Comrade Lenin dwelt at considerable length on the question of the struggle against bureaucratism, which our so-called "opposition" puts forward as virtually a matter of principle in their disagreements with the majority of the provincial conference. While recognizing as healthy in the "opposition" the very fact of placing this question on the agenda, Comrade Lenin at the same time fell upon the opposition for their frivolous approach to it. Pointing out the causes of the revival of bureaucratism in our Soviet state and the roots that nourish it at present, Comrade Lenin warned the comrades most energetically against the notion that this evil can be combated by means of paper resolutions, by bare criticism devoid of substance. After all, both the Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries, who wish to capitalize on this question, reproach us for being unable to overcome bureaucratism in our Soviet apparatus. At one time these gentlemen said that we would not be able to defend our Soviet state, but now they say: "We managed to defend it, true enough, but bureaucratism in Soviet institutions has remained, despite the fact that Lenin, they say, wrote in such-and-such a book that under Soviet power bureaucratism would be destroyed."

But this is altogether not the case.

First and foremost, the general conditions of life must be improved, so that a worker does not have to run around with a sack looking for bread, so that hundreds of thousands and millions of laboring people pass through the school of the Workers' and Peasants' Inspectorate and learn to govern the state (after all, no one taught us this), so that they are able to replace hundreds of thousands of bourgeois bureaucrats.

By the way, concerning the Workers' and Peasants' Inspectorate{42}. This organ was created about a year ago, but has so far demonstrated little activity as a school for preparation in governing the state. In this sphere it would not be amiss for comrades who genuinely wish to accelerate the struggle against bureaucratism to work and extract useful lessons.

Comrade Lenin noted that the question of the struggle against bureaucratism stands especially acutely precisely in Moscow because here comrades have to deal not only with Moscow bureaucrats, but with all-Russian ones, thanks to the presence here of central institutions. Moscow has 200,000 Soviet employees, of whom in the near future only 10,000 can be resettled to Petrograd together with the corresponding institutions.

Bureaucratism in the Soviet apparatus could not help but penetrate into the Party apparatus, for these apparatuses are closely interwoven with one another. The struggle against this evil at present can and must be placed on the agenda, but placed not in the plane of criticism for its own sake, but in the plane of practical instructions on methods of this struggle, and even better—in the plane of actual struggle in those institutions where the comrades who are criticizing work, and of reports on the results and lessons of this struggle.

Concluding Remarks

In his concluding remarks, Comrade Lenin pointed out in fairly sharp terms to his "opponents" that such baseless criticism, such blanket accusations against the Central Committee without presenting even a single fact, flinging names about, even if they are specialists, heaping them into one pile of "bourgeois," without attempting to find out who they actually are—such conduct is unbecoming of communists. Comrade Lenin named a whole series of names of workers who have managed to distinguish themselves in joint work with specialists, establish proper relations with them, and extract from them what is needed. Such workers do not complain about specialists; it is those who have not justified themselves in their work who grumble. Take, for instance, Comrade Shlyapnikov (one of the opponents, who has presented himself as a member of the "Workers' Opposition"{43}), who is trying with all his might, as Comrade Lenin put it, to "sit out disagreements from under himself," arguing against what was said in Comrade Lenin's report—that we are in debt to the peasantry—and pointing out that here, allegedly, the "opposition disagrees with Comrade Lenin." Or that same Shlyapnikov, who stubbornly closes his eyes to his unsuccessful work, and insists on depicting a trip to Arkhangelsk as exile by order of the Central Committee. Or Comrade Bubnov, who spoke so much about the struggle against bureaucratism and reported nothing about how he combats bureaucratism at least in his own Glavtekstil', where there is no less bureaucratism, and perhaps more, than in other institutions. Therefore, warned Vladimir Ilich his comrades of Zamoskvorechye, when you hear such criticism, criticism without substance, criticism for its own sake, be on your guard, look closely—perhaps the criticizing comrade has had his amour-propre wounded in some way, perhaps he is personally offended or irritated by something, which drives him toward an unfounded opposition, toward opposition for opposition's sake.

In conclusion, Comrade Lenin answered the submitted questions, dwelling in greater detail on the matter of concessions.

"Pravda" No. 273, December 4, 1920

Printed from the text of the newspaper "Pravda"