X CONGRESS OF THE RCP(b)
FINAL REMARKS ON THE REPORT CONCERNING PARTY UNITY AND THE ANARCHO-SYNDICALIST TENDENCY

16 MARCH
Comrades, we have heard some remarkably sharp remarks here—perhaps the most pointed of them was the accusation that our resolution amounted to slander. Yet there are certain kinds of sharpness that expose themselves. You have the resolution before you; you know that we brought two representatives of the “Workers’ Opposition” into the Central Committee—and that we employed the term “tendency.” I wish to underscore its significance. Neither Shlyapnikov nor Medvedev proposed any other word. We have criticized the theses that were criticized by representatives from every faction. After all this, how can one speak of slander? If we had falsely attributed to people something that was in fact refuted, then that harsh word might have been justified. But what we are dealing with now is nothing more than a manifestation of well-known irritation—a rather unserious objection!
Now let me turn to the points that have been raised here. It was suggested that injustice had been done to the “Democratic Centralism” group. You have followed the evolution of the agreement among the various factions and the exchange of views on the question of electing a representative to the Central Committee—this very issue that was brought up here by representatives of the “Democratic Centralism” group. You know that, beginning with the private meeting at which the entire “Workers’ Opposition” group was present, along with several leading comrades representing all shades of opinion—I, for example, personally advocated openly that we should welcome representatives from both the “Workers’ Opposition” and the “Democratic Centralism” groups onto the Central Committee. No one at that meeting, where all comrades from the “Workers’ Opposition” and representatives from every faction were gathered, ever disputed this point. It is perfectly clear that when, as a result, we ended up with a candidate from the “Democratic Centralism” group rather than a full member of the Central Committee, this was the outcome of prolonged exchanges of views and of agreements reached between the factions themselves. To see in this anything resembling distrust or injustice toward the “Democratic Centralism” group is simply nitpicking. We did everything necessary to emphasize our desire to act fairly—and we did it within the Central Committee. This is a fact that cannot be erased. To conclude that there was injustice here is mere quibbling! Or take, for example, the comrade from the “Democratic Centralism” group who argued that paragraph 7 of the resolution was unnecessary: after all, the Central Committee already possessed the authority to do so. We propose not to publish paragraph 7 because we hope it will never need to be invoked—that is, it is an extreme measure. But when a comrade from the “Democratic Centralism” group says, “You had the right to do that under the Party Statute,”47 he does not understand the Statute, he does not understand the principles of democratic centralism, he does not understand the principles of centralism. For the Central Committee, elected at the Congress, to have the power to expel a member—no democracy, no form of centralism would ever permit such a thing. (Voice: “Through the Party!”) Especially through the Party. The Central Committee is elected by the Congress; in doing so, the Congress expresses its highest degree of trust and entrusts the leadership to it. And for the Central Committee to possess such authority over its own members—our Party has never tolerated anything of the sort anywhere. This is an extreme measure taken precisely in light of the dangers posed by the prevailing situation. Comrade Radek explained this quite correctly. An extraordinary assembly is convened: the Central Committee, plus the candidates, plus the Control Commission—all with equal voting rights. Our Statute never provided for such an institution, nor had our practice ever called for such a plenary session of forty-seven members. Therefore, I repeat: the comrades from the “Democratic Centralism” group do not understand either the Statute or the principles of democratic centralism, nor do they understand the principles of centralism. This is an extreme measure—and I hope we will never be forced to apply it.

X CONGRESS OF THE RCP(b)
It merely shows that the Party is applying what you have heard about—namely, that when disagreements reach a point where one side comes perilously close to potential schism, the Party takes decisive action. We are not children; we have seen hard times, we have witnessed and endured splits, and we know how agonizing they can be—and we are not afraid to call danger by its proper name.
Have there ever been moments at previous Congresses, even amid the sharpest disagreements, when one side came perilously close to outright division? There have not. Are there such moments today? Yes, there are. These matters have been pointed out time and again. I believe that it is precisely these kinds of disagreements that we must strive to overcome.
Next, it was argued that unity is not achieved through resolutions of this kind—that criticism, according to the resolution, ought to be directed exclusively through the Party’s organs, as if this somehow implied a lack of trust in the comrades of the “Workers’ Opposition,” thereby making it difficult for them to remain in the Central Committee. But this too is entirely false! From the very beginning, I explained why we chose the term “tendency.” If you do not like it, submit this resolution—taking it as a basis—to the Presidium for possible softening. Should we find a milder term, I would gladly propose replacing “tendency” with that word, and likewise introduce softer language elsewhere. We will not object to that. Of course, now is hardly the time to dwell on such details. Submit the resolution to the Presidium for revision, for softening. Any further intensification here is unthinkable—and I will not object to that. But when people claim that this resolution amounts to inciting one part of the Party against another, that too is simply incorrect.
I do not know the composition of the “Workers’ Opposition” group in Samara; I have never been there—but I am confident that if a member of the Central Committee from any faction, or a delegate to the Congress from any faction except the “Workers’ Opposition,” were to argue at a meeting of the Samara organization that the resolution contains no incitement, but rather a call for unity and an appeal to win over the majority of the “Workers’ Opposition” to their side, he would succeed in making that case. When people use terms like “incitement,” they forget about paragraph five of the resolution on unity, which explicitly states that we recognize…

the merits of the “Workers’ Opposition.” Isn’t that stated right there, side by side? On the one hand, they “allow for deviation,” while on the other, read paragraph five: “The Congress also declares that, with regard to questions that have attracted particular attention—such as those raised by the so‑called ‘Workers’ Opposition’—concerning the cleansing of the Party from non-proletarian and unreliable elements, the fight against bureaucratism, the development of democracy and workers’ self‑activity, and the like—any and all practical proposals must be considered with the utmost care,” and so forth. Is this incitement? No—it is a recognition of merit. We say: on the one hand, you displayed a tendency toward deviation in the course of the debate, a tendency that is politically dangerous—and even Comrade Medvedev’s Resolution 48 acknowledges this in different terms—but then it goes on to state: as for the fight against bureaucratism, we agree that we have not yet done everything that could be done. This is a recognition of merit, not an act of incitement!
When a comrade from the “Workers’ Opposition” is admitted to the Central Committee, that is an expression of comradeship and trust. And after that, when someone attends a meeting not inflamed by factional strife, that very meeting will declare that there is no incitement here, but rather an expression of comradeship and trust. As for the most extreme measure, that pertains to the future; we are not applying it at present, and for now we are simply expressing comradeship and trust. If you believe that our theoretical positions are incorrect, then we have the opportunity to publish dozens of collections; and if there are young comrades—for example, within the Samara organization—who wish to offer something new on this issue, then by all means, comrades of Samara—please do! We will print several of your articles. After all, there is not a single person who fails to understand the difference between what is said at the Congress and what is thrown out to the workers. The Party does not waver in its actions—but in any case, at a workers’ meeting we will not speak about what Comrade Kamensky spoke about, nor about what he had every right to say before the Party.

* See this volume, pp. 91–92. Ed.

X CONGRESS OF THE RCP(b)
by the Congress. If you compare the precise text of the resolution, you will see that it contains a theoretically principled directive; there is nothing here that is offensive, and alongside this there is a recognition of merit in the fight against bureaucratism, an expression of the desire to receive assistance—and moreover, representatives of this group have been included in the Central Committee, which is a manifestation of the highest degree of trust, greater than which cannot exist within the Party. That is why, comrades, I propose that we adopt these two resolutions, voting on them by name, then submit them to the Presidium for editing and for the refinement of their wording—and since Comrade Shlyapnikov sits on the Presidium, he may well find a more appropriate term to replace the word “deviation.”
And regarding the announced resignation, I propose that we adopt the following resolution: “The Congress calls upon all members of the dissolved ‘Workers’ Opposition’ group to abide by Party discipline, obliges them to remain in the posts assigned to them, and does not accept the resignation of Comrade Shlyapnikov or any other resignations whatsoever.” 49. (Applause.)