Comrades, the principal attacks were provoked by that aspect of the Central Committee’s political report which Comrade Sapronov called swearing. Comrade Sapronov imparted an extremely definite character and flavour to the position he defended, and in order to show you how matters stand from the factual side, I should like to begin by recalling certain basic dates. Here before me is the *Izvestia of the C.C., R.C.P.* of March 2; we are publishing, on behalf of the Central Committee, a letter to the organisations of the R.C.P. on the question of organising the congress. And in the first letter, we say: “The time for purely theoretical discourse, for disputes over general questions, for the passing of resolutions of principle, has fortunately passed. That is a stage already traversed, a task decided yesterday and the day before. We must go forward, we must be able to understand that we now face a practical task; that with all our strength, with truly revolutionary energy, with the same selflessness with which our best comrades, the workers and peasants—the Red Army men—defeated Kolchak, Yudenich, and Denikin, we must solve the businesslike task of achieving the swiftest victory over ruin.”

I must confess that I was at fault here in the optimism with which I thought that the time for theoretical discourse had passed. Indeed, for fifteen years before the revolution, we theorised; for two years, we have administered the state; we must now display businesslike efficiency and practicality—and so on March 2, we appeal to comrades who have practical experience. In response to this, on March 10, Tomsky’s theses are published in *Ekonomicheskaya Zhizn*{110}; on March 23, the theses of Comrades Sapronov, Osinsky, and Maximovsky; on March 27, the theses of the Moscow Gubernia Committee appear—i.e., already after our appeal to the party. And in all these theses, the question is posed theoretically incorrectly. If our point of view in the letter was optimistic, erroneous, if it seemed to us that we had already outlived that phase, then the theses indicated that it had not yet been outlived, and there is no cause for the comrades from the trade unions to complain that they have been treated unjustly. And now we face the question: is this point of view correct, or the position which all these theses defended after our appeal of March 2? Each of them contains a mass of practical material, and this must be taken into account. If the Central Committee had regarded this without serious attention, it would have been a devilishly worthless institution.

But listen to what Comrade Tomsky writes:

“§ 7. The fundamental principle in the structure of the organs of regulation and management of industry, the sole principle capable of ensuring the participation of the broad non-party worker masses through the trade unions, is the currently existing principle of collegial management of industry, from the Presidium of the Supreme Council of National Economy down to and including the factory management. Only in special cases, by mutual agreement of the Presidiums of the Supreme Council of National Economy and the All-Russian Central Council of Trade Unions or the Central Committee of the relevant unions, should one-man management of individual enterprises be permitted, under the indispensable condition of control over the one-man administrators by the trade unions and their organs. § 8. In order to ensure the implementation of the unity of the plan for economic construction and the establishment of coherence in the activity of the trade unions and the economic organs, the participation of the unions in the management and regulation of industry must be established on the basis of the following principles: a) general questions of economic policy are discussed by the Supreme Council of National Economy and its organs with the participation of the trade unions; b) the leading economic collegiums are formed by the Supreme Council of National Economy and its organs jointly with the corresponding organs of the trade unions; c) the collegiums of the economic organs, discussing jointly with the trade unions the general questions of economic policy of one or another branch of production and rendering them periodic reports on their activity, are organs solely of the Supreme Council of National Economy and are obliged to implement only its decisions; d) all collegiums of the economic organs are obliged to implement unquestioningly the decisions of the higher organs of the Supreme Council of National Economy, individually and collegially, answering for their fulfilment only before the Supreme Council of National Economy.”

This is a frightful confusion of elementary theoretical questions.

It is true that management proceeds through a one-man administrator, but who exactly will prove to be that administrator—a specialist or a worker—depends on how many administrators of the old and the new order we have. But these are elementary theoretical matters. Let us talk about that. If, however, you wish to discuss the political line of the Central Committee, then do not foist upon us anything we did not pose and did not say. When we appealed to comrades on March 2 to give us practical reinforcement, what did we receive in reply? In reply, comrades from the localities present us with patently incorrect theoretical matters. In the theses of Comrades Osinsky, Maximovsky, and Sapronov, which appeared on March 23, everything is one continuous theoretical distortion. They write that collegiality in one or another form constitutes the necessary foundation of democratism. I assert that in the fifteen years of pre-revolutionary history of Social-Democracy, you will find nothing of the sort. Democratic centralism means only that representatives from the localities assemble and elect a responsible body, which is then to govern. But how? That depends on how many capable people there are, on how many good administrators there are. Democratic centralism consists in the congress checking the Central Committee, removing it, and appointing a new one. But if we were to take it into our heads to verify all the theoretical inaccuracies that are written in these theses, we would never finish. I, in fact, will touch on this no further and will only say that the Central Committee took the line on this question that it could not but take. I know perfectly well that Comrade Osinsky and others do not share Makhnovist and Makhaevist views, but the Makhnovists cannot help seizing on their arguments. They are bound up with them. Take the theses of the Moscow Gubernia Committee of the party, which were distributed to us. Here it is said that in a developed socialist society, where the social division of labour and the attachment of people to professions will disappear, the periodic rotation of persons performing the function of management in turn is possible only on the basis of broad collegiality, etc., etc. All this is one continuous confusion!

We appealed to the local practitioners: help us with businesslike suggestions. Instead, we are told that the Central Committee takes no account of the localities. Takes no account of what? Of discourses about socialist society? There is not a shadow of practicality or businesslike efficiency here. Of course, we have excellent workers who borrow a great deal from the intelligentsia, but sometimes not the best, but the worst. Then we must struggle against this. But if, in response to the appeal of the Central Committee to give practical suggestions, you have raised questions of principle, then we must talk about them. Then we must say that it is necessary to struggle against inaccuracies of principle. The theses that were adopted after March 2 contain monstrous inaccuracies of principle.

This I assert. Let us talk about this and argue. There is no need to shrug this off! There is no need here to invoke the excuse that we are not theoreticians. Excuse me, Comrade Sapronov, your theses are the theses of a theoretician. You will see that if they are put into practice, it will be necessary to go backwards and to decide questions in a non-businesslike formulation. Those who would seek practical suggestions in the theses of Comrades Maximovsky, Sapronov, and Tomsky would be deeply mistaken; they are fundamentally incorrect. The attitude of the class to the structure of the state I consider fundamentally incorrect and dragging us backwards. This is, understandably, the position supported by all those elements who lag behind, who have not yet lived through all this. And the authors of these theses must be blamed not for consciously following slovenliness, but for the fact that by their theoretical error on a question which the Central Committee had proposed to them to pose in a businesslike way, they provide a certain banner, a certain justification, for the worst elements. And why was all this done? Through lack of reflection. This is established with complete incontestability by the authentic documents.

I shall pass to the accusation made by Comrade Yurenev concerning Comrade Shlyapnikov. If the Central Committee had removed Comrade Shlyapnikov, as a representative of the opposition, just before the congress, such a Central Committee would undoubtedly have committed a vile act. When we established that Comrade Shlyapnikov was going, we said in the Politburo that we were not giving him directives before his departure, and Comrade Shlyapnikov, on the eve of his departure, came to me and declared that he was not travelling on the directives of the Central Committee. Thus, Comrade Yurenev simply got hold of a rumour, and he is spreading it. (Yurenev: “Shlyapnikov told me this personally…”)

I do not know how he could tell you this personally when, before his departure, he was with me and said that he was not travelling on the directives of the Central Committee. Yes, of course, if the Central Committee were to exile the opposition before the congress, that is impermissible. But when people speak of exile in general, I say: then take the trouble to elect a Central Committee that could distribute forces correctly, but which would remove the possibility of complaining. How can distribution be done in such a way that everyone is satisfied? If there is no such distribution, then what is the point of talking about centralism? And if there was a distortion of principles, then let us talk about them with examples. If we exiled representatives of the opposition, then give us an example, which we shall consider; perhaps there have been errors. Perhaps Comrade Yurenev was exiled, who submitted a complaint to the Politburo that he had been incorrectly taken from the Western Front? But the Politburo, having examined the question, found that it had been done correctly. And whatever Central Committee you elect, it cannot renounce the distribution of forces.

Next, regarding the distribution of affairs between the Orgburo and the Politburo. Comrade Maximovsky is more experienced than I in organisational questions, and he says that Lenin is introducing confusion into questions of the Orgburo and the Politburo. Well, then, let us sort it out. In our view, the Orgburo distributes forces, and the Politburo is in charge of politics. If such a division is incorrect, how then are we to demarcate the activity of these two bodies? Write a constitution, or something? It is difficult to separate the Politburo and the Orgburo precisely, to demarcate their activity. Any question can become political, even the appointment of a commandant. If anyone proposes another solution, then by all means; Comrades Sapronov, Maximovsky, Yurenev, give us your proposals, try to separate, to demarcate the Orgburo and the Politburo. For us, a single protest by a member of the Central Committee is sufficient for a question to be recognised as political. And we have not had a single protest in all this time. Independent initiative is least of all restricted: any member of the Central Committee can declare a question political. And any more or less experienced practitioner in organisational questions, who understands things not as Comrade Maximovsky does, but a worker who has worked in this field for even six months, should bring forward not such criticism as Comrade Maximovsky’s. Let the critics give definite suggestions; we shall accept them and advise them to elect a new Central Committee, which will implement these wishes. But we received only objectless criticism, false assertions.

Let us suppose that you separate the Orgburo from political leadership. I ask, what will political leadership then consist of? Who guides, if not people, and how can one guide, if not by distributing? Can one really compel a person if he is incapable of implementing certain directives? He is given certain instructions, his work is verified, and finally he is placed in another job. And how else are we to teach Comrades Maximovsky, Sapronov, and Osinsky, who in their theses outline a theoretical amendment that was long ago rejected? In practice, they pursue an even worse thing and demonstrate that there is no material at all for businesslike criticism.

Comrade Sapronov spoke a great deal about oligarchy and independent initiative. It is a pity that he did not illustrate it with examples from Ukraine. There we see what attacks on oligarchy were levelled by the local conferences. This question the congress will examine, or will entrust to the Central Committee. But of the Ukrainian conference, at which the majority, headed by Sapronov, spoke out against Comrade Rakovsky and conducted a completely impermissible witch-hunt, we shall say that we do not recognise this decision of the regional conference. This is the decision of the Central Committee. If it was incorrect—call us to account, but do not shrug it off with phrases, for there are literate people here, and they will say—this is demagogy. If we are wrong in our assessment of the Ukrainian split, adduce facts showing that the Central Committee made a mistake.

We shall say that we do not recognise this conference of Comrade Sapronov, but are appointing two old comrades and two new ones, Comrade Zh… and the Borotbists. I have heard not a single protest either from Comrade Sapronov or from others, and not a single businesslike argument. If we had dispersed and disbanded an entire Ukrainian conference, then the alarm should have been sounded, and it should have been said that we are criminals. Instead, everyone keeps silent, because they sense that behind these phrases about independent initiative, etc., all the disorganising elements, the elements of philistinism and *atamanshchina*, which are very strong in Ukraine, took cover and hid themselves. (Applause.)

I heard one businesslike point in Comrade Sapronov’s speech, and I seized upon that point. Comrade Sapronov says: the Seventh Congress of Soviets prescribed, and we are violating its prescription, that the decree on the flax levy is a violation of the decision of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. I cannot remember even a tenth of the decrees we adopt. But I made inquiries in the Secretariat of the Council of People’s Commissars about the regulations on the flax levy{111}. The decree was passed on February 10. What was discovered? Neither in the Politburo nor in the All-Russian Central Executive Committee are there comrades who would be disposed against the defence of independent initiative. We saw them here on this rostrum. Comrades know that their tongues are very well hung. Why, then, did they not appeal against this decision? Submit your complaints! There was no such complaint after February 10. We, on the proposal of Comrade Rykov and by agreement with Comrade Sereda and the People’s Commissariat of Food, after a lengthy struggle, adopted this decision. We are told: “You have erred!” Perhaps. Correct us. Transfer this question to the Politburo. That would be a formal decision. Produce the minutes. If the minutes prove that we violated the decision of the congress, we must be brought to trial. Where is this accusation? On the one hand, reproaches over Shlyapnikov, and on the other hand, it is said that we violated the decision on flax. Take the trouble to adduce evidence that we violated the decision. But you do not adduce facts. All your words remain mere words: independent initiative, appointmentism, etc. Then what is centralism for? Could we have held out for two months if we had not made appointments over the course of two years, when in various places we passed from complete exhaustion and ruin back to victory? Because you do not like the recall of Comrade Shlyapnikov or Comrade Yurenev, you fling these words into the crowd, into the unconscious masses. Comrade Lutovinov says: “The question is not decided.” It has to be decided. If two People’s Commissars diverged in their assessment of Ivan Ivanovich, and one asserts that there is politics involved—what is to be done? Indicate the way! Do you think that tedious questions exist only in the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee? I say that there is no institution where there are no tedious questions, and everyone has to sort out the question of Maria Ivanovna and Sidor Ivanovich. But to say that there is no politics is impossible, because politics passes through every head. Comrade Lutovinov had…—I do not know how to put it, I fear offending the delicacy of Comrade Sapronov’s hearing and fear using a polemical expression—but he said that Comrade Krestinsky threatened a split. On this score, there was a meeting of the bureau. There are minutes of the bureau, and I ask all members of the congress to take these minutes and read them[^11]. We came to the conclusion that Comrade Krestinsky showed hot-headedness, while on your side, Comrades Lutovinov and Tomsky, there was a very foul-smelling squabble. Perhaps we are wrong—correct our decision, but it is impermissible to speak in this manner without reading the documents, without referring to the fact that there was a special meeting, that the matter was examined in the presence of Tomsky and Lutovinov.

It remains for me to touch on two more points, first of all the appointment of Comrades Bukharin and Radek. It is said that we sent them as political commissars to the All-Russian Central Council of Trade Unions, and here they think to play on the canvas that independent initiative is being violated, that bureaucratism is being introduced. Perhaps you know better theoreticians than Radek and Bukharin—well then, give them to us; perhaps you know better people, acquainted with the trade union movement—give them to us. What? The Central Committee has no right to add to a trade union people who are the best theoretically acquainted with the trade union movement, and acquainted with the German experience, and who can exert influence on an incorrect line? A Central Committee that did not fulfil this task could not govern! The more we are surrounded by peasants and Kuban Cossacks, the more difficult our position with the proletarian dictatorship becomes! Therefore, we must straighten out the line and make it steely, no matter what, and we recommend this line to the party congress.

Comrade Bubnov said here that he is closely bound up with Ukraine, and by this he gave away the true character of his objections. He said that the Central Committee is to blame for the strengthening of the Borotbists. This is a most complex and most major question, and I think that in this most major question, where manoeuvring was required—and very complex manoeuvring—we emerged victorious. When we in the Central Committee spoke of maximum concessions to the Borotbists, people laughed at this, said that we were not going straight; but one can fight head-on only when the enemy has a straight line. Since the enemy moves in zigzags and not along a straight line, we must follow him and catch him at all his zigzags. We promised the Borotbists a maximum of concessions, but on the condition that they would pursue a communist policy. By this means, we proved that we have not the slightest intolerance. And that these concessions were made entirely correctly is proved by the fact that all the best elements of the Borotbists have now entered our party. We re-registered that party, and instead of an uprising of the Borotbists, which was inevitable, we received—thanks to the correct line of the Central Committee, brilliantly carried out by Comrade Rakovsky—the result that all that was best among the Borotbists entered our party under our control, with our recognition, and the rest vanished from the political scene. This victory is worth a couple of good battles. Therefore, to say that the Central Committee is to blame for the strengthening of the Borotbists means not understanding the political line on the national question.

I shall touch also on the speech of the last comrade, who said that we must throw out of the programme what is said about the trade unions. Here is a sample of hastiness. We do not do things so lightly. We assert that nothing needs to be thrown out; it must be discussed in pamphlets, articles, in the press, etc. The trade unions are moving towards taking economic life, industry in particular, into their hands. Talk about not including specialists in the trade unions is a prejudice. The trade unions are educators, and they are held strictly to account. The Central Committee will not tolerate a bad educator. Education is a long and difficult matter. It cannot be disposed of with a decree; we must approach it patiently and skilfully, and we are moving towards this and shall continue to do so. The matter requires great cautiousness but firmness.

[^11]: See *Desyatyi syezd R.K.P. (b). Stenograficheskiy otchyot* (Moscow, 1963), p. 843.