I would have declined to offer concluding remarks if comrade Sapronov had not provoked me, and I would like to engage him in some polemics. There is no doubt that we must listen to local workers who possess organizational experience. All their advice is valuable to us. But I ask, what is wrong with what is written here? I was not familiar with this point. Sapronov gave it to me. Here it is written: "Draft instruction to provincial, district, and volost committees on work in the countryside"{122}. That is, the instruction is directed at those local workers through whom all local work is conducted. If we are talking about sending agitators, commissars, agents, or representatives of the Central Committee, they always and unconditionally receive instructions. In point 9 it says here: "Obtain from Soviet farms and communes real, direct aid to the neighboring peasants." I still believe that even an agent of the Central Committee has a head on his shoulders. If a regulation has truly been established, how can he demand that a cart, a horse, etc., be handed over? We have sufficient instructions on this account—some even say we have too many. And a Central Committee agent can demand something only within the bounds of instruction, and no commune manager can permit a cart, horse, or cow to be given away. But this is a serious question, because it is precisely on this basis that we often spoil our relations with the peasants, and in Ukraine we may spoil them a second time if we fail to carry out our political line in practice. And it is not difficult to carry it out, and the peasants will be grateful for help, even small help. One must not only accept the instruction but also know how to implement it. If comrade Sapronov fears that a cow, horse, or cart will be taken from the Soviet farm, then let him share with us his magnificent experience on this point and say: let's give the peasants tools for free or at a cheap price; that I understand. But in any case, point 9 will not thereby be eliminated but rather confirmed. The relations of communes and Soviet farms to the surrounding peasantry—this is one of the most painful questions of our entire policy. It will be even more so in Ukraine; tomorrow it will become the same in Siberia. Right now we have ideologically won over the Siberian peasant by freeing him from Kolchak. But this will not be durable if we fail to organize things so that this peasant receives real aid, and of course every agent working in the countryside must receive such an instruction. And every agent must be asked in his report: where and in what ways have Soviet farms helped the peasant? On this point, comrade Sapronov's suggestions were incorrect. To use the experience of local workers—that is our fundamental, unconditional obligation. (Applause.)