At present, the primary tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia consist in bringing to a successful conclusion the expropriation of landowners and the bourgeoisie—already begun—and in transferring all factories, plants, railways, banks, the merchant marine, and other means of production and circulation into the ownership of the Soviet Republic; to harness the alliance between urban workers and the poorest peasants—whose efforts have already led to the abolition of private land ownership and to the enactment of a law on that transitional form of agrarian development from petty peasant farming to socialism, which modern ideologues of the peasantry, now aligned with the proletariat, have dubbed “land socialization”—in order to effect a gradual yet unwavering transition toward communal land cultivation and large-scale socialist agriculture; to consolidate and further develop the federative republic of Soviets as a form of democracy immeasurably higher and more progressive than bourgeois parliamentarism, and as the only type of state that, in light of the experience of the Paris Commune of 1871—as well as the experiences of the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917–1918—corresponds to the transitional period from capitalism to socialism, that is, to the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat; to make comprehensive and all‑round use of the torch of the worldwide socialist revolution kindled in Russia—in order to paralyze the attempts of imperialist bourgeois states to interfere in Russia’s internal affairs or to unite in direct struggle and war against the socialist Soviet Republic, and thereby to carry the revolution into more advanced countries, and indeed into every country; through a series of gradual yet relentless measures, to completely abolish private trade by organizing a rational, planned exchange of goods between productive and consumer communes within the unified economic whole that the Soviet Republic must become.

In elaborating upon the general tasks of Soviet power, the RCP currently defines them as follows:

In the political sphere, Whereas prior to the seizure of political power by the proletariat, the utilization of bourgeois democracy—and especially parliamentarism—was (necessarily) indispensable for the political education and organization of the working masses, now that the proletariat has seized political power and the Soviet Republic embodies a higher form of democracy, any step backward toward bourgeois parliamentarism or bourgeois democracy would unquestionably serve the reactionary interests of exploiters, landowners, and capitalists. Only the interests of the exploiters are served by the slogans of so‑called “all‑people’s,” “national,” “universal,” “classless” democracy—which, in reality, are nothing more than bourgeois democracy—and as long as private ownership of land and other means of production persists, even the most democratic republic inevitably remains a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, a machine for the suppression of the vast majority of working people by a handful of capitalists.

The historical task confronting the Soviet Republic—a new type of state, transitional toward the complete abolition of the state itself—consists in the following:

1) To create and foster comprehensive, mass‑based organization among those classes oppressed by capitalism: the proletariat and the semi‑proletariat. At best, the bourgeois‑democratic republic permitted the organized participation of exploited masses insofar as it proclaimed their freedom; in practice, however, it invariably erected countless de facto obstacles to such organization—and these obstacles were inextricably linked to private ownership of the means of production. For the first time in history, Soviet power not only facilitates the organization of the masses oppressed by capitalism in every possible way, but also makes this organization a permanent and indispensable foundation of the entire state apparatus, from the local level up to the central government. It is only through this path that democracy can be truly realized for the majority of the population—that is, the actual participation of the vast majority of the people, namely the working masses, in the administration of the state, rather than the de facto domination of the state by representatives of the bourgeois classes, as is the case in even the most democratic bourgeois republics.

2) The Soviet organization of the state confers a certain practical advantage upon that segment of the working masses which is most highly concentrated, most closely united, most enlightened, and most hardened in struggle through all the capitalist developments that preceded socialism—namely, the urban industrial proletariat. This advantage must be employed steadily and systematically in order to counteract the narrow, shop‑specific, and narrowly professional interests that capitalism cultivated among workers, dividing them into competing groups; instead, it should be used to forge closer bonds between the most backward and dispersed masses of rural proletarians and semi‑proletarians and the vanguard of workers, to wrench them from the influence of the rural kulaks and rural bourgeoisie, and to organize and educate them for the construction of communism.

3) Bourgeois democracy, while solemnly proclaiming the equality of all citizens, in reality hypocritically concealed the domination of exploitative capitalists, deceiving the masses with the notion that true equality between exploiters and the exploited was somehow attainable. The Soviet form of state organization dismantles this deception and this hypocrisy by realizing genuine democracy—namely, the actual equality of all working people—and by excluding exploiters from full participation as equal members of society. The experience of world history, of every uprising of oppressed classes against their oppressors, teaches us the inevitability of fierce and protracted resistance on the part of the exploiters in their struggle to preserve their privileges. The Soviet form of state organization is designed to suppress this resistance; without such suppression, there can be no question of a victorious communist revolution.

4) The more direct influence of the working masses on the structure and administration of the state—that is, the higher form of democracy—is achieved under the Soviet model of statehood, first and foremost, because the electoral process and the possibility of holding elections more frequently, along with the conditions for re-election and recall of deputies, are far easier and more accessible to workers in both cities and villages than they are under even the most advanced forms of bourgeois democracy.

5) Second, under Soviet power, the primary electoral unit and the fundamental cell of state-building is not the territorial constituency, but the economic, productive unit (a factory or plant). This closer link between the state apparatus and the united masses of advanced proletarians—not only fosters a higher degree of democracy, but also makes possible the implementation of profound socialist transformations.

6) The Soviet organizational structure made it possible to create an armed force of workers and peasants that is far more closely bound to the working and exploited masses than ever before. Without this, it would have been impossible to fulfill one of the fundamental conditions for the victory of socialism: the arming of the workers and the disarmament of the bourgeoisie.

7) The Soviet organizational structure developed far beyond—and in a much broader sense—the aspect of bourgeois democracy that marks its great historical progressiveness compared to the medieval era: namely, the participation of the population in the election of public officials. In none of the most democratic bourgeois states have the working masses ever exercised, in formal terms granted to them by the bourgeoisie but in fact curtailed by it, the right to vote—even remotely—to the same extent, so frequently, so universally, so easily and simply, as under Soviet power. Yet at the same time, the Soviet organizational structure rejected those negative aspects of bourgeois democracy that the Paris Commune had already begun to abolish—those very limitations whose narrowness and restrictiveness had long been pointed out by Marxism—namely, parliamentarism as the separation of legislative power from executive power. By merging these two powers, the Soviets bring the state apparatus into closer alignment with the working masses and eliminate the barrier that the bourgeois parliament had erected—a barrier that deceived the masses with hypocritical façades, concealed the financial and stock-market machinations of parliamentary rogues, and ensured the impunity of the bourgeois apparatus of state administration.

8) It was only through the Soviet form of state organization that the proletarian revolution could at once shatter and utterly destroy the old, bourgeois state apparatus; without this, it would have been impossible to embark upon socialist construction. Today in Russia, the bastions of bureaucracy that had long tied state power everywhere and at all times to the interests of landowners and capitalists—whether under the monarchy or within the most democratic bourgeois republic—have already been completely dismantled. But our struggle against bureaucracy is far from over. A portion of the ground it has lost, bureaucracy seeks to regain, exploiting, on the one hand, the relatively low cultural level of the broad masses, and on the other, the extreme, almost superhuman strain placed on the very most highly developed stratum of urban workers engaged in military service. Therefore, the continuation of the struggle against bureaucracy is absolutely and urgently necessary for the success of further socialist construction.

9) Work in this direction—indissolubly linked to the fulfillment of the Soviet state’s principal historical task, namely, the transition toward the complete abolition of the state—must consist, first, in ensuring that every member of the Council undertakes a specific task in the administration of the state; second, in systematically rotating these tasks so that they encompass the entire range of affairs related to state governance, covering all its branches; and third, in gradually and carefully selecting—but steadily implementing—a series of measures that will draw the entire working population into independent participation in the administration of the state.

10) In general, the fundamental distinction between bourgeois democracy and parliamentarism, on the one hand, and Soviet or proletarian democracy, on the other, lies in the fact that the former shifted the center of gravity to the solemn and ostentatious proclamation of all manner of freedoms and rights—while in practice denying the vast majority of the population, the workers and peasants, even the most basic access to these rights. By contrast, proletarian or Soviet democracy shifts its focus not on merely proclaiming the rights and freedoms of the entire people, but on actually ensuring that those very masses of toiling laborers—who had been oppressed and exploited by capital—gain genuine access to state governance, real and effective use of the finest buildings and venues for meetings and congresses, the best printing houses, and the largest stockpiles of paper for enlightening those whom capitalism had dulled and subjugated—and on providing these masses with the concrete (actual) means to gradually free themselves from the yoke of religious superstition, and so forth. It is precisely in this direction—of actually granting toilers and the exploited the real possibility of partaking in the benefits of culture, civilization, and democracy—that the paramount task of Soviet power resides; and it must resolutely continue along this path without faltering.

In the national question, the policy of the RCP, unlike the bourgeois-democratic proclamation of national equality—which remains unattainable under imperialism—consists in the steadfast pursuit of closer ties and ultimate fusion among the proletarians and working masses of all nations in their revolutionary struggle to overthrow the bourgeoisie. The distrust toward Great Russians, inherited from the era of Tsarist and bourgeois Great Russian imperialism, is rapidly fading among the working masses of the nations that once formed part of the Russian Empire, dissipating under the influence of firsthand acquaintance with Soviet Russia. Yet this distrust has not entirely vanished among all nations, nor among every stratum of the working class. Therefore, special care must be taken in addressing national sentiment, diligently upholding the principle of equality and the freedom of national self-determination in practice—so as to undermine the foundations of this mistrust and to secure the voluntary, close union of Soviet republics across all nations. Assistance to backward and weak nations must be intensified through the independent organization and education of workers and peasants in each nation, empowering them to combat both medieval and bourgeois oppression, while simultaneously fostering the development of the languages and literatures of nations that had long been oppressed or previously denied equal rights.

In the realm of religious policy, the task of the proletarian dictatorship (as understood by the RCP) is not to be satisfied with the already decreed separation of church from state and of school from church—those measures that bourgeois democracy had promised but never fully realized anywhere in the world, owing to the myriad practical connections between capital and religious propaganda. The proletarian dictatorship must carry forward the complete dismantling of the bonds that link the exploiting classes—landowners and capitalists—to the organized dissemination of religious propaganda, which serves to sustain the darkness of the masses. The proletarian dictatorship must steadily advance the actual emancipation of the working masses from religious prejudices, pursuing this goal through propaganda and the raising of mass consciousness—while at the same time carefully avoiding any offense to the religious sensibilities of the faithful portion of the population and the entrenchment of religious fanaticism.

In the field of popular education, the RCP sets itself the task of bringing to a successful conclusion the work begun with the October Revolution of 1917: the transformation of the school—from an instrument of bourgeois class rule into a weapon for the destruction of that very rule—as well as the complete eradication of society’s division into classes.

During the period of the proletarian dictatorship—namely, during the phase of preparing the conditions necessary for the full realization of communism—the school must not only serve as a conduit for the principles of communism in general, but also as a vehicle for the ideological, organizational, and educational influence of the proletariat upon semi-proletarian and non-proletarian segments of the working masses—aiming to nurture a generation capable of ultimately realizing communism.

The immediate tasks on this path are, at present:

1) To ensure free, compulsory, general, and polytechnical education—for all children, regardless of gender—up to the age of sixteen, providing instruction that introduces students both theoretically and practically to all major branches of production.

2) To establish a close connection between education and socially productive labor.

3) To provide all students with food, clothing, and educational materials at the expense of the state.

4) To intensify agitation and propaganda efforts among teachers.

5) To train a new generation of teachers imbued with the ideals of communism.

6) To engage the working population in active participation in the cause of education (by developing councils of public education, mobilizing literate individuals, and so forth).

7) To offer comprehensive support from the Soviet authorities for the self‑education and self‑development of workers and laboring peasants (through the establishment of libraries, adult schools, people’s universities, lecture courses, cinemas, studios, and the like).

8) To expand the broadest possible propaganda campaign in favor of communist ideas.

Elaborating further on the general tasks of Soviet power, the RCP currently defines them as follows:

In the economic sphere, the task of Soviet power at present consists in the following:

(1) to resolutely continue and bring to completion the expropriation of the bourgeoisie—already initiated and, in its main outlines, largely accomplished—and to transform the means of production and circulation into the property of the Soviet Republic, that is, into the common property of all toiling people.

(2) Special attention must be given to fostering and strengthening the comradeship-based discipline of the working class, while comprehensively elevating their self‑initiative and sense of responsibility. This is the paramount—indeed, perhaps the only—means by which we can definitively overcome capitalism and the habits engendered by the dominance of private ownership over the means of production. Achieving this goal requires painstaking, gradual work in the re‑education of the masses—and such re‑education has not only become possible now that the masses have witnessed, in practice, the elimination of the landlord, the capitalist, and the merchant; it is, in fact, already unfolding along countless paths, through the workers’ and peasants’ own practical experiences. Of immense importance in this regard is the task of developing professional organizations of the working class—organizations that have never before advanced so rapidly anywhere in the world as under Soviet power—but which must be brought to the point where every single worker is united into well‑structured, centrally directed, disciplined production unions. Far from being confined by the old patterns of the trade union movement, we must systematically, testing each step against the realities of practical experience, transform the unions—on the one hand—into organs of administration for the entire national economy; the rapprochement and close ties between trade unions and the VSNKh, the Commissariat of Labor, and subsequently with all other branches of state administration must grow ever stronger;—and on the other hand, trade unions must increasingly evolve into organs of labor‑based and socialist education for the entire working class, so that practical experience in participation in governance, under the vigilant oversight of the working-class vanguard, may gradually encompass even the most backward strata of the working population.

(3) Increasing labor productivity is one of the fundamental tasks, for without it the final transition to communism remains impossible. Achieving this goal, beyond the long‑term effort to enlighten the masses and raise their cultural level, requires the immediate, broad, and comprehensive utilization of the scientific and technical specialists bequeathed to us by capitalism—specialists who, by their very nature, are inevitably steeped in bourgeois worldviews and habits. The Party must, in close alliance with professional organizations, continue its longstanding line: on the one hand, it must make no political concessions whatsoever to this bourgeois stratum and relentlessly suppress any counterrevolutionary tendencies it may display; and on the other hand, it must likewise fight with unrelenting resolve against the self‑delusion—often rooted in ignorance—that the working class can overcome capitalism and the bourgeois order without learning from bourgeois specialists, without drawing upon their expertise, without undergoing the long apprenticeship of working alongside them.

In striving for equal remuneration for all forms of labor and for the full realization of communism, we must by no means set ourselves the goal of instantaneously achieving this equality at a time when we are only taking the first steps toward the transition from capitalism to communism. Therefore, it is necessary to maintain, for a certain period, higher wages for specialists—so that they may work not merely as well as before, but better—and for the same purpose, we must not abandon the system of bonuses for the most successful work, especially for organizational achievements; bonuses will be unacceptable under a fully communist system, but in the transitional epoch from capitalism to communism, it is impossible to do without bonuses—as both theoretical considerations and the year‑long experience of Soviet power amply demonstrate.

At the same time, we must steadily work to surround bourgeois specialists with an atmosphere of comradeship, of joint labor side by side with the rank‑and‑file workers, guided by conscious communists, and patiently—without being discouraged by the inevitable occasional setbacks—to foster among those endowed with scientific training a deep awareness of the utter depravity of using science for personal enrichment and for the exploitation of man by man, while awakening in them a higher sense of purpose: to employ science in such a way that the entire working class may come to know and understand it.

(4) The realization of communism, while undoubtedly demanding the greatest possible degree of centralized planning and the strictest possible coordination of labor on a nationwide scale, necessarily entails overcoming the fragmentation and dispersion of the working class—both in terms of profession and locality—which have long served as one of the sources of capital’s strength and of labor’s weakness. The struggle against guild‑centrism and narrow‑mindedness, against guild‑egoism, closely intertwined with the fight to eliminate the antagonism between town and country, presents considerable difficulties and cannot be launched on a large scale without first achieving a substantial increase in the productivity of national labor. Nevertheless, work in this area must begin without delay—perhaps initially within small, local frameworks, as a pilot experiment, in order to compare the results of various measures that will be undertaken in different professions and regions. The mass mobilization of the entire able‑bodied population by Soviet power, with the active participation of trade unions, for the performance of specific public works must be applied far more extensively and systematically than has been done up to now.

(5) In the realm of distribution, the task of Soviet power at present consists in steadily advancing the replacement of trade with a systematic, nationally coordinated distribution of goods. The goal is to organize the entire population into production‑consumption communes—communes capable of distributing all necessary products with the greatest possible speed, in a planned and efficient manner, with minimal labor expenditure, while rigorously centralizing the entire distribution apparatus. As a transitional means toward this goal, cooperatives serve as a crucial instrument. Their utilization presents a task that is, in many respects, akin to the engagement of bourgeois specialists—after all, at the helm of the cooperative apparatus we have inherited from capitalism stand individuals whose modes of thought and management are steeped in bourgeois habits. The RCP must systematically pursue its policy of compelling all party members to work within cooperatives, guiding them—in close collaboration with trade unions—toward a communist ethos, fostering both the self‑initiative and the discipline of the working population organized into cooperatives. It must strive to ensure that every member of the population is brought under the umbrella of cooperative organizations, and that these cooperatives coalesce into a single, top‑to‑bottom network spanning the entire Soviet Republic—a unified cooperative system. Most importantly, it must continuously secure the proletarian class’s dominant influence over the remaining strata of the working people, while at the same time testing in practice a wide array of measures designed to facilitate and effect the transition from small‑bourgeois cooperatives of the old, capitalist type to production‑consumption communes led by proletarians and semi‑proletarians.

(6) To eliminate money entirely in the early stages of the transition from capitalism to communism appears impossible. Consequently, bourgeois elements within the population continue to exploit the monetary signs still held in private ownership—those very tokens that confer upon exploiters the right to appropriate society’s collective wealth—for purposes of speculation, profit‑seeking, and the plunder of the working classes. Nationalizing the banks alone is insufficient to combat this lingering relic of bourgeois exploitation. The RCP will endeavor to implement, as rapidly as possible, the most radical measures aimed at abolishing money—primarily by replacing it with savings books, checks, short‑term vouchers entitling holders to public goods, and the like—while also instituting mandatory deposit requirements for bank accounts and other such measures. Practical experience in preparing for and carrying out these and similar measures will reveal which among them prove most expedient.

(7) In the realm of finance, the RCP will introduce progressive income and property taxes whenever feasible. Yet such instances will be few and far between once private ownership of land—and of the majority of factories, plants, and other enterprises—is abolished. During the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat and state ownership of the most critical means of production, the state’s finances must rest on the direct reinvestment of a portion of revenues derived from various state monopolies, channeling those funds toward the needs of the state itself. Balancing revenue and expenditure becomes possible only through the proper organization of commodity exchange—a process facilitated by the establishment of production‑consumption communes and the restoration of transportation, which stands as one of the Soviet authorities’ foremost immediate objectives.

In the agrarian sphere, following the abolition of private land ownership, the near‑total expropriation of landed gentry, and the enactment of the Land Socialization Law—which recognizes the superiority of large-scale, communal land management—the primary task of Soviet power is to identify and test in practice the most sensible and practical transitional measures in this direction.

Under these circumstances, the RCP’s overarching line and guiding principle in agrarian policy remains the steadfast effort to rely on the proletarian and semi‑proletarian elements of the countryside. Above all, these groups must be organized into an independent force; they must be brought closer to the urban proletariat and wrested from the sway of the rural bourgeoisie and petty‑property interests. The establishment of poor peasants’ committees was one step along this path; the organization of party cells in the countryside, the re‑election of sovdep councils with the exclusion of kulaks, and the creation of a special type of trade union for proletarians and semi‑proletarians in the villages—these and similar measures must be pursued with unwavering consistency.

With regard to the kulaks and the rural bourgeoisie, the RCP’s policy is one of resolute struggle against their exploitative tendencies, of crushing their resistance to Soviet, socialist policies.

As for the middle peasantry, the RCP’s policy toward them calls for a cautious approach: they must be kept separate from the kulaks, and no measures of repression should ever be extended to them. By virtue of their class position, the middle peasantry may become allies of proletarian power in the transition to socialism—or at the very least, remain a neutral element. Therefore, despite the inevitable partial setbacks and hesitations among the middle peasantry, we must persistently seek agreement with them, carefully attending to all their aspirations and making concessions in determining the specific methods for carrying out socialist transformations. At the forefront of this effort must be the fight against abuses committed by certain representatives of Soviet power who, falsely claiming the title of communists, pursue not a communist, but rather a bureaucratic, hierarchical policy in practice—and the ruthless expulsion of such individuals, once stricter oversight is established, whether through trade unions or by other means.

As for the measures for transitioning to communist agriculture, the RCP will put into practice the three principal measures already forged by life itself: Soviet farms, agricultural communes, and associations (as well as partnerships) for the collective cultivation of land—taking care to ensure their broader and more appropriate application, with particular emphasis on ways to foster the voluntary participation of peasants in these new forms of cooperative farming, and on organizing the working peasantry so that it may exercise bottom-up oversight and uphold cooperative discipline.

In the realm of food policy, the RCP advocates the consolidation and expansion of the state monopoly, without abandoning the use of cooperatives, private merchants, or commercial agents, nor foregoing the system of incentives—provided that such measures are subject to the oversight of Soviet power and serve the goal of achieving the most effective organizational arrangement. The partial concessions that must from time to time be made arise solely from specific, acute surges in need; they never lead to a renunciation of the steadfast pursuit of the state monopoly. In a country characterized by small peasant holdings, its realization is exceedingly difficult, demanding prolonged effort and the practical testing of a series of transitional measures that, through various pathways, ultimately converge on the goal: the widespread organization and proper functioning of producer–consumer communes, with all surplus foodstuffs being transferred to the state.