REPORT ON PARTY UNITY AND THE ANARCHO-SYNDICALIST TENDENCY

MARCH 16

Comrades, I believe there is no need to dwell at length on this matter, since our entire Congress has already addressed every issue under consideration—topics that now require official pronouncement on behalf of the Party Congress, and by extension, on behalf of the Party as a whole. As for the resolution “On Unity”*, it largely consists of an analysis of the political situation. You have all, of course, read the printed text of this resolution that was distributed. The seventh clause, which introduces an exceptional measure—the right to expel from the Central Committee, provided that a two-thirds majority of the full membership of the Central Committee and of the members of the Central Control Commission vote in favor—is not to be made public. At private meetings where representatives from all shades of opinion were present, this measure was discussed repeatedly. Let us hope, comrades, that we will never have to invoke this clause—but it is nonetheless essential, given the new circumstances we now face: a rather sharp turning point, and a determination to eradicate the vestiges of separatism.

I now turn to the resolution on syndicalist and anarchist tendencies. Before us lies a question that was raised under item four on the Congress agenda. The crux of the entire resolution is our definition of our attitude toward certain currents—or, more precisely, toward certain ideological deviations. By speaking of “deviations,” we are, in effect, emphasizing that

* See this volume, pp. 89–92. Ed.

X CONGRESS OF THE RCP(b)

we do not yet see anything fully formed, nothing absolute or entirely definitive here; rather, we are witnessing only the nascent stages of a political orientation that cannot remain without the Party’s assessment. In paragraph three of the resolution on the syndicalist and anarchist deviation—which you all likely possess—there is, quite evidently, a typographical error (as the comments made reveal, this error has been noted). The correct reading should be: “A telling example is, for instance, the following proposition,” namely, “the working opposition’s thesis: ‘The organization of national economic administration belongs to the All-Russian Congress of Producers, united in professional production unions, which elect a central body responsible for managing the entire national economy of the Republic.’”* We have already spoken repeatedly about this paragraph—at both private consultations and open plenary sessions of the Congress. It seems to me that we have already established beyond doubt that we must not defend this paragraph by appealing to Engels’s discussion of producer associations; for it is perfectly clear—and corroborated by precise reference to the relevant passage—that Engels is writing about a communist society in which classes will have disappeared. This is beyond dispute for all of us. When classes no longer exist in society, the only remaining producers will be workers themselves; there will be no distinction between workers and peasants. And we know full well from the works of Marx and Engels that they drew a most precise distinction between the period when classes still exist and the period when they will have ceased to exist. Marx and Engels mercilessly ridiculed any notion, any utterance, any speculation that classes might vanish before the advent of communism—and they insisted that only communism represents the true abolition of classes.44

We have arrived at a stage where the first steps toward the actual abolition of classes have been taken, and in a predominantly peasant country, we now find ourselves with two principal classes—the working class and the peasantry. Alongside these stand entire groups of remnants and holdovers from capitalism.

* See this volume, pp. 93–94. Ed.

Our program explicitly states that we are taking initial steps, that we will pass through a series of transitional stages. Yet in the very practice of our Soviet work—and throughout the history of the revolution—we have constantly seen that to offer theoretical definitions such as those advanced by the opposition in this case is fundamentally misguided. We know full well that classes still exist among us, and that they will remain for a long time to come; in a country with a predominantly peasant population, they are bound to persist for many years. Even under the most favorable technical conditions imaginable, the minimum period required to develop large-scale industry to the point where it can generate the resources necessary to subordinate agriculture to its own needs is estimated at ten years. That is the minimum—assuming, of course, conditions that are even remotely close to normal. But we know full well that such conditions are far from being met. Consequently, a decade is a remarkably short span for us—not something we need to debate at length. We have entered the heart of the matter: it is quite possible that classes hostile to the proletariat will continue to exist—and thus, in practical terms, we are not yet able to realize what Engels had in mind. First there will be the dictatorship of the proletariat; then, eventually, a classless society will emerge.
Marx and Engels waged relentless struggle against those who forgot the fundamental distinction between classes, who spoke of “producers,” of “the people,” or of “workers” in general. Anyone familiar with the works of Marx and Engels cannot fail to remember that throughout their writings, the ridicule directed at those who speak of “producers,” of “the people,” or of “workers” in general is a constant refrain. There is no such thing as “workers in general,” or “laborers in general”; rather, there are either smallholders who own the means of production, whose entire psychological makeup and way of life are shaped by the logic of capital…

X Congress of the RCP(b)
Theistic—those that simply cannot be otherwise—either the wage laborer, with an entirely different psychology, the wage laborer in large-scale industry, standing in antagonism, in contradiction, in struggle against the capitalists.
If we approach this question three years into our struggle, having experienced the exercise of proletarian political power; if we recognize the immense difficulties that persist in class relations, even as remnants of the bourgeoisie still lurk in every crevice of our lives, embedded within Soviet institutions—under such conditions, the emergence of a platform bearing the theses I have just outlined represents a clear and unmistakable tendency toward syndicalist-anarchism. These words are not exaggerated; they are carefully considered. A tendency is not yet a fully formed current. A tendency is something that can still be corrected. People may have strayed slightly from the right path—or are beginning to stray—but it is still possible to set them straight. In my view, this is precisely what the Russian word “uklon” conveys: it underscores that nothing here is yet final, that the matter remains easily rectifiable—and it expresses a desire to caution, to raise the question in all its fullness and on principled grounds. Should anyone discover a Russian term better suited to convey this idea, by all means let them share it. I hope we will not waste time arguing over words; rather, we should address this thesis as a fundamental one, so as not to rush headlong into a host of similar ideas—of which the “Workers’ Opposition” group has many. We will leave the task of thoroughly examining these ideas to our writers and to the leaders of this current, for at the end of the resolution we deliberately state that in specialized publications and collected volumes, ample space should—and indeed must—be devoted to a more detailed exchange of views among party members on all the issues we have raised. Right now, we are far too busy to postpone this question. We are a party engaged in struggle under conditions of acute hardship. We must acknowledge: for unity to endure, it is essential that a particular tendency be condemned. Once it has taken shape, it must be identified and debated. But if a thoroughgoing discussion is required, then by all means— we will find people who can present the relevant literature in meticulous detail, and if necessary and appropriate, we will raise this question on an international scale—as you have just heard in the report delivered by the Comintern representative, and as you are all well aware of the existence of a certain tendency toward leftism within the ranks of the revolutionary international workers’ movement. The tendency we are discussing now is the very same tendency that led to the open confrontation with anarchism within the German Communist Workers’ Party—a struggle that became starkly evident at the previous Comintern Congress in 1924. The terms used there to characterize that tendency were often far more pointed than the mere word “tendency.” You know that this is an international issue. Therefore, to simply put an end to it—“Let’s stop debating this and be done with it”—would be misguided. Yet while theoretical debate is one thing, the party’s political line and political struggle are quite another. We are not a debating club. Of course, we can—and will—publish collections and special editions, but above all, we must fight under the most difficult conditions, and thus we must stand united as one. If, in the midst of political debate and political struggle, proposals like the organization of a “All-Russia Congress of Producers” begin to intrude, then we cannot march forward in harmony and cohesion; this is not the kind of politics we have set out for ourselves over the coming years. Such a policy would disrupt the party’s concerted efforts—and not only is it theoretically flawed, it is fundamentally wrong because it misrepresents the relations between classes—the very core and essence without which there is no Marxism, and about which the Second Comintern Congress adopted its resolution in 1920. The moment is such that the unorganized masses are susceptible to those petty-bourgeois oscillations that are, in Russia’s current economic situation, all but inevitable. We must bear in mind that, in certain respects, the internal danger is greater than that posed by Denikin or Yudenich—and we must demonstrate unity not merely in form, but in a way that runs far deeper. To forge such unity, we cannot afford to do without a resolution of this kind.

X CONGRESS OF THE RCP(b)
I consider paragraph four of this resolution to be of paramount importance, as it offers an authentic interpretation of our program—a genuine interpretation, one that emanates directly from the program’s author. The Congress itself is the program’s author; therefore, it is incumbent upon the Congress to provide this authoritative interpretation in order to put an end to the vacillations—and at times even the manipulations—that have been waged around our program: as if the program were somehow saying the very things some would like to see it say about trade unions. You have heard, from this very rostrum, Comrade Ryazanov’s critique of the program—let us thank the author of that critique for his theoretical explorations! You have also heard the critique delivered by Comrade Shlyapnikov. We cannot afford to remain silent on this matter. It seems to me that within this very resolution we now possess precisely what we need. On behalf of the Congress—which has adopted the program and serves as the party’s highest organ—we must state: this is how we understand the program. I repeat: these theoretical debates are by no means thereby brought to a close. Proposals to amend the program may still be made; there is no formal prohibition against such proposals. We do not regard the program as so perfect that nothing in it requires amendment—but at present we have not yet received any formal proposals, nor have we devoted significant time to thoroughly examining this question. Upon careful reading of the program, we find the following: “Trade unions must move toward actual centralization, etc.”—“must move toward actual centralization”—this point deserves particular emphasis. Yet above this, we read that “according to the law, trade unions are members of all local and central organs of production management.” We know that capitalist production, with the concerted efforts of the world’s most advanced nations, has been developing over decades. Have we already descended into childish naiveté, to imagine that in a moment of dire scarcity, when the country is mired in poverty, where workers constitute a minority, where the proletarian vanguard is exhausted and bleeding, and where the peasant masses are weary and impoverished, we can bring this process to a swift conclusion?! We have not even laid the foundational groundwork; we have only begun, through practical experience, to explore how production management might be conducted with the active participation of trade unions. We know that the chief obstacle is scarcity. It is wrong to claim that we are failing to engage the masses; on the contrary, every noteworthy talent, the slightest exceptional ability within the working class, receives the most sincere support from our side. All that is needed is a slight easing of the burdens weighing upon them. We require at least a year or two of respite from hunger—not less. From a historical perspective, this is but a fleeting span of time; yet under our current conditions, it represents a considerable period. A year or two of relief from famine, a year or two of proper fuel supplies to keep the factories running—and we will receive a hundredfold more support from the working class, while far more talents will emerge from its ranks than we currently possess. No one doubts this, nor can anyone doubt it. At present, we fail to secure this support not because we lack the will to do so. We are doing everything within our power to achieve it. No one can point to a single opportunity that the government, the trade unions, or the Party’s Central Committee has overlooked in this regard; but we know that the situation is desperate, that hunger and destitution prevail everywhere, and that, all too often, this very condition breeds passivity. Let us not shy away from calling evil and calamity by their true names. This is what hinders the unleashing of energy from the masses. In such circumstances—as statistics reveal that 60% of those in managerial positions are workers—it is utterly impossible to attempt, in the present context, to interpret the program’s declaration that “trade unions must move toward actual centralization,” and so forth, in a manner akin to Shlyapnikov’s approach.
An authentic interpretation of the program will enable us to reconcile the necessary tactical unity and cohesion with the indispensable freedom of debate—precisely as emphasized at the conclusion of the resolution. What, then, is the essence of this resolution? Let us turn to paragraph six:
“Based on all of the foregoing, the Congress of the RCP, firmly rejecting the aforementioned ideas—representing syndicalist and anarchist tendencies—resolves, first, to recognize the imperative of relentless, systematic struggle against these ideas; second, to declare the propagation of these ideas incompatible with membership in the RCP.”

X CONGRESS OF THE RCP(b)
While entrusting the Party’s Central Committee with the strictest implementation of these resolutions, the Congress also notes that specialized publications, collected works, and the like must—and indeed ought—to provide ample space for the most thorough exchange of views among Party members on all matters addressed herein.”
Do you not see—after all, you are all agitators and propagandists, in one form or another—are you not aware of the distinction between the propagation of ideas within warring political parties and the exchange of views in specialized publications and collected works? I am confident that anyone who seeks to truly understand this resolution will perceive this difference. And we hope that the representatives we send to the Central Committee—those who embody this tendency—will approach the Party Congress’s decision with the same seriousness and discipline as any conscientious, disciplined Party member; we hope that, with their assistance, we can clarify this distinction within the Central Committee without creating a special status quo; we will distinguish between what takes place within the Party—namely, the propagation of ideas within a warring political party—and the exchange of views in specialized publications and collected works. For those among you who are interested in studying Engels’s quotations in meticulous detail—by all means! There are theorists who will always offer the Party valuable counsel. This is essential. We will publish two or three substantial collections—such work is both beneficial and absolutely necessary. But does this truly resemble the propagation of ideas, the contestation of platforms? Can these two be conflated? No one who seeks to grasp the nuances of our political situation would ever confuse them.
Do not impede our political work, especially in these difficult times—but do not abandon scholarly inquiry. If Comrade Shlyapnikov, for example, were to add a second volume—analyzing the concept of “the productive”—to his recent work on the experiences of his revolutionary struggles during the era when he was still operating underground, in the months ahead, please go ahead! And this resolution itself will serve as a milestone for us. We have opened up the broadest, most free-ranging debate. The platform of the “Workers’ Opposition” was published in the Party’s Central Organ in in a print run of 250,000 copies. We weighed it from every angle and in every possible way; we made our selections based on this platform; and we finally convened a congress that took stock of the political debate and declared: the deviation has been identified—let us no longer play hide-and-seek; let us state openly: there is a deviation, and it must be corrected; we will correct it, while the debate itself will remain a theoretical one.
That is why I renew and uphold the proposal that we adopt both of these resolutions, thereby reinforcing the unity of the Party and providing a proper definition of what Party meetings ought to address—and of what individual Marxists and Communists, those who wish to assist the Party and delve into various questions of theory, are free to pursue in their spare time. (Applause.)
“Pravda,” No. 68, March 30, 1921