X CONGRESS OF THE RCP(b)
SPEECH AT THE CLOSING OF THE CONGRESS, MARCH 16
Comrades, we have concluded the proceedings of the Party Congress, which convened at a moment of utmost importance for the fate of our revolution. The conduct of the Civil War, after so many years of imperialist war, had so utterly exhausted and bewildered the country that, even after the end of the Civil War, its revival is now unfolding under extraordinarily difficult conditions. It is therefore no surprise that elements of disintegration and decay—petty-bourgeois and anarchic tendencies—are once again raising their heads. For one of the fundamental conditions underlying this resurgence is the extreme, unprecedented, and hitherto unheard-of intensification of need and despair that now grips tens, hundreds of thousands, and perhaps even more people who see no way out of their dire predicament. Yet we know, comrades, that the country has endured far more severe moments in its history. Without closing our eyes to the dangers, without indulging in the slightest optimism, and speaking frankly to ourselves and to our comrades about the gravity of the threat, we nonetheless remain firmly and confidently confident in the unity of the vanguard of the proletariat. We know that there is no other force capable of uniting millions of scattered small farmers—farmers who, time and again, endure hardships beyond measure—no other force, economically and politically capable of rallying them against the exploiters, except the conscious proletariat.

We are convinced that, through the trials of struggle and the bitter experience of revolution, this force has emerged sufficiently hardened to withstand all the most arduous trials and new difficulties that lie ahead.
Comrades, alongside the resolutions adopted in this spirit, the decision our Congress made on the question of our relations with the peasantry assumes exceptional importance. Here, we approach the relations between classes with the utmost sobriety, and we do not shy away from openly acknowledging that we are confronted with an exceedingly difficult task: the task of correctly establishing the relationship between the proletariat and the overwhelmingly dominant peasantry—especially since we are currently unable to achieve normal relations. Normal relations can only be those in which the proletariat holds in its hands the major industries and their products, not only fully satisfying the needs of the peasantry but, by providing them with the means of subsistence, so alleviating their plight that the difference between their condition and that of capitalist society becomes both evident and palpable. Only this will lay the foundation for a truly normal socialist society. We cannot yet accomplish this—so deeply have devastation, want, impoverishment, and despair weighed upon us. But in order to make it easier to overcome this accursed legacy, despite the relationships that have taken root during the desperately hard years of war, we respond to these conditions in a specific manner. We will not conceal the fact that the peasantry has every legitimate reason to feel discontent. We will offer more detailed explanations and state that we will do everything within our power to eliminate this situation—to take greater account of the living conditions of the smallholder.

Everything necessary to ease the life of this smallholder, to provide more support to the small farmer, to create conditions for more secure and stable farming—we must do. We are not afraid that this measure will give rise to tendencies hostile to communism—and indeed, it undoubtedly will.

Thus, comrades, it is in this spirit of sober assessment of these relations and of our complete readiness to revise our policies—even to modify them—that we must proceed, for we

X CONGRESS OF THE RCP(b)
For the first time in history, over the course of several years, we have embarked upon the task of laying the foundations of a socialist society—the foundations of a proletarian state. I believe that the results of our Congress’s work will be all the more successful precisely because we achieved absolute unity on this fundamental question from the very outset. Two core issues had to be resolved unanimously, and on the question of the relationship between the vanguard of the proletariat and its mass, as well as on the question of the proletariat’s relations with the peasantry, there were no disagreements whatsoever. In this respect, we demonstrated a degree of unity greater than ever before—despite the fact that we are called upon to address political conditions that are extremely challenging.

Let me now turn to two points that I ask you not to record. The first concerns the issue of concessions in Baku and Grozny. This question was only briefly touched upon at the Congress. I was unable to attend this session myself, but I was told that some comrades still harbored feelings of dissatisfaction or distrust. I believe there is no real basis for such sentiments. The Central Committee examined the matter of granting concessions in Grozny and Baku thoroughly. Special commissions were established on multiple occasions, and specialized reports were requested from the relevant departments. There were disagreements; several votes were held. After the final vote, not a single group of Central Committee members—and not a single member of the Central Committee—chose to exercise their undisputed right to appeal to the Congress. I believe that the newly elected Central Committee, both formally and substantively, has full authority, based on the decisions of the Congress, to resolve this crucial issue. Without concessions, we cannot hope to secure the assistance of highly advanced, modern capitalist technology. Without tapping into this technology, we are unable to properly establish the foundations of our large-scale production in sectors such as oil extraction—a sector of paramount importance for the global economy. We have not yet concluded a single concession agreement, but we will do everything in our power to secure such agreements. Have you read in the newspapers about the newly opened Baku–Tiflis oil pipeline? You will soon read about…

In the same oil pipeline leading to Batum. This will open up access to the global market. The task at hand is to improve our economic standing, strengthen the technological infrastructure of our republic, and increase the output of goods—particularly foodstuffs and consumer items—for our workers. In this regard, any measure that eases our burdens carries immense significance for us. That is why we have no fear in granting concessions for parts of Grozny and Baku; by leasing one quarter of Grozny and one quarter of Baku, we can leverage this concession—as long as we manage to secure it—to catch up with the advanced technologies of the most developed capitalist nations across the remaining three quarters. At present, there is no other way for us to achieve this. Anyone familiar with the state of our economy will understand this. Yet, armed with a foundation backed—even if only by hundreds of millions of rubles in gold—we will spare no effort to realize this goal on the remaining three quarters.
The second matter I ask you not to publish is a resolution of the Presidium, carefully reviewed and specifically addressing the methods of delivering reports. As you know, at this Congress we have had to operate in an atmosphere that was often excessively tense, causing far more workers to be pulled away from the Congress than ever before. Therefore, we must formulate our plans for reporting at the local level with greater calm and deliberation, guided by a clear resolution on this matter. A comrade has drafted a proposal for directives from the Presidium to those dispatched to the field—a draft which I will now read aloud (reads). 54 I have already touched upon this issue in a few words. I believe that just a few lines read will suffice for each delegate to reflect on the question and, in their reports, exercise the necessary caution: neither exaggerating the dangers of the situation nor, under any circumstances, allowing themselves or those around them to succumb to panic.
It is all the more inappropriate—and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever—for us to give in to panic, especially since world capitalism is currently waging an unprecedentedly nervous, hysterical campaign against us. Yesterday, in agreement with

X CONGRESS OF THE RCP(b)
Comrade Chicherin, I received a summary on this very topic, and I believe it would benefit everyone to hear it. This summary concerns the campaign of lies being waged about Russia’s internal situation. Never before—so writes the comrade preparing the summary—has the Western European press been awash in such a bacchanalian torrent of falsehoods and such a massive proliferation of fantastical fabrications about Soviet Russia as in the past two weeks. Since early March, the entire Western European press has been publishing daily streams of wildly exaggerated reports: tales of uprisings in Russia, of counterrevolutionary victories, of Lenin and Trotsky fleeing to Crimea, of white flags flying over the Kremlin, of rivers of blood flowing through the streets of Petrograd and Moscow, of barricades erected in those same cities, of dense crowds of workers descending from the hills toward Moscow to overthrow the Soviet government, of Budenny switching sides to join the rebels, of counterrevolutionary triumphs in numerous Russian cities—now one city, now another—until, in total, nearly every provincial capital in Russia had been mentioned. The sheer breadth and systematic nature of this campaign make it clear that it reflects some grand, well‑conceived plan hatched by the world’s leading governments. On March 2, the Foreign Office *—through the “Press Association” 55—stated that it regarded the published reports as highly improbable; yet scarcely had this been announced when the Foreign Office itself issued a report claiming that an uprising had broken out in Petrograd, that Kronstadt’s fleet had bombarded Petrograd, and that fierce fighting was raging in the streets of Moscow.
On March 2, every British newspaper carried telegrams reporting uprisings in Petrograd and Moscow: Lenin and Trotsky had fled to Crimea; 14,000 workers in Moscow were demanding the convocation of a constituent assembly; the Moscow Arsenal and the Moscow–Kursk railway station were in the hands of rebel workers; in Petrograd, Vasilyevsky Ostrov lay entirely under the control of the insurgents.
Let me offer a few examples from radio broadcasts and telegrams of the following days: On March 3, Klyshko telegraphed from

* - The Foreign Office. Ed.

London that Reuter 56 had picked up absurd rumors of an uprising in Petrograd and was actively spreading them.
March 6: Mason, the Berlin correspondent, telegraphed to New York that American workers were playing a crucial role in the Petrograd revolution, while Chicherin sent a radio order to General Hanetsky instructing him to close the border to emigrants from America.
March 7: Zinoviev had fled to Oranienbaum. In Moscow, Red artillery was shelling working‑class neighborhoods. Petrograd was cut off on all sides (Wigand’s radio).
March 7: Klyshko telegraphed that, according to reports from Reval, barricades had been erected on the streets of Moscow; newspapers reported from Helsingfors that Chernihiv had fallen to anti‑Bolshevik forces.
March 7: Both Petrograd and Moscow were in the hands of the rebels. An uprising had broken out in Odessa. Semenov, at the head of 25,000 Cossacks, was marching across Siberia. The Revolutionary Committee in Petrograd held fortifications and the fleet under its control (reports from the British radio station Poldy).
Naun, March 7: The factory districts of Petrograd had risen up in revolt. An anti‑Bolshevik uprising had swept across Volhynia.
Paris, March 7: Petrograd was in the hands of the Revolutionary Committee. Matin 57 reported that, according to information received in London, a white flag was flying over the Kremlin.
Paris, March 8: The rebels had seized Red Hill. Red Army regiments had mutinied in Pskov Governorate. The Bolsheviks were sending Bashkirs toward Petrograd.
On March 10, Klyshko telegraphed: Newspapers were asking themselves—had Petrograd fallen, or had it not fallen? According to reports from Helsingfors, three quarters of Petrograd were in the hands of the rebels; Trotsky—or, according to other accounts, Zinoviev—was directing operations at Tosna or perhaps at the Peter and Paul Fortress; according to still other reports, Brusilov had been appointed Commander‑in‑Chief; and, according to intelligence from Riga, Petrograd had been captured on the 9th—with the exception of the railway stations—the Red Army had retreated to Gatchina; Petrograd’s strikers were raising the slogan: “Down with the Soviets and the Communists!” The British War Office declared that it was still unknown whether the Kronstadt…

X CONGRESS OF THE RCP(b)
The rebels were aligned with the Petrograd faction—but according to his reports, Zinoviev was being held in the Peter and Paul Fortress, where he commanded Soviet troops.
Among the vast array of false fabrications circulating at the time, I will cite a few examples: Saratov had been transformed into an independent anti-Bolshevik republic (Naun 11 March). In the cities along the Volga, brutal pogroms against communists were unfolding (ibid.). In Minsk Governorate, Belarusian military units were engaged in fierce combat against the Red Army (ibid.).
Paris, 15 March: “Matin” reported that Kuban and Don Cossacks had risen up in large numbers.
On 14 March, Naun announced that Budyonny’s cavalry had joined the rebels near Orel. At various times, reports emerged of uprisings in Pskov, Odessa, and other cities.
On 9 March, Krassin telegraphed that the Washington correspondent for the “Times,” No. 58, stated that the Soviet regime was nearing its end—and that, as a result, America would postpone the establishment of diplomatic relations with the peripheral states. At different points in time, news from American banking circles indicated that, under the prevailing conditions, trading with Russia would amount to little more than a high‑stakes gamble.
As early as 4 March, the New York correspondent for the “Daily Chronicle,” No. 59, noted that business circles and the Republican Party in America regarded trade relations with Russia as a risky venture at present.
Undoubtedly, this campaign of lies is directed not only at America, but also at the Turkish delegation in London and at the Silesian plebiscite of 60.
Comrades, the picture is perfectly clear. The global press syndicate—where press freedom exists only insofar as it is bought and sold by financial magnates who control hundreds of millions of rubles—has launched a worldwide offensive on behalf of imperialist interests, seeking above all to sabotage the trade agreement with England that Krassin had begun, as well as the forthcoming trade agreement with America, negotiations for which we are currently conducting here, as I have pointed out, and on which specific directives were issued during the course of the Congress. This demonstrates, that our enemies, having lost the opportunity to launch an intervention, are now pinning their hopes on rebellion. The events in Kronstadt revealed their close ties with the international bourgeoisie. Moreover, we can see that what they fear most, from a practical standpoint, is the proper restoration of trade relations with international capital. Yet they will not succeed in disrupting these efforts. Here in Moscow, we have representatives of big capital who have grown utterly disillusioned with all these rumors—and they have testified to how, in America, a certain group of citizens employed an unprecedented form of agitation in favor of Soviet Russia.
This group collected, over the course of several months, from newspapers of every conceivable variety everything that had been said about Russia—about Lenin and Trotsky’s flight, about Trotsky’s alleged attempt to assassinate Lenin and then his own subsequent execution—and compiled it all into a single pamphlet, No. 61. One could hardly imagine a more effective form of propaganda for the Soviet government. Day after day, reports circulated regarding the number of times Lenin and Trotsky had been shot or killed; these reports were repeated month after month, until, in the end, they were gathered together into a single volume and published. The modern American bourgeois press has completely undermined its own credibility. Such is the enemy whom two million Russian émigrés abroad—drawn from the ranks of landowners and capitalists—have come to serve; such is the army of the bourgeoisie that stands opposed to us. And let them make whatever attempts they may to undermine the practical successes of the Soviet government and to disrupt our trade relations. We know full well that they will not succeed. All the information disseminated by the international press—the press that controls hundreds of thousands of newspapers and informs the entire world—once again reveals just how thoroughly we are surrounded by enemies, and how much weaker those enemies have become compared to last year. And this is something we must understand, comrades! I believe that the majority of members present at the Congress have come to grasp the true measure of our differences. Naturally, in the heat of congressional debate, it was impossible to maintain such a strict understanding of this measure. One cannot expect people who have just emerged from intense struggle to immediately comprehend it. But when we look upon our Party as the very hearth of the world revolution, X CONGRESS OF THE RCP(b)
and consider the campaign currently being waged by the syndicates of nations across the globe against us, there should be no doubt in our minds. Let them pursue their campaign as they will—we have taken a close look at it and clearly understood the extent of our differences. We know that, by uniting at this Congress, we shall emerge from our disagreements fully united, stronger than ever before—and with a Party that is increasingly hardened, poised to achieve ever more decisive victories on the international stage! (Stormy applause.)
“Pravda,” No. 60, and “Izvestia VTsIK,” No. 60, 20 March 1921