be Comrade Bukharin, who has studied this question extensively and thoroughly. I assert that such an attempt cannot be successful because the task is incorrect. We in Russia are currently experiencing the consequences of the imperialist war and the beginning of the dictatorship of the proletariat. At the same time, in a whole number of regions of Russia, which are more cut off from each other than before, we are constantly experiencing the revival of capitalism and the development of its first stage. There is no escaping this. If the program were written as Comrade Bukharin wanted, it would be incorrect. It would, at best, reproduce the best that has been said about financial capitalism and imperialism, but it would not reproduce reality, because in this reality there is precisely no such completeness. A program composed of heterogeneous parts—this is inelegant (but, of course, this is unimportant)—but any other program would simply be incorrect. From this heterogeneity, from this construction of different materials, however unpleasant and however lacking in coherence, we will not escape for a very long period. When we do escape, then we will create another program. But then we will already be living in a socialist society. To claim that things will be the same then as they are now would be ridiculous.

We live in a time when a whole series of the most elementary basic phenomena of capitalism are being revived. Take, for example, the collapse of transport, which we experience so well or, rather, so badly. This is happening in other countries too, even in the victorious countries. What does the collapse of transport mean in the imperialist system?—a return to the most primitive forms of commodity production. We know well what bagmen are. This word, it seems, was incomprehensible to foreigners until now, but now? Talk to the comrades who have arrived at the congress of the Third International. It turns out that similar words are beginning to emerge in Germany and Switzerland. And yet, you cannot subsume this category under any dictatorship of the proletariat; you will have to return to the lower strata of capitalist society and commodity production.

To escape from this sad reality through the creation of a smooth and complete program means to escape into something airless and ethereal, to write an incorrect program. And it was not at all respect for the old, as Comrade Bukharin politely hinted, that made us insert passages from the old program. It turned out like this: a program was written in 1903 with Lenin's participation, undoubtedly a bad program, but since old people love to reminisce about the past the most, out of respect for the old, a new program was compiled in a new era, in which the old is repeated. If this were the case, such eccentrics could be ridiculed. I assert that this is not the case. The capitalism that was described in 1903 continues to exist in 1919 in the Soviet proletarian republic, precisely because of the disintegration of imperialism, due to its collapse. Such capitalism can be found, for example, in Samara and Viatka provinces, not too far from Moscow. In an era when civil war is tearing the country apart, we will not soon emerge from this situation, from this bagman phenomenon. This is why any other construction of the program would be incorrect. One must say what is: the program must contain absolutely indisputable, factually established [points], only then is it a Marxist program.

Comrade Bukharin theoretically understands this perfectly and says that the program should be concrete. But understanding is one thing, and actually implementing it is another. Comrade Bukharin's concreteness is a bookish exposition of financial capitalism. In reality, we observe heterogeneous phenomena. In every agricultural province, we observe alongside monopolized industry, free competition. Nowhere in the world has monopolistic capitalism existed or will exist without free competition in a whole series of branches. To write such a system is to write a system detached from life and incorrect. If Marx said about the manufactory that it was a superstructure over mass petty production{42}, then imperialism and financial capitalism are a superstructure over old capitalism. If you destroy its top, the old capitalism will be exposed. To stand on the point of view that there is a complete imperialism without old capitalism is to take the desired for the real.

If you destroy its top, the old capitalism will be exposed. To hold the view that there is a solid imperialism without old capitalism is to take wishful thinking for reality.

This is a natural mistake, into which one can fall very easily. And if we were faced with a solid imperialism that had completely transformed capitalism, our task would be a hundred thousand times easier. This would create a system where everything was subordinated to a single financial capital. Then it would only be necessary to remove the top and hand over the rest to the proletariat. This would be extremely pleasant, but it does not exist in reality. In reality, development is such that one has to act quite differently. Imperialism is a superstructure over capitalism. When it is destroyed, one has to deal with the destruction of the top and the exposure of the base. Therefore, if our program wants to be correct, it must state what exists. There is an old capitalism that in many areas has grown into imperialism. Its tendencies are only imperialist. Fundamental questions can only be considered from the standpoint of imperialism. There is not a single major question of internal or external policy that could be resolved other than from the standpoint of this tendency. The program does not speak about this now. In reality, there is a vast subsoil of old capitalism. There is a superstructure of imperialism, which led to war, and from this war emerged the beginning of the dictatorship of the proletariat. You cannot jump out of this phase. This fact characterizes the pace of development of the proletarian revolution throughout the world and will remain a fact for many years.

The revolutions in Western Europe may proceed more smoothly, but still, the reorganization of the whole world, the reorganization of the majority of countries, will require many, many years. And this means that in the transitional period we are experiencing, we cannot jump out of this mosaic reality. This composite reality, made up of diverse parts, cannot be discarded, no matter how inelegant it may be; not a grain of it can be thrown out. A program composed otherwise would be incorrect.

We say that we have come to the dictatorship. But one must know how we came to it. The past holds us back, grabs us with a thousand hands, and does not let us take a step forward or forces us to take these steps as poorly as we do. And we say: to understand the situation we find ourselves in, we must say how we went, what brought us to the socialist revolution. Imperialism brought us here, capitalism in its initial commodity-economic forms brought us here. All of this must be understood because only by taking reality into account can we resolve such questions as, for example, our attitude toward the middle peasantry. In fact, where could the middle peasant have come from in the era of pure imperialist capitalism? Even in simply capitalist countries, there was none. If we were to decide the question of our attitude toward this almost medieval phenomenon (the middle peasantry) standing exclusively on the ground of imperialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat, the ends would not meet, and we would bang our heads against many walls. If, however, we were to change our attitude toward the middle peasantry, then in the theoretical part, we should also explain where he came from and what he is. He is a small commodity producer. This is the ABC of capitalism that needs to be stated because we have not yet crawled out of this ABC. To wave this away and say, "Why should we bother with ABC when we have studied financial capitalism!"—this is extremely frivolous.

The same I must say regarding the national question. Here, Comrade Bukharin takes wishful thinking for reality. He says that recognizing the right of nations to self-determination is unacceptable. Nation means: bourgeoisie together with the proletariat. We, the proletarians, will recognize the right to self-determination of some contemptible bourgeoisie! This is inconsistent with anything! No, excuse me, it is consistent with what exists. If you throw this out, you will end up with a fantasy. You refer to the process of differentiation occurring within the nation, the process of the separation of the proletariat from the bourgeoisie. But let's see how this differentiation goes.

Take, for example, Germany, a model of an advanced capitalist country, which, in terms of the organization of capitalism, financial capitalism, was above America. It was lower in many respects, in terms of technology and production, in political terms, but in terms of the organization of financial capitalism, in terms of the transformation of monopolistic capitalism into state-monopolistic capitalism—Germany was above America. It seemed to be a model. But what happens there? Has the German proletariat differentiated itself from the bourgeoisie? No! Only in a few large cities was it reported that the majority of workers were against the Scheidemanns. But how did this happen? Through the union of the Spartacists with the thrice-cursed German Mensheviks-Independents, who confuse everything and want to marry the system of Soviets with the Constituent Assembly! This is what is happening in this very Germany! And this is an advanced country.

Comrade Bukharin says, "Why do we need the right of nations to self-determination!" I must repeat what I objected to him when, in the summer of 1917, he proposed discarding the minimum program and keeping only the maximum program. I then replied, "Do not boast going to battle, boast coming from battle." When we conquer power and wait a little, then we will do this. We have conquered power, waited a little, and now I agree to do this. We have fully entered into socialist construction, repelled the first onslaught that threatened us—now it would be appropriate. The same applies to the right of nations to self-determination. "I want to recognize only the right of the working class to self-determination," says Comrade Bukharin. You, therefore, want to recognize something that has not been achieved in any country except Russia. This is ridiculous.

Look at Finland: a democratic country, more developed, more cultured than we are. There, the process of the emergence, the differentiation of the proletariat, is going on in a peculiar way, much more painfully than with us. The Finns experienced the dictatorship of Germany, now they are experiencing the dictatorship of the Allied powers. But because we recognized the right of nations to self-determination, the process of differentiation there was facilitated. I remember very well the scene when I had to give a charter to Svinhufvud, which in Russian means "swine-head," a representative of the Finnish bourgeoisie, who played the role of an executioner. He shook my hand cordially, we exchanged compliments. How unpleasant it was! But it had to be done because at that time the bourgeoisie was deceiving the people, deceiving the working masses with the idea that the Muscovites, the chauvinists, the Great Russians wanted to strangle the Finns. It had to be done.

Well! But this had to be done, because at that time the bourgeoisie was deceiving the people, deceiving the working masses by saying that the Muscovites, chauvinists, and Great Russians wanted to strangle the Finns. It had to be done.

And yesterday, did we not have to do the same with regard to the Bashkir Republic{45}? When Comrade Bukharin said: "One could recognize this right for some," I even wrote down that in his list were the Hottentots, Bushmen, and Indians. Listening to this enumeration, I thought: how is it that Comrade Bukharin forgot one small detail, forgot the Bashkirs? There are no Bushmen in Russia, and I have not heard of the Hottentots claiming an autonomous republic, but we do have Bashkirs, Kirghiz, and a whole series of other peoples, and with regard to them, we cannot refuse recognition. We cannot refuse this to any of the peoples living within the former Russian Empire. Suppose the Bashkirs overthrew the exploiters, and we helped them do so. But this is only possible if the revolution is fully ripe. And it must be done carefully, so as not to delay the very process of differentiation of the proletariat, which we must accelerate. What can we do with regard to such peoples as the Kirghiz, Uzbeks, Tajiks, and Turkmens, who are still under the influence of their mullahs? In Russia, after a long experience with the priests, the population helped us to get rid of them. But you know how poorly the decree on civil marriage has been implemented. Can we approach these peoples and say: "We will overthrow your exploiters"? We cannot do this, because they are entirely under the control of their mullahs. Here we must wait for the development of the given nation, the differentiation of the proletariat from the bourgeois elements, which is inevitable.

Comrade Bukharin does not want to wait. He is seized by impatience: "Why should we! When we ourselves overthrew the bourgeoisie, proclaimed Soviet power and the dictatorship of the proletariat, why should we act like this!" This acts as an invigorating call, contains an indication of our path, but if we only proclaim this in the program, it will turn out to be not a program, but a proclamation. We can proclaim Soviet power and the dictatorship of the proletariat and utter contempt for the bourgeoisie, which it deserves a thousand times over, but in the program, we must write with absolute precision what actually exists. Then our program is unassailable.

We stand on a strictly class position. What we write in the program is an acknowledgment of what has happened in reality after the era when we wrote about the self-determination of nations in general. At that time, there were no proletarian republics. When they appeared and only to the extent that they appeared, we were able to write what we have written here: "Federative union of states organized on the Soviet model." The Soviet model is not yet Soviets as they exist in Russia, but the Soviet model is becoming international. Only this can we say. To go further, even a step or a hair's breadth further, would be incorrect, and therefore unsuitable for the program.

We say: we must take into account the stage at which a given nation stands on the path from the Middle Ages to bourgeois democracy and from bourgeois democracy to proletarian democracy. This is absolutely correct. All nations have the right to self-determination—there is no need to speak specifically about the Hottentots and Bushmen. A gigantic majority, surely nine-tenths of the world's population, perhaps 95%, fits this description, because all countries are on the path from the Middle Ages to bourgeois democracy or from bourgeois to proletarian democracy. This is an absolutely inevitable path. We cannot say more, because it would be incorrect, because it would not be what actually exists. To discard the self-determination of nations and put forward the self-determination of the working people is completely wrong, because such a formulation does not take into account the difficulties and the winding path of differentiation within nations. In Germany, it proceeds differently than with us. In some respects, it is faster, and in some respects, it is slower and bloodier. Among us, no party accepted such a monstrous idea as the combination of Soviets and the Constituent Assembly. After all, we must live alongside these nations. Now the Scheidemanns are already talking about us, saying that we want to conquer Germany. Of course, this is ridiculous, nonsense. But the bourgeoisie has its own interests and its press, which shouts this in hundreds of millions of copies around the world, and Wilson supports this in his own interests. They say the Bolsheviks have a large army and want to impose their Bolshevism on Germany through conquest. The best people in Germany—the Spartacists—have pointed out to us that German workers are being incited against the Communists: look, they say, how bad things are with the Bolsheviks! And we cannot say that things are very good with us. Thus, our enemies in Germany are acting on the masses with the argument that a proletarian revolution in Germany means the same kind of disorder as in Russia. Our disorder is our protracted illness. We are struggling with desperate difficulties, creating a proletarian dictatorship for ourselves. As long as the bourgeoisie or petty bourgeoisie, or even part of the German workers, are under the influence of this scare: "The Bolsheviks want to forcibly establish their system," the formula "self-determination of the working people" will not ease the situation. We must present the matter in such a way that the German social-traitors cannot say that the Bolsheviks are imposing their universal system, which supposedly can be brought into Berlin on Red Army bayonets. From the point of view of denying the principle of the self-determination of nations, it could turn out that way.

, that the Bolsheviks are imposing their universal system, which supposedly can be carried on Red Army bayonets into Berlin. And from the standpoint of denying the principle of self-determination of nations, it may indeed turn out that way.

Our program should not speak of the self-determination of the working masses, because that is incorrect. It should state what actually exists. Since nations stand at different stages on the path from the Middle Ages to bourgeois democracy and from bourgeois democracy to proletarian, this position of our program is absolutely correct. On this path, we have had many zigzags. Each nation must receive the right to self-determination, and this contributes to the self-determination of the working masses. In Finland, the process of separation of the proletariat from the bourgeoisie is proceeding remarkably brightly, strongly, and deeply. There, everything will proceed, in any case, not as with us. If we say that we do not recognize any Finnish nation, but only the working masses – this would be the most trivial thing. Not to recognize what exists is impossible: it will force itself to be recognized. In various countries, the demarcation of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie proceeds in its own unique ways. On this path, we must act with the utmost caution. We must be especially cautious with regard to different nations, for there is nothing worse than a nation's distrust. Among the Poles, the self-determination of the proletariat is taking place. Here are the latest figures regarding the composition of the Warsaw Council of Workers' Deputies{46}: from Polish social-traitors – 333, from communists – 297. This shows that according to our revolutionary calendar, October is not far off there. This is either August or September 1917. But, first, no such decree has been issued that all countries must live by the Bolshevik revolutionary calendar, and even if it were, it would not be followed. And, secondly, the situation now is such that the majority of Polish workers, who are more advanced and cultured than ours, stand on the point of view of social-defense, social-patriotism. We need to wait. Here, one cannot speak about the self-determination of the working masses. We must propagate this differentiation. We are doing this, but there is not the slightest doubt that we cannot fail to recognize the self-determination of the Polish nation now. This is clear. The Polish proletarian movement is going along the same path as ours, moving towards the dictatorship of the proletariat, but not as in Russia. And the workers there are being intimidated by the idea that the Muscovites, the Great Russians, who have always oppressed the Poles, want to bring their Great Russian chauvinism, disguised under the name of communism, into Poland. Communism is not introduced by means of violence. When I told one of the best comrades of the Polish communists, "You will do it differently," he replied to me, "No, we will do the same, but better than you." Against such an argument, I could not possibly object. We must give the opportunity to fulfill the modest desire – to make Soviet power better than ours. We must take into account that the path there is somewhat unique, and we cannot say, "Down with the right of nations to self-determination! We provide the right to self-determination only to the working masses." This self-determination proceeds along a very complex and difficult path. It does not exist anywhere except in Russia, and, foreseeing all stages of development in other countries, we must not decree anything from Moscow. For this reason, this proposal is fundamentally unacceptable.

I move on to further points, which, according to the plan we have developed, I must address. First, I put the question of small property owners and the middle peasant. Regarding this, paragraph 47 states:

"The policy of the RCP towards the middle peasantry consists in gradually and systematically involving them in the work of socialist construction. The Party sets itself the task of separating them from the kulaks, attracting them to the side of the working class through attentive consideration of their needs, combating their backwardness through measures of ideological influence, by no means through measures of suppression, striving in all cases where their vital interests are touched to reach practical agreements with them, making concessions to them in determining the methods of carrying out socialist transformations."

It seems to me that here we are formulating what the founders of socialism have often said about the middle peasantry. The shortcoming of this point is only its insufficient concreteness. In the program, we could hardly give more. But at the congress, we must not only raise programmatic issues, and on the question of the middle peasantry, we must pay the utmost and thrice the utmost attention. We have data showing that in the uprisings that occurred in some places, a general plan is clearly visible, and this plan is clearly linked to the military plan of the White Guard, who decided on a general offensive in March and the organization of a series of uprisings. In the presidium of the congress, there is a draft appeal from the congress, which will be reported to you{47}. These uprisings show us more clearly than ever that the left SRs and part of the Mensheviks – in Bryansk, the Mensheviks worked on the uprising – play the role of direct agents of the White Guard. The general offensive of the White Guard, uprisings in the villages, disruption of railway traffic: will it not be possible to overthrow the Bolsheviks in this way? Here, the role of the middle peasantry stands out particularly clearly, particularly urgently. At the congress, we must not only especially emphasize our yielding attitude towards the middle peasantry but also think about a whole series of as concrete as possible measures that will immediately give something to the middle peasantry. These measures are urgently required both by the interests of self-preservation and by the interests of the struggle against all our enemies, who know that the middle peasant wavers between us and them, and who try to draw him away from us. Our current situation is such that we have enormous reserves. We know that both the Polish and Hungarian revolutions are growing and very rapidly. These revolutions will give us proletarian reserves, ease our situation, and in vast proportions strengthen our proletarian base – it is weak. This can happen in the coming months, but we do not know when. You know that a critical moment has now arrived, so the question of the middle peasantry now acquires great practical significance.

to occur in the coming months, but we do not know when it will happen. You know that a critical moment has now arrived, and therefore the question of the middle peasantry is acquiring immense practical significance.

Next, I would like to dwell on the topic of cooperation—this is § 48 of our program. To some extent, this paragraph has become outdated. When we wrote it in the commission, we had cooperation and no consumer communes, but a few days later a decree was passed merging all types of cooperatives into a single consumer commune. I do not know whether this decree{48} has been published and whether the majority present are familiar with it. If not, then this decree will be published tomorrow or the day after. In this respect, this paragraph is already outdated, but it seems to me, nevertheless, that it is needed, for we all know well that there is a considerable distance between decrees and their implementation. We have been struggling with cooperatives since April 1918, and although we have achieved significant success, it is not yet decisive. The unification of the population by cooperatives has sometimes reached such proportions that in many districts 98% of the rural population is already united. But these cooperatives, which existed in capitalist society, are thoroughly imbued with the spirit of bourgeois society, and at their head stand Mensheviks and SRs, bourgeois specialists. We have not yet managed to subjugate them, and here our task remains unresolved. Our decree takes a step forward in the creation of consumer communes, decreeing that throughout Russia all types of cooperation must merge. But even if we fully implement this decree, it will leave an autonomous section of workers' cooperatives within the future consumer commune, because representatives of workers' cooperatives, who are practically familiar with the matter, told us and proved that workers' cooperation, as a more developed organization, should be preserved, insofar as its activities are necessitated. There were many disagreements and disputes in our party regarding cooperation, and there were frictions between the Bolsheviks in the cooperatives and the Bolsheviks in the Soviets. In principle, it seems to me, the question must undoubtedly be resolved in the sense that this apparatus, as the only one that capitalism prepared among the masses, as the only one that operates among the rural masses still at the stage of primitive capitalism, must be preserved, developed, and in any case, not discarded. This is a difficult task, because in most cases the cooperatives have bourgeois specialists as their leaders, often actual White Guards. Hence arose the hatred towards them, a legitimate hatred, hence the struggle against them. But it must be conducted skillfully: it is necessary to suppress the counter-revolutionary tendencies of the cooperators, but this should not be a struggle against the cooperative apparatus. While cutting off these counter-revolutionary figures, we must subjugate the apparatus itself. The task here is exactly the same as with regard to bourgeois specialists, which is another issue I wanted to note.

The question of bourgeois specialists causes a lot of friction and disagreements. When I recently spoke at the Petrograd Soviet, several of the notes handed to me were devoted to the question of wages. I was asked: can one pay up to 3000 rubles in a socialist republic? In essence, we put this question in the program, for dissatisfaction on this issue has gone quite far. The question of bourgeois specialists stands in the army, in industry, in cooperatives, it stands everywhere. This is a very important question of the transitional period from capitalism to communism. We can build communism only when, with the means of bourgeois science and technology, we make it more accessible to the masses. Otherwise, it is impossible to build a communist society. And to build it in this way, we need to take the apparatus from the bourgeoisie, we need to involve all these specialists in the work. We deliberately developed this question in detail in the program so that it would be radically resolved. We know perfectly well what cultural underdevelopment in Russia means, how it affects the Soviet power, which in principle gave incomparably higher proletarian democracy, setting an example of this democracy for the whole world—how this lack of culture lowers the Soviet power and recreates bureaucracy. The Soviet apparatus, in words, is accessible to all workers, but in fact, it is far from being accessible to all, as we all know. And not because laws hinder this, as was the case with the bourgeoisie: on the contrary, our laws help with this. But laws alone are not enough here. A great deal of educational, organizational, and cultural work is necessary—what cannot be done quickly by law, and requires a huge, long-term effort. The question of bourgeois specialists at this congress must be resolved with complete definitiveness. Such a resolution will give those comrades, who undoubtedly listen to this congress, the opportunity to rely on its authority, to see what difficulties we encounter. It will help those comrades who face this question at every step to participate, if only in propaganda work.

Comrades, the Spartacists' representatives at the congress, here in Moscow, told us that in western Germany, where industry is most developed and where the influence of the Spartacists among the workers is greatest, although the Spartacists have not yet won, on many of the largest enterprises, engineers and directors came to the Spartacists and said, "We will go with you." We did not have this. Evidently, there is a higher cultural level of the workers, greater proletarianization of the technical personnel, perhaps a whole series of other reasons, which we do not know, created such relations, which differ somewhat from ours.

In any case, this is one of the main obstacles to further progress for us. We must immediately, without waiting for support from other countries, raise the productive forces. This cannot be done without bourgeois specialists. This must be said once and for all. Of course, the majority of these specialists are thoroughly imbued with a bourgeois worldview. They must be surrounded by an atmosphere of comradely cooperation, by workers' commissars, by communist cells, placed in such a way that they cannot break free, but they must be given the opportunity to work in better conditions than under capitalism, for this layer, brought up by the bourgeoisie, will not work otherwise. It is impossible to force an entire layer to work by compulsion—we have experienced this well. It is possible to force them not to actively participate in the counter-revolution, to intimidate them so that they fear reaching out to a White Guard appeal. On this score, the Bolsheviks act energetically. This can be done, and we do it sufficiently. We have all learned this. But it is impossible to make an entire layer work in this way. These people are accustomed to cultural work; they advanced it within the framework of the bourgeois system, i.e., they enriched the bourgeoisie with enormous material acquisitions, while allocating them to the proletariat in negligible doses. But they still advanced culture, this was their profession. As they see that the working class is putting forward organized, advanced layers, which not only value culture but also help to bring it to the masses, they change their attitude toward us. When a doctor sees that in the fight against epidemics, the proletariat raises the initiative of the workers, he relates to us completely differently. We have a large layer of these bourgeois doctors, engineers, agronomists, cooperators, and when they see in practice that the proletariat is involving ever-wider masses in this matter, they will be morally defeated, and not only politically cut off from the bourgeoisie. Then our task will become easier. Then they will be drawn into our apparatus, becoming part of it. For this, it is necessary to make sacrifices. For this, paying even two billion is a trifle. To fear this sacrifice would be childish, for it would mean not understanding the tasks that stand before us.

Sacrifices are necessary for this. To pay even two billion is a trifle. To fear this sacrifice would be childish, for it would mean not understanding the tasks that stand before us.

The disruption of transport, industry, and agriculture undermines the very existence of the Soviet republic. Here we must take the most energetic measures, straining to the utmost all the forces of the country. In relation to specialists, we should not adhere to a policy of petty nitpicking. These specialists are not servants of the exploiters; they are cultural figures who, in a bourgeois society, served the bourgeoisie, and about whom all socialists of the world have said that in a proletarian society they will serve us. During this transitional period, we must provide them with the best possible living conditions. This will be the best policy, the most economical management. Otherwise, by saving several hundred million, we may lose so much that no billions will restore what has been lost.

When we discussed the issue of wages with Comrade Schmidt, the Commissar of Labor, he pointed out such facts. He says that to equalize wages, we have done more than any bourgeois state could do or has done in decades. Take pre-war rates: an unskilled worker earned 1 ruble per day—25 rubles per month, while a specialist earned 500 rubles per month, not counting those who were paid hundreds of thousands. The specialist earned 20 times more than the worker. In our current rates, the variation ranges from 600 to 3000 rubles—a difference of only five times. We have done a lot to equalize. Of course, we now overpay the specialists, but it is worth, and indeed theoretically necessary, to overpay them for their knowledge. This question is, in my opinion, sufficiently detailed in the program. It is necessary to emphasize it strongly. It is necessary to resolve it here not only in principle but also to ensure that all members of the congress, upon returning to their places, in their reports to their organizations, and in all their activities, achieve its implementation.

We have already achieved a tremendous shift among the wavering intelligentsia. If yesterday we spoke about legalizing petty-bourgeois parties, and today we arrest Mensheviks and SRs, then in these fluctuations, we are carrying out a completely defined system. Through these fluctuations, there runs one, the firmest line: cut off the counter-revolution, use the culturally bourgeois apparatus. Mensheviks are the worst enemies of socialism because they wear a proletarian skin, but Mensheviks are a non-proletarian layer. In this layer, only insignificant upper parts are proletarian, while the bulk consists of petty intellectuals. This layer is moving towards us. We will take it all as a layer. Every time they come to us, we say, "Welcome." With each of these fluctuations, part of them moves to us. This was the case with the Mensheviks and the New Lifers{49}, with the SRs, and so it will be with all these wavering elements, who will still long be stumbling, whining, and switching from one camp to another—nothing can be done with them. But through all these fluctuations, we will be getting layers of the cultural intelligentsia into the ranks of Soviet workers and cutting off those elements that continue to support the White Guards.

The next question, which, according to the division of topics, falls within my task, is the question of bureaucracy and involving the broad masses in Soviet work. Complaints about bureaucracy have been heard for a long time, and these complaints are undoubtedly well-founded. In the struggle against bureaucracy, we have done what no state in the world has done. The apparatus that was thoroughly bureaucratic and bourgeois-oppressive, which remains so even in the freest bourgeois republics, we have destroyed to the foundation. Take the judiciary, for example. Here, the task was easier, as there was no need to create a new apparatus, because anyone can judge based on the revolutionary consciousness of the working classes. We have not yet completed this task, but in many areas, we have created what is needed. We have created organs through which not only men but also women, the most backward and immobile element, can be brought in en masse.

Officials in other areas of administration—more hardened bureaucrats. Here the task is more difficult. We cannot live without this apparatus, as various branches of administration create a need for it. Here we suffer from the fact that Russia was not sufficiently developed capitalist-wise. Germany, apparently, will go through this more easily, as its bureaucratic apparatus has gone through a great school where they squeeze out all the juices but make you do the job, not just sit in chairs, as happens in our offices. This old bureaucratic element we have dismissed, stirred up, and then started to place in new positions. Tsarist bureaucrats began to move into Soviet institutions and carry bureaucracy with them, repaint themselves as communists, and, for greater career success, obtain membership cards of the RCP. Thus, they were driven out the door and climbed in through the window. Here, the lack of cultural forces is most evident. These bureaucrats could be dismissed, but they cannot be re-educated immediately. Here, organizational, cultural, and educational tasks first come to the fore.

To fight bureaucracy to the end, to complete victory over it, is possible only when the entire population participates in administration. In bourgeois republics, this was not only impossible: the law itself stood in the way. The best bourgeois republics, no matter how democratic, have thousands of legislative obstacles that prevent the participation of workers in administration. We have done away with these obstacles, but so far, we have not achieved the participation of the working masses in administration—apart from the law, there is also the cultural level, which no law can command. This low cultural level means that the Soviets, being by their program organs of administration through the workers, in reality, are organs of administration for the workers through the advanced layer of the proletariat, but not through the working masses.

Here we face a task that can only be solved through prolonged education. Currently, this task is immeasurably difficult for us, because, as I have often pointed out, the layer of workers who manage is immeasurably, unbelievably thin. We must get reinforcements. By all signs, such a reserve is growing within the country. The enormous thirst for knowledge and the even greater success in education, often achieved through extracurricular means, the gigantic success in educating the working masses is beyond any doubt. This success does not fit into any school framework, but it is colossal. All signs indicate that in the near future, we will get a huge reserve that will take the places of the overly strained representatives of the thin layer of the proletariat. But in any case, our position in this regard is currently extremely difficult. Bureaucracy has been defeated. The exploiters have been removed. But the cultural level has not been raised, and therefore, the bureaucrats occupy the old positions. Bureaucracy can only be pushed aside by organizing the proletariat and peasantry on a much larger scale than before, along with actually implementing measures to involve workers in administration. You all know these measures in the field of each people's commissariat, and I will not dwell on them.

Here, more than before, along with the actual implementation of measures to involve workers in management. You all know these measures in the field of each people's commissariat, and I will not dwell on them.

The last point I should touch upon is the leading role of the proletariat and the deprivation of voting rights. Our Constitution recognizes the superiority of the proletariat over the peasantry and deprives the exploiters of voting rights. This has been most attacked by pure democrats from Western Europe. We have responded and continue to respond that they have forgotten the most fundamental tenets of Marxism, that they are talking about bourgeois democracy, while we have moved to proletarian democracy. There is not a single country in the world that has done even a tenth of what the Soviet republic has done for workers and the poorest peasants in terms of involving them in state management over the past months. This is an absolute truth. No one can deny that for real, not paper, democracy, for involving workers and peasants, we have done as much as the best democratic republics could not do in hundreds of years. This determined the significance of the Soviets, thanks to this, the Soviets became the slogan of the proletariat of all countries.

But this does not at all free us from the fact that we stumble over the insufficient cultural level of the masses. The question of depriving the bourgeoisie of voting rights, we in no way considered from an absolute point of view, because theoretically it is quite conceivable that the dictatorship of the proletariat will suppress the bourgeoisie at every step, but may not deprive the bourgeoisie of voting rights. This is quite conceivable theoretically, and we do not put forward our Constitution as a model for other countries. We only say that whoever understands the transition to socialism without suppressing the bourgeoisie is not a socialist. But if it is necessary to suppress the bourgeoisie as a class, then it is not necessary to deprive it of voting rights and equality. We do not want freedom for the bourgeoisie, we do not recognize equality between exploiters and the exploited, but we consider this issue in the program in such a way that measures of this kind, such as inequality between workers and peasants, are not prescribed by the Constitution. The Constitution recorded them after they were introduced into life. Even non-Bolsheviks developed the constitution of the Soviets; it was developed by Mensheviks and SRs against themselves before the Bolshevik revolution. They developed it as life had developed it. The organization of the proletariat proceeded much faster than the organization of the peasantry, which made the workers the mainstay of the revolution and gave them de facto advantages. The further task is: to gradually move from these advantages to their equalization. The bourgeoisie was not expelled from the Soviets either before or after the October Revolution. The bourgeoisie left the Soviets on its own.

This is how the matter stands with the voting rights of the bourgeoisie. Our task is to pose the question with complete clarity. We do not apologize for our behavior at all, but we list the facts exactly as they are. As we point out, our Constitution was forced to introduce this inequality because the cultural level is low, because our organization is weak. But we do not turn this into an ideal; on the contrary, in the program, the party undertakes to systematically work towards eliminating this inequality between the more organized proletariat and the peasantry. We will abolish this inequality as soon as we manage to raise the cultural level. Then we will be able to do without such restrictions. These restrictions already now, after some 17 months of the revolution, have practically very little significance.

These are the main points, comrades, on which I deemed it necessary to dwell in the general discussion of the program, in order to leave the further discussion to the debate. (Applause.)