V. I. Lenin

The pre-Congress discussion is in full swing. Minor differences and disagreements have grown into big ones, which
always happens when someone persists in a minor mistake and balks
at its correction, or when those who are making a big mistake
seize on the minor mistake of one or more persons.

That is how disagreements and splits always grow. That is how
we “grew up”from minor disagreements to syndicalism, which means a complete break with communism and an inevitable
split in the Party if it is not healthy and strong enough to purge
itself of the malaise.

We must have the courage to face the bitter truth. The Party is
sick. The Party is down with the fever. The whole point is whether
the malaise has affected only the “feverish upper ranks”, and perhaps only those in Moscow, or the whole
organism. And if the latter is the case, is it capable of healing
itself completely within the next few weeks, before the Party
Congress and at the Party Congress, making a relapse impossible,
or will the malaise linger and become dangerous?

What is it that needs to be done for a rapid and certain cure?
All members of the Party must make a calm and painstaking
study of 1) the essence of the disagreements and 2) the
development of the Party struggle. A study must be made of both,
because the essence of the disagreements is revealed, clarified
and specified (and very often transformed as well) in the
course of the struggle , which, passing through its various stages, always shows, at every stage, a different
line-up and number of combatants, different positions in
the struggle, etc. A study must be made of both, and a demand made
for the most exact, printed documents that can be thoroughly
verified. Only a hopeless idiot will believe oral statements. If
no documents are available, there must be an examination
of witnesses on both or several sides and the grilling must take
place in the presence of witnesses.

Let me outline the essence of the disagreements and the
successive stages in the struggle, as I see them.

Stage one. The Fifth All-Russia Trade Union Conference November
2-6. The battle is joined. Trotsky and Tomsky are the only Central
Committee ’’combatants’’. Trotsky lets drop a “catchy phrase”about “shaking
up”the trade unions. Tomsky argues very heatedly. The majority of the Central Committee members are on the fence. The
serious mistake they (and I above all) made was that we
“overlooked”Rudzutak’s theses, The Tasks of the Trade Unions in Production , adopted by the Fifth
Conference. That is the most important document in the whole of the controversy.

Stage two. The Central Committee Plenum of November 9 Trotsky
submits his “draft theses”, The Trade Unions and Their Future Role , advocating the
“shake-up”policy camouflaged or adorned with talk of a “severe crisis”gripping the trade unions,
and their new tasks and methods Tomsky, strongly supported by
Lenin, considers that in view of Tsektran’s irregularities
and bureaucratic excesses it is the “shake-up”that is the crux of the whole controversy. In the course of it, Lenin
makes a number of obviously exaggerated and therefore mistaken
“attacks”, which produces the need for a “buffer group”, and this is made up of ten members of the Central
Committee (the group includes Bukharin and Zinoviev, but neither
Trotsky nor Lenin). It resolves “not to put the disagreements up for broad discussion”, and, cancelling Lenin’s report (to the trade unions), appoints Zinoviev
as the rapporteur and instructs him to “present a business-like and non-controversial report.

Trotsky’s theses are rejected. Lenin’s theses are adopted in its final form, the resolution is adopted by ten votes
to four (Trotsky, Andreyev, Krestinsky and Rykov). And this
resolution advocates “sound forms of the militarisation of
labour”, condemns “the degeneration of centralism and militarised forms of work into bureaucratic practices, petty
tyranny, red-tape”, etc. Tsektran is instructed to “take a more active part in the general work of the
All-Russia Central Council of Trade Unions, being incorporated in
it on an equal footing with other trade union bodies.

The Central Committee sets up a trade union commission and
elects Comrade Trotsky to it. He refuses to work on the
commission, magnifying by this step alone his original mistake, which subsequently leads to factionalism. Without that
step, his mistake (in submitting incorrect theses) remained a very
minor one, such as every member of the Central Committee, without
exception, has had occasion to make.

Stage three. The conflict between the water transport workers
and Tsektran in December. The Central Committee Plenary Meeting of
December 7. It is no longer Trotsky and Lenin, but Trotsky and
Zinoviev who are the chief “combatants”.As chairman of the trade union commission, Zinoviev inquires into the December
dispute between the water transport workers and Tsektran. The
Central Committee Plenary Meeting of December 7. Zinoviev makes a
practical proposal for an immediate change in the composition of
Tsektran. This is opposed by a majority of the Central
Committee. Rykov goes over to Zinoviev’s side. Bukharin’s resolution—the substantive part of
which is three-quarters in favour of the water transport workers,
while the preamble, rejecting the proposal to “reconstruct”the trade unions “from
above”(§3), approves of the celebrated “industrial democracy”(§5)—is adopted. Our
group of Central Committee members is in the minority, being
opposed to Bukharin’s resolution chiefly because we consider
the “buffer”a paper one; for Trotsky’s non-participation in the trade union commission’s work
actually implies a continuation of the struggle and its transfer
outside the Central Committee. We propose that the Party Congress
be convened on February 6, 1921. That is adopted. The postponement
to March 6 was agreed to later, on the demand of the outlying
areas.

Stage four. The Eighth Congress of Soviets. On December 25,
Trotsky issues his “platform pamphlet “, The Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions . From the standpoint of formal
democracy, Trotsky had an uncontested right to issue his platform,
for on December 24 the Central Committee had permitted free
discussion. From the standpoint of revolutionary interest, this
was blowing up the mistake out of all proportion and creating a faction on a faulty platform. The pamphlet quotes from the
Central Committee resolution of December 7 only that part which
refers to “industrial democracy”but does not quote what was said against “reconstruction from
above”. The buffer created by Bukharin on December 7 with
Trotsky’s aid was wrecked by Trotsky on December 25. The
pamphlet from beginning to end is shot through with the
“shake-up”spirit. Apart from its intellectualist flourishes (“production atmosphere”, “industrial
democracy”), which are wrong in theory and in practice fall
within the concept, ambit and tasks of production propaganda, it
fails to indicate any “new”“tasks or methods”that were to gild or camouflage or justify the
“shake-up”.

Stage five. The discusson before thousands of responsible Party
workers from all over Russia at the R.C.P. group of the Eighth
Congress of Soviets on December 30. The controversy flares up to
full blast. Zinoviev and Lenin on one side, Trotsky and Bukharin
on the other. Bukharin wants to play the “buffer, but speaks
only against Lenin and Zinoviev, and not a word against
Trotsky. Bukharin reads out an excerpt from his theses (published
on January 16), but only that part which says nothing about the
rupture with communism and the switch to syndicalism. Shlyapnikov
(on behalf of the Workers’ Opposition [1] ) reads out the syndicalist platform, which Trotsky had demolished before
hand (thesis 16 of his platform) and which (partly, perhaps, for
that reason) no one is inclined to take seriously.

In my opinion, the climax of the whole discussion of December
30 was the reading of Comrade Rudzutak’s theses. Indeed,
Comrades Trotsky and Bukharin, far from being able to object to
them, even invented the legend that the “best part”of the theses had been drawn up by members of Tsektran —Holtzmann, Andreyev and Lyubimov. And that is
why Trotsky humorously and amiably twitted Lenin on his
unsuccessful “diplolacy”, by which, he said, Lenin had wanted to “call off or disrupt”the discussion, and
find a “lightning conductor”, “accidentally catching hold of Tsektran instead of the lightning
conductor”.

The legend was exploded that very day, December 30, by
Rudzutak, who pointed out that Lyubimov “did not exist”on the All-Russia Central Council of Trade Unions,
that in its presidium Holtzmann had voted against these theses,
and that they had been drawn up by a commission consisting of
Andreyev, Tsiperovich and himself. [2]

But let us for a moment assume that Comrades Trotsky and
Bukharin’s legend is true. Nothing so completely defeats
them as such an assumption. For what is the conclusion if the
“Tsektranites”had inserted their “new”ideas into Rudzutak’s resolution, if
Rudzutak had accepted them, if all the trade unions had adopted
this resolution (November 2-6!), and if Bukharin and Trotsky have
nothing to say against it?

It is that all of Trotsky’s disagreements are artificial,
that neither he nor the “Tsektranites” have any “new tasks or
methods”, and that everything practical and substantive had
been said, adopted and decided upon by the trade unions,
even before the question was raised in the Central Committee .

If anyone ought to be taken thoroughly to task and “shaken up”, it is not the All-Russia Central Council
of Trade Unions but the Central Committee of the R.C.P., for
having “overlooked”Rudzutak’s theses, a mistake which allowed an altogether empty discussion to flare up. There is
nothing to cover up the mistake of the Tsektranites (which is not an excessive one but is, in essence, a very common
one, consisting in some exaggeration of bureaucracy). What is
more, it needs to be rectified, and not covered up, toned down or
justified. That’s all there is to it.

I summed up the substance of Rudzutak’s theses on
December 30 in four points: 1) Ordinary democracy (without any
exaggerations, without denying the Central Committee’s right
of “appointment”, etc., but also without any obstinate defence of the mistakes and excesses of certain
“appointees”, which need to be rectified); 2)
Production propaganda (this includes all that is practical in
clumsy, ridiculous, theoretically wrong “formulas”like “industrial democracy”, “production
atmosphere”, etc.). We have established a Soviet institution , the All-Russia Production Propaganda Bureau. We
must do everything to support it and not spoil production work by
producing . . . bad theses . That’s all there is to it; 3) Bonuses in kind and 4) Disciplinary comrades’
courts. Without Points 3 and 4, all talk about “the role and
tasks in production”, etc., is empty, highbrow chatter; and
it is these two points that are omitted from Trotsky’s “platform pamphlet”. But they are in Rudzutak’s
theses.

While dealing with the December 30 discussion, I must correct
another mistake of mine. I said: “Ours is not actually a
workers’ state but a workers’ and peasants’ state.”Comrade Bukharin immediately exclaimed: ’What
kind of a state?”In reply I referred him to the Eighth
Congress of Soviets, which had just closed. I went back to the
report of that discussion and found that I was wrong and Comrade
Bukharin was right. What I should have said is: “A workers’ state is an abstraction. What we actually have is a
workers’ state, with this peculiarity, firstly, that it is
not the working class but the peasant population that predominates
in the country, and, secondly, that it is a workers’ state
with bureaucratic distortions.”Anyone who reads the whole of
my speech will see that this correction makes no difference to my
reasoning or conclusions.

Stage six. The Petrograd organisation issues an “Appeal
to the Party”against Trotsky’s platform, and the
Moscow Committee issues a counter-statement ( Pravda , January 13 [3] ).

This is a transition from the struggle between factions, formed
from above, to the intervention of lower organisations. It is a
big step towards recovery. Curiously enough, the Moscow Committee
noticed the “dangerous”side of the Petrograd organisation ’s issuing a platform, but refused to
notice the dangerous side of Comrade Trotsky’s forming a faction on December 25! Some wags have said this is
“buffer”(one-eyed) blindness.

Stage seven. The trade union commission concludes its work and
issues a platform (a pamphlet, entitled Draft Decision of the Tenth Congress of the R.C.P. on the Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions , [4] dated January 14 and signed by nine
members of the Central Committee—Zinoviev, Stalin, Tomsky,
Rudzutak, Kalinin, Kamenev, Petrovsky, Artyom and Lenin, and also
by Lozovsky, a member of the trade union commission; Comrades
Shlyapnikov and Lutovinov seem to have “fled”to the
Workers’ Opposition). It was published in Pravda on
January 18, with the following additional signatures: Schmidt,
Tsiperovich and Milyutin.

On January 16, Pravda carries the Bukharin platform (signed: “On behalf of a group of comrades, Bukharin, Larin,
Preobrazhensky, Serebryakov, Sokolnikov, Yakovleva”) and the
Sapronov platform (signed: “A group of comrades standing for
democratic centralism”, Bubnov, Boguslavsky, Kamensky, Maximovsky, Osinsky, Rafail, Sapronov). [5] The enlarged meeting
of the Moscow Committee on January 17 was addressed by spokesmen
for these platforms, and also by the
’’Ignatovites’’ [6] (theses published in
Pravda on January 19 and signed by Ignatov, Orekhov, Korzinov,
Kuranova, Burovtsev, Maslov). [7]

What we find here is, on the one hand, increased solidarity
(for the platform of the nine Central Committee members is in
complete accord with the decision of the Fifth All-Russia
Conference of Trade Unions); and, on the other, confusion and
disintegration, with Bukharin and Co.’s theses being an
all-time low in ideological disintegration. We have here
one of those “turns”which in the old days Marxists used to call “not so much historical as
hysterical”. Thesis 17 says: “At the present time, these nominations must be made mandatory ”(that is,
the trade unions’ nominations to the respective “chief administrations and central boards”).

This is a clean break with communism and a transition to
syndicalism. It is, in essence, a repetition of
Shlyapnikov’s “unionise the state”slogan, and means transferring the Supreme Economic Council apparatus
piecemeal to the respective trade unions. To say, “I propose
mandatory nominations”, is exactly the same as saying, “I appoint”.

Communism says: The Communist Party, the vanguard of the
proletariat, leads the non-Party workers’ masses, educating,
preparing, teaching and training the masses (“school”of communism)—first the workers and
then the peasants—to enable them eventually to concentrate
in their hands the administration of the whole national
economy.

Syndicalism hands over to the mass of non-Party workers, who
are compartmentalised in the industries, the management of their
industries (“the chief administrations and central boards”), thereby making the Party superfluous, and failing
to carry on a sustained campaign either in training the masses or
in actually concentrating in their hands the management of the whole national economy .

The Programme of the R.C.P. says: “The trade unions should eventually arrive ”(which means that they
are not yet there or even on the way) “at a de facto concentration in their hands”(in their ,
that is, the hands of the trade unions, that is, the hands of the
fully organised masses ; anyone will see how far we have
still to go even to the very first approaches to this de facto concentration) . . . concentration of what? “of
the whole administration of the whole national economy, as a
single economic entity”thence, not branches of industry, or
even industry as a whole, but industry plus agriculture,
etc. Are we anywhere near to actually concentrating the management
of agriculture in the hands of the trade unions?). The
R.C.P. Programme then speaks of the “ties”between the “central state administration”and the “broad
masses of toilers”, and of the “ participation of the trade unions in running the economy”.

Why have a Party, if industrial management is to be appointed
(“mandatory nomination”) by the trade unions nine-tenths of whose members are non-Party workers? Bukharin has
talked himself into a logical, theoretical and practical
implication of a split in the Party, or, rather, a breakaway of
the syndicalists from the Party.

Trotsky, who had been “chief”in the struggle, has now been “outstripped”and entirely
“eclipsed”by Bukharin, who has thrown the struggle into an altogether new balance by talking himself into a mistake
that is much more serious than all of Trotsky’s put together.

How could Bukharin talk himself into a break with communism? We
know how soft Comrade Bukharin is; it is one of the qualities
which endears him to people, who cannot help liking him. We know
that he has been ribbed for being as “soft as wax”.It turns out that any “unprincipled”person, any
“demagogue”can leave any mark he likes on this “soft wax”. The sharp words in quotation marks were
used by Comrade Kamenev, during the January 17 discussion, and he
had a perfect right to do so. But, of course, neither Kamenev nor
anyone else would dream of attributing or reducing it all
to unprincipled demagogy .

On the contrary, there is an objective logic in factional
struggles which inevitably leads even the best of men—if
they persist in their mistaken attitude—into a state which
differs little if at all from unprincipled demagogy. That is the
lesson of the entire history of factional wars (for example, the
alliance of the Vperyodists and the Mensheviks against the
Bolsheviks [8] ). That is why we must make a study not only of the nature of the disagreements in the abstract, but also
of their concrete development and change at the various stages of
the struggle. This development was summed up in the January 17
discussion. [9] Neither the “shake-up”nor the “new production tasks”can any longer be advocated
(because all the efficient and sensible ideas went into
Rudzutak’s theses). The alternative then is to find what
Lassalle called “the physical strength of mind”(and character) to admit the mistake, rectify it and turn over this
page of the history of the R.C.P., or—to cling to the remaining allies, no matter who they are, and
“ignore”the principles altogether. There remain only the adherents of “democracy” ad nauseam . And
Bukharin is sliding down towards them and syndicalism.

While we are slowly absorbing what was sound in the “democratic”Workers’ Opposition, Bukharin has to
cling to what is unsound . On January 17, Comrade
Bumazhny, a prominent Tsektranite, or Trotskyite, expressed his
readiness to accept Bukharin’s syndicalist proposals. The
“Sapronovites”have gone so far as to insist in the same thesis (3) on a “profound crisis”and a
“bureaucratic necrosis”of the trade unions, while proposing, as being “absolutely”necessary, the
“extension of the trade unions’ rights in production”. . . probably because of their
“bureaucratic necrosis"? Can this group be taken seriously?
They had heard the talk about the role of the trade unions in
production, and wishing to outshout the others, blurted out:
“extension of rights”on the occasion of “bureaucratic necrosis”. You need read no more than the
first few lines of their “practical”proposals:
“The presidium of the Supreme Economic Council shall be
nominated by the All-Russia Central Council of Trade Unions and
confirmed by the All-Russia Central Executive Committee.”And
what is their democratic position in “principle"?
Listen to this (thesis 2): “They [Zinoviev and Trotsky] [10] in fact express two trends within the
same group of ex-militarisers of the economy .”

Taken seriously, this is Menshevism and
Socialist-Revolutionarism at their worst. But Sapronov, Osinsky
and Co. should not be taken seriously, when, before every Party
congress (“every blessed time on this very same spot”), these, I believe, superlative workers have a sort of
paroxysmal seizure and try to outshout the others (the “champion shouter”faction) and solemnly make a hash of
things. The “Ignatovites”try to keep up with the “Sapronovites”.It is, of course, quite permissible
(specially before a congress) for various groups to form blocs
(and also to go vote chasing). But this should he done within the
framework of communism (and not syndicalism) and in such a way as
to avoid being ridiculous. Who is the highest bidder? Promisers of
more “rights”to non-Party people, unite on the occasion of the congress of the Russian Communist Party! . . .

Our platform up to now has been: Do not defend but rectify the
bureaucratic excesses. The fight against bureaucracy is a long and
arduous one. Excesses can and must be rectified at once. It is not
those who point out harmful excesses and strive to rectify them
but those who resist rectificatien that undermine the prestige of
the military workers and appointees. Such were the excesses of
certain Tsektranites who, however, will continue to be (and have
been) valuable workers. There is no need to harass the trade
unions by inventing disagreements with them, when they themselves
have decided upon and accepted all that is new, business-like and
practical in the tasks of the trade unions in production. On this
basis, let us vigorously work together for practical results.

We have now added to our platform the following: We must combat
the ideological discord and the unsound elements of the opposition
who talk themselves into repudiating all “militarisation of
industry”, and not only the “appointments method”, which has been the prevailing one up to now, but
all “appointments”, that is, in the last analysis, repudiating the Party ’s leading role in relation to
the non-Party masses. We must combat the syndicalist deviation,
which will kill the Party unless it is entirely cured of it.

The Entente [11] capitalists will surely try to take advantage of our Party’s malaise to mount another invasion,
and the Socialist-Revolutionaries, to hatch plots and rebellions. We need have no fear of this because we shall all
unite as one man, without being afraid to admit the malaise, but
recognising that it demands from all of us a greater discipline,
tenacity and firmness at every post. By the time the Tenth
Congress of the R.C.P. meets in March, and after the Congress, the
Party will not be weaker, but stronger.

January 19, 1921

Endnotes

[1]
The Workers’ Opposition See Glossary Entry

[2]
At a joint meeting of the Party groups of the Eighth Congress of
Soviets, the All-Russia Central Council of Trade Unions and the
Moscow City Council of Trade Unions, an argument took place as to
whether Y. E. Rudzutak was the author of the theses, The Tasks of the Trade Unions in Production . Lenin asked the Trade
Union Central Council for documents on the origin of the
theses. He was given an extract from record No. 44 of the minutes
of November 1, and a covering note from S. A. Lozovsky. The
extract proved that the Presidium had discussed and adopted
Rudzutak’s theses as a basis and had instructed M. P. Tomsky
and Rudiutak to put finishing touches to the theses. The note said
this was done by Rudzutak alone. The Fifth All-Russia Conference
of Trade Unions heard Rudzutak’s report, adopted his theses
as a basis and elected a commission, consisting of
G. V. Tsiperovich, A. A. Andreyev and Rudzutak, to edit them. They
worked out several points and amplified the theses.

Lenin sent the documents and Rudzutak’s theses to Pravda with his covering letter, which said:
“I request the Editorial Board to publish Rudzutak’s theses, which were adopted by the Fifth All-Russia Trade Union
Conference of November 2-6, 1920, and are indispensable to the
discussion. I enclose additional material on the disagreements in
Party circles concerning the origin of these theses.”The
documents and Lenin’s Ietter were published in
Pravda No. 13 on January 21, 1921.

[3]
The “Appeal to the Party”was adopted at a discussion meeting of the representatives of Petrograd district Party
organisations on January 3, 1921. On January 6, it was approved by
a city meeting in People’s House which was attended by over
4,000 Party members and candidates. Only 20 votes were cast
against it. When it was discussed in the district Party
organisations it had the support of 95-98 per cent of the
membership.

The Petrograd Bolsheviks supported Lenin and opposed Trotsky on the question of the trade unions’ role
and tasks. They called the other Party organisations to follow
Lenin and stressed the danger of Trotsky’s platform, for its
realisation would have abolished the trade unions and undermined
the dictatorship of the proletariat. Pravda No. 7 of
January 13 published the Appeal and also the counter-statement of
the Moscow Party Committee, which at that time took a “buffer”stand. In a resolution published in the same
issue of Pravda the Moscow Committee said that it found
“it absolutely impossible”to accept the Petrograd proposals; it said the Petrograd Party organisation’s stand
showed its “extremely dangerous”tendency to become a special centre for preparing thc Party Congress; it did not
condemn Trotsky’s establishment of a faction, thereby giving
support to his anti-Party struggle.

[4]
Draft Decision of the Tenth Congress of the R.C.P. on the Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions was Lenin’s
“Platform of 10”tabled before the Central Committee by a group of members of the C.C. and of thc Central
Committee’s Trade Union Commission in opposition to the
platforms of the anti-Party groups. It defined the role of the
trade unions in the light of the new tasks connected with the end
of the Civil War and transition to peaceful socialist construction: the trade unions, being a school of administration,
a school of economic management, a school of communism, were
chiefly to take part in government, train personnel for government
bodies and economic agencies, and help tighten labour discipline. They were to base their work on education, persuasion
and democratic practices. The Tenth Congress’s resolution on
the role and tasks of the trade unions was based on the
“Platform of 10”, which during the discussion had been supported by a majority of local Party organisations.

[5]
An opportunist faction headed by M. S. Boguslavsky,
A. Z. Kamensky, V. N. Maximovsky, N. Osinsky, Raphail
(P. B. Farbman) and T. V. Sapronov. They first came out against
Lenin’s line in Party and Soviet organisation at the Eighth
Party Congress. At the Ninth Congress, they had their own
rapporteurs on economic construction and organisational problems,
but failed to find any support among the Bolsheviks. On many
questions they had backing only from the Mensheviks.

They denied the Party’s leading role in the Soviets and trade unions and demanded freedom of factions and
groups, and a merger of the Council of People’s Commissars
and the Presidium of the All-Russia Central Executive Committee,
they opposed the subordination of local to central organs and
wanted the Organisation Bureau of the Central Committee deprived
of all say in political leadership, which would have split up the
C.C.’s political and organisational unity. They opposed
one-man management and the personal responsibility of managers in
industry. In the Ukraine, they were against the “Poor
Peasants’ Committees”which were instruments of the proletariat’s dictatorship in the countryside.

The group published its platform during the trade union discussion in 1920-21, but at the pre-Congress
meetings it won only a handful of votes. At the Tenth Congress
they withdrew their platform and allowed their members to vote
freely. They continued to fight the Party on questions of
organisation, on which V. N. Maximovsky delivered a co-report. After the Tenth Congress, only the leaders continued
their anti-Party activity. In 1923, they joined the Trotskyites,
and in 1926, formed the “Group of 15”headed by
Sapronov and Smirnov, which was expelled from the Party by the
Fifteenth Party Congross.

[6] Incidentally, the Party should demand that
every “platform”be issued with the full signatures of all the comrades responsible for it. This demand is met by the
“Ignatovites”and the “Sapronovites”but not by the “Trotskyites’’, the
“Bukharinites”and the “Shlyapnikovites”, who refer to anonymous comrades allegedly responsible for their
platforms —Lenin.

[7]
Ignatovites or “a group of activists of Moscow city districts”was an anti-Party anarcho-syndicalist group,
headed by Y. N. Ignatov, during the trade union discussion of
1920-21. Its activity was limited to the Moscow Party organisation, because it had no influence among the city’s
workers and rank-and-file Party members. Before the Tenth Party
Congress, it came out with two platforms: the current tasks of the
trade unions, and Party organisation. The Ignatovites shared the
anarcho-syndicalist views of the Workers’ Opposition; they
set the trade unions in opposition to the Soviet state, denied the
Party’s leadorship in socialist construction: opposed democratic centralism; demanded freedom of discussions, and wanted
the Party membership to consist of workers only. They also
demanded the handover of the administration of the economy to an
organ elected by the All-Russia Trade Union Congress, but in
contrast to the Workers’ Opposition, they wanted the organ
confirmed by the All-Russia Central Executive Committee as
well. At the Tenth Congress, Ignatov was the official rapporteur
of the Workers’ Opposition on problems of Party organisation. After the Congress, the group broke up.

[8]
The reference is to the merger of the anti-Party Vperyod group
(which consisted of otzovists, ultimatumists, and god-builders)
with Menshevik liquidators and Trotskyites. They united after the
Sixth (Prague) All-Russia Conference of the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party to fight its decisions. They led a
malicious campaign against ths Bolsheviks in an effort to split
the workers’ revolutionary movement and weaken the proletarian Party. They formed a bloc demanding the
“transformation”of the Party, which, in fact, implied its liquidation. The bloc, which had no principles to hold it
together, was unstable and soon fell apart.

[9]
The reference is to the trade union discussion at an enlarged
session of the Moscow Party Committee together with delegates from
Party organisations of Moscow city districts and uyezds on January
17, 1921.

The session debated all the draft theses put forward by various groups during the discussion. In the
preliminary voting, Lenin’s theses got 76 votes; Trotsky’s, 27; Bukharin’s, 5; Shlyapnikov’s, 4;
Sapronov’s, 11; Ignatov’s, 25; Nogin’s, none, and Ryazanov’s, none. In the re-vote on the two main
platforms, 84 votes were cast for Lenin’s theses, and 27,
for Trotsky’s.

On January 18, the Moscow Party Committee adopted an appeal “To All Party Organisations”asking
all Party members to give unanimous support to Lenin’s platform.

[10]
Interpolations in square brackets (within passages quoted by
Lenin) have been introduced by Lenin, unless otherwise indicated.

[11]
Entente or the “Allies”— Britain, France, the U.S.A., Japan and other countries that took part in
the intervention against Soviet Russia. It should not be confused
with Entente cordiale , the alliance of France and Great
Britain and, later, tsarist Russia. —Translator .