FINAL ADDRESS ON THE REPORT OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE RCP(b), MARCH 9
(Long, sustained applause.) Comrades, it was only natural to expect that, in discussing the report—concerning the political activities of the Central Committee—criticism, remarks, additions, amendments, and so forth would focus above all on political work, on political errors, and that political directives would be issued.
Unfortunately, when one examines the debates that unfolded here, when one revisits the main points raised during those discussions, one cannot help but ask oneself: Was it not precisely because the delegates spoke with such astonishingly little substance—and because, for the most part, it was only representatives of the “Workers’ Opposition” who took the floor—that the Congress closed these debates so swiftly? In truth, what did we hear about the Central Committee’s political work and the political tasks of the moment? Most of those who spoke styled themselves as members of the “Workers’ Opposition”—a far from trivial label!… And it is no trivial matter to form an opposition at such a critical juncture, within such a party!
Comrade Kolontai, for example, stated quite plainly: “Lenin’s report bypassed Kronstadt.” When I heard this remark, I could only shrug my shoulders. All those present at the Congress know full well—though, of course, newspaper reports will inevitably be less candid than our discussions here—that in the report I delivered, I had brought everything back to the lessons of Kronstadt, addressing every aspect from beginning to end.

* See this volume, pp. 23–25. Ed.

X CONGRESS OF THE RCP(b)
And perhaps he deserved, even more so, the reproach that he had devoted the greater part of his report to drawing lessons for the future from the events in Kronstadt, while devoting only a small portion to the mistakes of the past, to the political facts and pivotal issues of our work—which, in my view, define our political tasks and help us avoid repeating past errors.
So what, then, did we hear here about the lessons of Kronstadt?
If people speak on behalf of the opposition and call that opposition “workers’,” claiming that the Central Committee has been guiding the Party’s policies incorrectly, then we must tell such individuals: We need clear guidance on these specific errors—and guidance on how to correct them. Unfortunately, we heard absolutely nothing, not a single word, not a single syllable about the current moment and its lessons. Not even the conclusion I reached was properly addressed here. It may well be that my conclusion is mistaken—but that is precisely why reports are presented at Party congresses: so that these errors can be corrected. The consolidation of the Party, the prevention of opposition within the Party—these are the political conclusions to be drawn from the present moment; and the economic conclusion is this: we must not rest content with what has already been achieved in the policy of aligning the working class with the peasantry, but rather seek out new paths, experiment with new approaches, and put these innovations to the test. I laid out very specifically what needed to be done. Perhaps my recommendations were flawed—but not a single word was said about them. One of the speakers, I believe it was Ryazanov, merely reproached me for the fact that the tax seemed to appear in my speech as if out of thin air, without having been prepared through prior discussion. That is incorrect. I am simply astonished that, before a Party congress, responsible comrades should make such statements. The debate on the tax had been opened several weeks earlier in Pravda. If comrades who delight in playing the role of opposition and in hurling accusations that we do not allow for broad debate chose not to participate in that discussion, then that is their own fault. We are bound to the editorial board of Pravda not only because Comrade Bukharin is a member of the Central Committee, but also because the Central Committee always discusses the most important topics and the most crucial lines of Party policy— without this, there can be no meaningful political work. The question of the tax had been placed before the Central Committee for discussion. Articles had appeared in Pravda. Yet no one responded to those articles. By failing to respond, those who remained silent showed that they had no desire to engage with this issue. Then, after those articles had been published, when a member of the Moscow Soviet—whether a non‑party member or a Menshevik, I no longer recall—rose to speak about the tax, I said: “You do not know what Pravda is writing.” To level that accusation at a non‑party member was more natural than to direct it at a Party member. The debate on the tax had not been initiated by chance in Pravda—and at the Congress, we would have to take up this question ourselves. The speakers, in their critiques, displayed an utter lack of professionalism. The question had been put forward for discussion, and participation in that discussion was essential—if not, all such criticism becomes groundless. The same holds true for political questions. I repeat: my entire attention was focused on ensuring that we drew the correct conclusions from the latest developments.
We are living in a time when a grave threat looms before us: as I have already said, the petty-bourgeois counterrevolution is more dangerous than Denikin.** This was something the comrades did not
deny. What makes this counterrevolution all the more peculiar is that it is petty-bourgeois and anarchic in character. I maintain that there is a connection between the ideas and slogans of this petty-bourgeois, anarchic counterrevolution and the slogans of the “Workers’ Opposition.” Yet none of the speakers—though it was the representatives of the “Workers’ Opposition” who spoke most often—addressed this point directly. Meanwhile, the pamphlet of the “Workers’ Opposition,” published in preparation for the Congress by Comrade Kolontai, bears this out with such clarity that it could hardly be made any more evident. I shall, perhaps, devote the greatest part of my remarks to this pamphlet, in order to explain to you why the counterrevolution I have spoken of takes on an anarchic, petty-bourgeois form, why it is so immense and so perilous, and why this danger remains utterly misunderstood.

* See Collected Works, 5th ed., vol. 42, p. 363. Ed.
** See this volume, p. 18. Ed.

X CONGRESS OF THE RCP(b)
representatives of the “Workers’ Opposition,” who are speaking here.
But before I turn to the representatives of the “Workers’ Opposition” who have just taken the floor—so as not to forget, let me say a few words on a different topic, concerning Osinsky. A comrade spoke, one who had written extensively and advanced his own platform, offering sharp criticism of the Central Committee’s report. One might have expected that at the Congress he would deliver a critique of the Party’s core policies—policies of immense importance to us. Instead, he chose to remark that Sapronov had somehow been “thrown out,” and that this clearly demonstrated a glaring disconnect between rhetoric about the need for unity and actual practice. He went on to emphasize that two members from the “Workers’ Opposition” had been elected to the Presidium. I am astonished—how can such trivial matters, which carry no more than a tenth of the weight they seem to hold, be the subject of such a pointed attack by a highly esteemed party theoretician and a cadre holding a position of great responsibility! Osinsky’s hallmark is his tendency to see political maneuvering in everything—and he sees it even in the fact that two seats in the Presidium were allocated to the “Workers’ Opposition.”
I had already noted at a party meeting in Moscow*—and, unfortunately, I must now repeat the same point at the Party Congress—that the “Workers’ Opposition” first emerged in October and November, when it came to light in the form of a two‑chamber system, leading to the formation of a faction.
We have said repeatedly—indeed, I myself have stated this often, and there was never any disagreement within the Central Committee on this matter—that our task is to distinguish the healthy elements from the unhealthy within the “Workers’ Opposition,” precisely because this group has gained some traction and, in Moscow, has begun to undermine the Party’s work. In November, during the two‑chamber conference on the 17th—when some sat in this room while others gathered in another room on the same floor, when even I found myself caught up in the fray, running back and forth between the two chambers as a messenger—this was a clear disruption of Party work, the very beginning of factionalism and schism.

* See Collected Works, 5th ed., vol. 42, pp. 33–34. Ed.

As early as September, during the party conference on the 18th, we saw our task as separating the healthy from the unhealthy—for we cannot treat this group as if it were a healthy one. When people criticize us for insufficiently advancing democracy, we reply: that is absolutely correct. Yes, we have not yet fully realized democratic principles. We need guidance in this regard, and we need concrete measures to put democracy into practice—not just empty talk. We welcome those who call themselves “Workers’ Opposition,” and even those who bear an even worse label—though I believe there is no name more inappropriate or disgraceful for members of the Communist Party than that one. (Applause.) But even if they had coined a far worse designation, we would still say to ourselves: since this is a disease affecting a segment of the working class, we must pay close attention to this illness. And what Comrade Osinsky so strangely held against us should, in fact, be counted as a credit to us.
Now, let me turn to the “Workers’ Opposition.” You have admitted that you remain in opposition. You came to the Party Congress bearing a pamphlet by Comrade Kolontai—a pamphlet that boldly proclaims: “Workers’ Opposition.” You were in the final stages of proofreading when you learned of the Kronstadt events and the rising petty-bourgeois counterrevolution. And yet, at that very moment, you arrive with the banner of the “Workers’ Opposition”! Do you not realize the grave responsibility you are taking upon yourselves—and the damage you are inflicting on Party unity? For what purpose? We will put you to the test; we will subject you to an examination right here.
Comrade Osinsky used this phrase as a polemical device, seeing some fault or error on our part—as did Ryazanov, who likewise accused our policy toward the “Workers’ Opposition” of being driven by political calculation. But there is no political calculation here; rather, this is the policy that the Central Committee has pursued—and will continue to pursue. When unhealthy groups emerge, when unhealthy currents take root—let us direct threefold attention to them.
If there is even a single healthy element within this opposition, we must devote all our strength to separating the healthy from the unhealthy. We cannot effectively combat bureaucracy, nor can we consistently advance democracy, X CONGRESS OF THE RCP(b)
for we are weak, lacking in strength; and whoever can help us in this endeavor must be brought into the fold—but those who, under the guise of assistance, peddle pamphlets like these must be exposed and cast aside!
And now, as we approach the Party Congress, this process of sifting becomes all the more straightforward. Those who represent the sickly faction are chosen for the Presidium—and now they will no longer dare to complain, to wail, to portray themselves as “poor things,” “wronged,” “exiled”… Come forward to the podium now, and make the effort to answer! You have spoken more than anyone else… Let us now examine what you are presenting to us at a time when danger looms—danger that you yourself acknowledge as greater than the Denikin threat. What are you offering us? What kind of critique do you provide? This examination must now take place—and I believe it will prove to be the final word. Enough! We cannot afford to play games with the Party! Anyone who comes to the Congress bearing such a pamphlet is playing with the Party. We cannot afford to engage in such games at a moment when hundreds of thousands of demoralized fighters are ravaging the economy, destroying livelihoods—we cannot treat the Party in this way, we cannot act in this manner. We must recognize this reality—and we must put an end to it!
After these preliminary remarks on the election of the Presidium and on the character of the “Workers’ Opposition,” I would like to draw your attention to Comrade Kolontai’s pamphlet. This pamphlet truly deserves your attention—it sums up the work carried out over several months by this opposition, or rather, the disintegration it wrought. As I recall, a comrade from Samara once pointed out that I had “administratively” labeled the “Workers’ Opposition” as syndicalist. The mention of “administration” here is entirely out of place—and we must ask: what issue truly calls for an administrative solution? Comrade Milonov sought to impress with a particularly grandiose term, but the result was awkward: it sounded as though I were “administratively” attaching a label. I have said many times—during meetings where Comrade Shlyapnikov and others reproached me for “terrorizing” them with the word “syndicalism”—and at one discussion, perhaps even at the Miners’ Congress, when this term was mentioned, I replied

To Comrade Shlyapnikov: “Who among adult individuals do you hope to deceive?” * After all, Comrade Shlyapnikov and I have known each other for many, many years—since our days in the underground and in exile—and how can one possibly claim that I have been terrorizing anyone through my characterization of certain tendencies? And what, pray tell, does administration have to do with it, when I am speaking about the positions of the “Workers’ Opposition,” asserting that they are mistaken, that they amount to syndicalism?! And why does Comrade Kolontai write that I carelessly fling around the term “syndicalism”? To make such a claim, one ought at least to offer some evidence. I am willing to concede, on credit, that my own arguments may be flawed—and that Comrade Kolontai’s position is more substantial; I am prepared to believe that. But we need at least a modicum of proof—not mere words about terrorizing or administrative meddling (tasks which, alas, I am often obliged to undertake by virtue of my official duties), but a precise rebuttal to the accusation I have leveled against the “Workers’ Opposition”: namely, that it has veered toward syndicalism.
I made this accusation before the entire Party—making it with full responsibility, and having it printed in a pamphlet distributed in 250,000 copies, which was read by everyone *. Clearly, all comrades were preparing for this Congress, and everyone should know that the syndicalist tendency is, in fact, an anarchist tendency—and that the “Workers’ Opposition,” which hides behind the proletarian banner, is nothing more than a petty-bourgeois, anarchistic current.
It is plain to see that this current is infiltrating the broad masses, and the Party Congress has shed light on this very fact. The fact that this current is being put into practice is borne out by the pamphlets of Comrade Kolontai and by the theses of Comrade Shlyapnikov. And here, one cannot simply brush off the matter by claiming—as Comrade Shlyapnikov so often does—that he possesses a truly proletarian character.
Comrade Kolontai begins her pamphlet thus: “The opposition,” we read on the first page, “consists of the vanguard of class‑organized proletarians, of communists.” At the Miners’ Congress, a delegate from Siberia had already pointed out in 19 that their ranks were beginning to swell with

* See Collected Works, 5th ed., vol. 42, pp. 256–261. Ed.
** Ibid., pp. 264–304. Ed.

X CONGRESS OF THE RCP(b)
the same questions that were being debated in Moscow—and Comrade Kolontai addresses this very point in her pamphlet:
“We had no idea that disagreements and debates over the role of trade unions were taking place in Moscow,” the delegate from Siberia declared at the Miners’ Congress, “yet we were already grappling with the very same issues that now confront you.”
And further:
“Behind the Workers’ Opposition stand the proletarian masses—or, to be more precise: the Workers’ Opposition is that portion of our industrial proletariat which is class‑bound, class‑conscious, and class‑resolute.”
Well then, thank goodness we now know that Comrade Kolontai and Comrade Shlyapnikov are “class‑bound and class‑conscious.” But, comrades, when one speaks and writes in this way, one must also know where to draw the line! On page 25 of this pamphlet, Comrade Kolontai writes—and this constitutes one of the central tenets of the “Workers’ Opposition” theses:
“The organization of the management of the national economy belongs to the All‑Russian Congress of Producers, united in professional and production unions, which elect a central body responsible for administering the entire national economy of the Republic.”
This is precisely the thesis of the “Workers’ Opposition” that I have consistently cited in every debate and in every written contribution. And I must say that after reading this thesis, I no longer bothered to read any others—because to do so would have been a waste of time, since after this thesis it became abundantly clear that these people had already agreed among themselves that this tendency was, in fact, petty‑bourgeois and anarchistic—and that, in light of the events in Kronstadt, this thesis sounded all the more strange.
In the summer, at the Second Congress of the Comintern, I emphasized the significance of the resolution on the role of the Communist Party *. This resolution is a resolution that unites communist workers and communist parties

* See Collected Works, 5th ed., vol. 41, pp. 236–240. Ed.

from all over the world. This resolution explains everything. Does this mean that we are isolating the Party from the entire working class, which is actively exercising the dictatorship? Some “leftists” and a great many syndicalists see it this way—and today, this view is widespread. Indeed, this view is itself a product of petty‑bourgeois ideology. For the theses of the “Workers’ Opposition” directly contradict the decision of the Second Congress of the Comintern regarding the role of the Communist Party in the exercise of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is syndicalism—for consider this: it is abundantly clear that the majority of our proletariat has become declassed; unprecedented crises and factory closures have driven people to flee from hunger, as workers simply abandoned their factories, seeking work in the countryside and ceasing to be workers altogether. Do we not know this, and do we not witness how, during periods of unprecedented crisis, civil war, the breakdown of proper relations between town and country, and the cessation of bread supplies, exchanges began to take place—bartering small manufactured goods produced in large factories, perhaps even lighters, for bread—while workers starved and bread failed to arrive? Did we not see this in Ukraine? Did we not see it in Russia? It is precisely these economic conditions that give rise to the declassification of the proletariat—and inevitably lead, in turn, to the emergence of petty‑bourgeois, anarchistic tendencies.
After all the hardships we have endured, after we have seen these realities with our own eyes, we know just how devilishly difficult it is to combat them. After two and a half years under Soviet rule, we stood before the entire world and declared within the Communist International that the dictatorship of the proletariat could only be realized through the Communist Party. At that time, we were viciously attacked by anarchists and syndicalists who insisted: “Look how they think—only a communist party can bring about the proletarian dictatorship!” 20 But we made this declaration before the entire Communist International. And after that, people came to us—people who were “class‑conscious and class‑bound,” who

X CONGRESS OF THE RCP(b)
It is said that “the organization of the administration of the national economy belongs to the All‑Russian Congress of Producers” (a pamphlet by Comrade Kolontai). What, then, is this “All‑Russian Congress of Producers”? Are we really going to waste any more time on such opposition within the Party? It seems to me that there is little point in continuing to debate this! All those discussions about freedom of speech and freedom of criticism—so abundant throughout this pamphlet and so evident in every utterance of the “Workers’ Opposition”—account for nine-tenths of the content of speeches that are, in essence, devoid of real substance—mere words of the same sort. After all, comrades, we must not merely talk about words; we must also attend to their content. You cannot fool us with empty phrases like “freedom of criticism”! When we pointed out that there were signs of illness within the Party, we stated that this warning deserved our utmost attention: there was no doubt that this illness existed. Let us work together to cure it. But tell us—how do you propose to treat it? We have spent quite a bit of time in debate, and I must say that now it is far better to “debate with rifles” than with the theses put forward by the opposition. The time for opposition is over, comrades—this is not the time for that! Either here—or there—with a rifle in hand, but not with the opposition. This follows from objective conditions; let us not complain about that. And I believe that the Party Congress will be forced to draw this conclusion—that for the opposition, the end has come, the curtain has fallen; enough of the opposition, indeed!
(Applause.)
This group has long had the right to criticize freely. Now, at the Party Congress, we ask: what have been the results of your criticism? What is the substance of your critique? What have you taught the Party through your criticism? Those among you who stand closest to the masses—those masses that are truly class‑bound and class‑mature—we are ready to bring into active work. If Comrade Osiniky sees political maneuvering in this, he will remain alone; the rest of us will see in it a practical contribution to the Party’s members. We must truly help those who live among the working masses, who know them best, who possess experience and can offer guidance to the Central Committee. And let them call themselves whatever they wish—it matters little—so long as they aid the work, so long as they do not play the role of opposition, so long as they do not stubbornly defend particular groups or factions, but instead simply lend us their support. But if they continue to play the role of opposition, then the Party must expel them.
And when, on the very same page of her pamphlet, Comrade Kolontai boldly writes: “Distrust of the working class (of course, not in the realm of politics, but in the realm of the class’s economic and creative capacities)—that is the very essence of the theses signed by our leading cadres,” she is, in effect, claiming that they are the true “workers’” opposition. On page 36 of the same pamphlet, we find an even more striking expression of this idea:
“The ‘Workers’ Opposition’ must not—and cannot—make concessions. That does not mean calling for a split…” “No, its task is different. Even in the event of defeat at the Congress—remain within the Party and steadfastly uphold your own viewpoint, step by step, saving the Party and correcting its line.”
“Even in the event of defeat at the Congress”—how prescient, one might say! (Laughter.) Excuse me, but I can confidently state on my own behalf that the Party Congress will not allow this! (Applause.) Anyone has the right to correct the Party’s line. You have been given every opportunity to do so.
At the Party Congress, we set forth the condition that there should not be the slightest shadow of suspicion that we seek to exclude anyone. We welcome any assistance in advancing democracy. But you cannot achieve democracy through mere rhetoric when the people are exhausted. Anyone who wishes to help the cause must be welcomed—and when they say, “We will not make concessions, but will save the Party by remaining within it”—well, if you are allowed to stay in the Party! (Applause.)
Here, we have no right to leave room for ambiguity. The work of helping to combat bureaucracy, the work of helping to uphold democracy, the effort to forge closer ties with the genuinely working masses— X CONGRESS OF THE RCP(b)
ourselves—these are absolutely essential. In this regard, we can—and must—make “concessions.” No matter what others may say about their refusal to make concessions, we will keep repeating: we are making concessions. These are by no means concessions—they are a contribution to the workers’ Party. Through this, we will win over to the Party’s side all that is healthy and proletarian in the “Workers’ Opposition,” while leaving behind only those authors of syndicalist rhetoric who remain “class‑conscious.” (Applause.) In Moscow, they took this path. The November provincial conference in Moscow ended with two separate rooms: one for some, another for others. This was the eve of a split. The last Moscow conference declared: “We will take from the ‘Workers’ Opposition’ whoever we want—not whoever they want”—because we need the help of people who are closely connected with the working masses, people who can teach us, in practice, how to fight against bureaucracy. This is a difficult task. It seems to me that the Party Congress must take Moscow’s experience into account and begin to examine not only this issue, but every item on the agenda. As a result, to those who claim, “We will not make concessions,” we must say: “But the Party is making concessions”—we must ensure that our work proceeds in a spirit of unity. Through this policy, we will distinguish the healthy from the unhealthy within the “Workers’ Opposition” and strengthen the Party.
Look—here, they argued that the management of production should rest with the “All‑Russian Congress of Producers.” I am at a loss to describe this absurdity in any other terms—but I take comfort in the fact that all Party workers here are, at the same time, Soviet functionaries who have already been engaged in revolutionary work for a year, two years, three years. There is no need to criticize them for this. They close the debates whenever they hear such speeches because it is tedious—and hardly serious—to talk about the “All‑Russian Congress of Producers” that is supposed to manage the national economy. Perhaps such a proposal might have been appropriate in a country where no real push toward productive work had yet begun, despite the establishment of political power. But we have already made that push. And it is curious that on page 33 of the same pamphlet, we find the following:

“‘The Workers’ Opposition’ is not so ignorant as to fail to recognize the paramount role of technology and of technically trained personnel…” “They do not envision establishing their own body for managing the national economy—a body elected at a congress of producers—and then dissolving the Sovnarkoms, the main directorates, the central agencies. No, their vision is quite different: to subordinate these essential technical centers of administration to their own leadership, to assign them theoretical tasks, and to harness them in the very way that, in their day, factory owners and industrialists harnessed the expertise of specialized technicians.”
Thus, Comrade Kollontai and Comrade Shlyapnikov—and those who follow in their wake, the so‑called ‘class‑bound’ comrades—seek to bring the Sovnarkoms, the main directorates, and the central agencies—those Rykovs, Nogins, and other such ‘triflers’—under their own necessary leadership, and to assign them theoretical tasks! And tell me, comrades, can we possibly take this seriously? If you had any ‘theoretical tasks’ in mind, why did you not issue them? What was the purpose of proclaiming freedom of discussion? We did not declare it merely for the sake of exchanging words. During the war, we said: “We have no time for criticism—we face Wrangel; if we make a mistake, we correct it by striking down Wrangel.” But once the war was over, we began to hear cries from all sides: “Let us grant freedom of discussion!” When we asked, “Tell us, what mistakes have we made?” we were told: “There is no need to dissolve the Sovnarkoms and the main directorates; on the contrary, we must assign them theoretical tasks.” Why, when Comrade Kiselev, representing the ‘class‑bound’ ‘Workers’ Opposition’ at the Miners’ Congress, found himself relegated to a negligible minority, why did he not, while heading the Main Textile Directorate, teach us how to combat bureaucracy? Why, when Comrade Shlyapnikov served as People’s Commissar, and when Comrade Kollontai likewise held the post of People’s Commissar, did they not teach us how to fight bureaucratism? We ourselves know full well that bureaucratic tendencies are present among us—and we, who are closest to this bureaucratic apparatus and suffer most acutely from its grip, bear the brunt of its burdens. We sign a piece of paper—but what becomes of it once it reaches the field? How can we verify its implementation when the bureaucratic apparatus is so vast? You know how to curtail it—please share your knowledge with us, dear comrades! You may be eager to engage in debate, but beyond

X CONGRESS OF THE RCP(b)
you offer nothing more than general pronouncements. You claim: “The specialists treat the workers with disdain; the workers lead a life of hard labor in the labor republic.” This is pure demagogy!
Read this pamphlet carefully, I urge you—read it thoroughly, comrades! There could be no better material against the ‘Workers’ Opposition’ than Comrade Kollontai’s pamphlet, “The Workers’ Opposition.” You will see that this approach to the question is simply untenable. We all acknowledge that bureaucracy is a deeply entrenched problem—even our party program recognizes this. Criticizing the main directorates and the Sovnarkoms is easy enough—but when you criticize in this manner, the non‑party working masses interpret it as: “Dissolve them!” The Socialist-Revolutionaries seize upon this sentiment. Ukrainian comrades informed me that at their conference, 21 Left Socialist-Revolutionaries formulated their proposals in virtually the same terms. And what, pray tell, are the Kronstadt resolutions? Have you read them all? We will show them to you—they say precisely the same thing. That is why I emphasized the danger posed by Kronstadt: this danger lies precisely in the fact that it seems only a small shift is required—“Let the Bolsheviks go,” “we’ll just tweak the government a bit”—that is what the Kronstadters desire. Yet what actually transpired was that Savinkov arrived in Reval, that Parisian newspapers reported on these events for two full weeks, that a White General emerged on the scene. This is what came to pass. And so it has been with every revolution, in much the same way. It is for this reason that we say: since we are approaching this situation, we must unite and prepare to meet such a challenge with rifles—in spite of how innocuous it may appear—as I pointed out in my very first speech. The ‘Workers’ Opposition’ does not respond to this; instead, they say, “We will not dissolve the Sovnarkoms—we will ‘subordinate them to our leadership.’” The All‑Russian Congress of Producers will subordinate 71 main directorates of the Sovnarkoms to their own leadership! I ask: are they laughing at us—or can we possibly take such people seriously? This is the petty‑bourgeois, anarchic tendency—not only within the working class, but also within our own party—and under no circumstances can we allow it to take root. We have indulged in the luxury of giving people the opportunity to set forth their views in the greatest possible detail, listening to them again and again. When I debated with Comrades Trotsky and Kiselev at the Second Miners’ Congress, two distinct positions became starkly apparent*. The ‘Workers’ Opposition’ argued: “Lenin and Trotsky will unite.” Trotsky spoke up and declared: “Anyone who fails to understand that unity is necessary is acting against the Party; of course, we will unite, for we are men of the Party.” I supported him. Of course, Comrade Trotsky and I differed; and when more or less equal factions emerge within the Central Committee, the Party will judge—and will judge rightly—that we shall unite in accordance with the Party’s will and directives. It was with such declarations that Comrade Trotsky and I went to the Miners’ Congress and arrived here—while the ‘Workers’ Opposition’ proclaimed: “We will make no concessions, but we will remain in the Party.” No, that trick will not work! (Applause.) Let me reiterate: in our struggle against bureaucratism, every bit of assistance offered by a worker—no matter what label he may bear—if he sincerely seeks to help us—is invaluable. In this sense, we will make ‘concessions’—though we use that term in quotation marks—no matter how provocative the statements directed at us may be; we will make ‘concessions,’ because we know how difficult it is to work. We cannot afford to dissolve the Sovnarkoms and the main directorates. When some claim that we lack trust in the working class, that we keep workers out of leading positions, this is sheer falsehood. We seek out every capable administrator among the workers—and we are glad to welcome them, testing them thoroughly. For if the Party does not trust the working class and refuses to entrust workers with responsible posts, then such a Party deserves to be swept away—let us carry this argument to its logical conclusion! I have already shown that this is untrue: we are exhausted by a shortage of manpower; even the slightest assistance from someone truly capable—and especially from among the workers, where the potential is threefold—we seize with both hands. Yet we have few such individuals. It is on this very ground that anarchism takes hold. Here, we must support the struggle against bureaucratism—and that requires hundreds of thousands of dedicated comrades.

* See Collected Works, 5th ed., vol. 42, pp. 245–255. Ed.

X CONGRESS OF THE RCP(b)
The task of combating bureaucratism is set forth in our program as an undertaking of extraordinarily long duration. The more fragmented the peasantry, the more inevitable bureaucratism becomes at the center.
It is easy to write such things: “There is something amiss within our party.” You yourself understand what it means to loosen the reins on the Soviet apparatus when two million Russian émigrés are scattered abroad—driven out by the Civil War. They have blessed us with their presence in Berlin, Paris, London, and every capital save our own. They uphold the very same forces that go by the name of small producers, the petty-bourgeois tendencies.
Whatever can be done to eradicate bureaucratism by promoting workers from below—we will do it; we will heed any practical guidance offered in this regard. Even if one were to call these “concessions,” a term some here deem inappropriate, there is no doubt that 99 percent of the Congress would respond, contrary to this pamphlet: “We shall defy this so‑called ‘concession’ and win back everything that remains sound.” Join hands with the workers and teach them how to combat bureaucratism—if you know better than we do—but do not speak as Shlyapnikov did. This is a matter that cannot be brushed aside. I will not dwell on the theoretical aspects of his speech, for the same points have been made by Kollontai. Let me address the facts he cited. He spoke of potatoes rotting in storage and asked why Tsyurupa had not been brought to trial.
But I ask: why has Shlyapnikov himself not been brought to trial for such statements? When we talk seriously about discipline and unity within the organized party, or are we merely indulging in yet another gathering of the Kronstadt type? For this is a Kronstadt-style utterance, steeped in anarchist spirit—and one that is met with gunfire. We are organized party members; we have come here to correct our own mistakes. If, in Comrade Shlyapnikov’s view, Tsyurupa ought to have been brought to trial, then why did Shlyapnikov, as an organized party member, fail to appeal this decision to the Control Commission? When we established the Control Commission, we said quite plainly: “The Central Committee is overwhelmed with administrative work—let us select individuals who enjoy the trust of the workers, who will not be so burdened by administrative duties and who will handle complaints on behalf of the Central Committee.” This approach fostered the development of criticism and the correction of errors. So why, when Tsyurupa acted so improperly, was this not appealed to the Control Commission? Instead, Shlyapnikov comes here to the Congress, before the most responsible assembly of the Party and the Republic, and hurls accusations that potatoes have rotted in storage, asking why Tsyurupa was not brought to trial. But I ask: are there no mistakes in the military department? Are there no lost battles, abandoned wagons, wasted property? And should we then bring such military officials to trial? Comrade Shlyapnikov utters words in which he himself does not believe—words he cannot substantiate. Potatoes are rotting in our stores. Of course, there will be many errors; our apparatus is ill‑organized, our transport systems are poorly coordinated. But when such accusations are hurled without first seeking to correct the errors—and moreover, as some comrades here have already noted, with a tone of schadenfreude, demanding to know why Tsyurupa was not brought to trial—then bring *us*, the Central Committee, to trial instead. We hold that such a performance is demagoguery. Either Tsyurupa and we must be brought to trial, or Shlyapnikov must be held accountable—but we cannot operate in this way. When party comrades speak as Shlyapnikov does here—and he always speaks in this manner at other gatherings—and when Comrade Kollontai’s pamphlet refrains from naming specific individuals, yet the spirit of the pamphlet remains the same—we say: this is not the way to work, for it is demagoguery upon which anarchist-Makhnovist and Kronstadt elements rely. We are both members of the Party here, both standing before a court of accountability—and if Tsyurupa has committed an offense, and we in the Central Committee cover it up, then please level a concrete accusation rather than hurling words that will be broadcast tomorrow across Moscow via wireless networks, swiftly relayed to the bourgeoisie; tomorrow, all the gossipmongers in Soviet institutions will lean on their elbows, gleefully repeating your

X CONGRESS OF THE RCP(b)
words. If Tsyurupa is indeed as Shlyapnikov accuses him to be—if, as he demands, he ought to be brought to trial—then I maintain that we must think deeply about these words; such accusations are not to be flung lightly. Those who make such charges should either be expelled from the Party or told: “We are sending you to tend to the potatoes in such-and-such a province—let us see whether less potato rot occurs there than in the provinces once governed by Tsyurupa.”
“Pravda,” No. 54, and “Izvestia VTsIK,” No. 54, March 11, 1921.