I was just about to begin my speech, comrades, on the subject of who is intimidating whom, and concerning comrade Shlyapnikov, who has greatly frightened us. Everyone here has been saying that Lenin is intimidating them with syndicalism. To say that Lenin wants to intimidate is to place oneself in a ridiculous position, for the idea that syndicalism is a form of intimidation is itself a ridiculous idea. I believe that first of all we must turn to our programs, read the program of the Communist Party, and see what it says. Comrades Trotsky and Shlyapnikov both cite the same passage from the Communist program, and this passage is precisely in section 5 of the program. I shall now read it to you in full:

"5. The organizational apparatus of socialized industry must be based, in the first instance, on the trade unions. They must increasingly free themselves from guild narrowness and transform themselves into large production associations, encompassing the majority and, gradually, all workers without exception, of each given branch of production."

Comrade Shlyapnikov cited this passage in his speech. But if the figures were correct, then 60% of those managing organizations were workers. Furthermore, if one is to cite the program, one must cite it properly; one must remember that party members know it in full, and not read one small piece and limit oneself to that, as Trotsky and Shlyapnikov are doing. Comrades, it is historically proven that workers cannot unite except by industries of production. That is why everywhere in the world people have come to the idea of production unions. Of course, this is for now. There is talk of the necessity of freeing oneself from guild narrowness. Well then, have we freed ourselves from it even by one-tenth? Anyone wishing to be honest will say that, of course, we have not freed ourselves. Why then forget this? Who tells the unions: "You have not yet freed yourselves from guild narrowness, but you must"? The RCP tells them in its program. Read that program. To depart from this means to depart from the program toward syndicalism. No matter how much they hint that Lenin wants to frighten someone, the program still exists. To cite the first part and forget about the second means to depart. In which direction? — in the syndicalist direction. I continue reading:

"Already being, according to the laws of the Soviet Republic and established practice, participants in all local and central organs of industrial management, the trade unions must come to the actual concentration in their hands of the entire management of the whole national economy as a single economic whole."

Everyone cites this. What is said here? An entirely undisputable thing: "must come." It is not said that they are coming now. There is nothing of the exaggeration that would be sufficient to produce nonsense. What is said here is "come." To what? To management and actual concentration. When must you come to this? For that, education is needed. To educate so that everyone without exception knows how to manage and knows how to do it. Can you now, speaking in all conscience, say that trade unions, when placing people in managerial posts, always and in any number, can put forward suitable managers? For managerial posts one needs not six million, but perhaps sixty thousand, or one hundred thousand. Can they produce such people? Everyone will say, if he does not get carried away chasing formulas and theses and those who shout the loudest, he will say: no, they cannot, that does not yet exist. The Party faces years of educational work, beginning with the elimination of illiteracy and ending with the entire sum of the Party's work in the trade unions. There is a mass of work in the trade unions in order to proceed properly toward this. And that is precisely what is said: "must come to the actual concentration in their hands of the entire management of the whole national economy." It does not say "by branches of industry," as Trotsky does in his theses. In one of the first theses it is cited precisely. But in another, it says — the organization of industry. Excuse me, one should not cite in that manner. If you write theses, if you wish to cite the program, read it to the end. And anyone who reads this paragraph 5 from beginning to end, thinks about it a little, spends ten minutes on it, will see that Shlyapnikov has departed from the program and gone to the side, and Trotsky has jumped. Read this paragraph 5 to the end:

"Thus ensuring an unbreakable link between central state management, the national economy, and the broad masses of workers, the trade unions must, in the widest possible manner, involve the latter in direct work on the conduct of the economy. The participation of trade unions in the conduct of the economy and their drawing of the broad masses into this work is, at the same time, the principal means of struggle against bureaucratization of the economic apparatus of Soviet power and affords the possibility of establishing genuine popular control over the results of production."

Look, first you must come to the point where you actually concentrate. But what do you now ensure? — A link between central state management — one. This is a machine. You have not taught us to overcome it. Thus, ensure a link between central state management — one, the national economy — two, and the masses — three. Have we ensured this link? What — can the unions manage? Indeed, those will laugh who have passed thirty years of age and have some life experience of Soviet construction. Read this:

"The participation of trade unions in the conduct of the economy and their drawing of the broad masses into this work is, at the same time, the principal means of struggle against bureaucratization of the economic apparatus of Soviet power and affords the possibility of establishing genuine popular control over the results of production."

First — ensure a link between the central state apparatus. We are not concealing this disease, but in the program we have indicated — ensure a link with the masses, and second, the participation of trade unions in the conduct of the economy. There are no grandiose words here. When you do this to such a degree that you reduce absenteeism not by 30 percent, but even by 3 percent, then we shall say: splendid, useful, and valuable work. "The participation of trade unions in the conduct of the economy and their drawing of the broad masses into this work" — that is what the program of this day says. Not one word of promise, nothing grandiose, nothing resembling what you yourselves select — the program did not say that. It does not engage in demagogy and says that there are dark, undeveloped masses, there are trade unions that are so strong that they lead all the peasantry along with them, and they themselves march under the leadership of a party that has been schooled for twenty years in struggle against Tsarism. No country has experienced what Russia has experienced. That is the entire mechanism by which we hold ourselves together. Why is this considered a miracle? Because in a peasant country only trade unions can unite economically millions of scattered individual economies, if the six-million mass itself believes in its party, follows its party as it has done up to now. That is the mechanism by which we hold ourselves together. This is a political question of how this mechanism works. Why can a minority in a vast peasant country govern, and why are we calm? After three years of experience, no one in the world — neither external nor internal forces — can break us; if we do not commit a supernatural stupidity leading to splits, we shall preserve our position; otherwise we shall go to the devil. That is why, when comrade Shlyapnikov in his platform says and writes:

"The All-Russian Congress of Producers elects the management of the national economy,"

I tell you: read in full paragraph 5, which I have read to you from our program, and you will see that neither Lenin nor anyone is frightening you.

Shlyapnikov said in concluding his speech: "Let us finish with the bureaucratism of the state and the bureaucratism of the national economy." I assert that this is demagogy. We have put bureaucratism on the agenda beginning in July of last year. In July of last year, after the Ninth Congress of the RCP, Preobrazhenskii raises the question — do we not have an excess of bureaucratism? Keep a sharp lookout. In August, the Central Committee confirms Zinoviev's letter — struggle against bureaucratism. In September, a Party conference convenes and confirms this. So Lenin did not invent a new path, as Trotsky notes, but the Party said: "A new ailment has arisen, keep a sharp lookout." In July Preobrazhenskii raises this question, in August Zinoviev's letter, in September — the Party conference, in December — at the Congress of Soviets — a tremendous report on bureaucratism. So an ailment has appeared. We wrote in our program in 1919 that we have bureaucratism. Whoever proposes to finish with bureaucratism is a demagogue. Shlyapnikov has always been somewhat as he is now — he has always had a touch of this. If people come before you and say — "let us finish with bureaucratism" — that is demagogy. That is nonsense. We shall be struggling with bureaucratism for long years, and whoever thinks otherwise is a charlatan and a demagogue, because to overcome bureaucratism requires hundreds of measures, requires universal literacy, universal culture, universal participation in the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection. Shlyapnikov was People's Commissar of Labor, was People's Commissar of Trade and Industry. Well then, did he finish with bureaucratism? Kiselev was in the Chief Textile Administration. Well then, did he finish with bureaucratism?

Let me say once more that when all our congresses divide into sections and gather facts on fusion among the millers and among the Donbas workers, then we — are adults. But if we have written a whole series of worthless platforms, that proves that we are not masters. I repeat that no one will break us — neither external nor internal forces — if we do not bring ourselves to a split. I say that Tsektran is not only a stick but an exaggeration led to a split. The exaggeration of bureaucratism exists among all, and the Central Committee knows this and is answerable for it. And in this respect, comrade Trotsky's error is that all his theses are written in the opposite spirit. They are all written in the spirit of upheaval, and they have all brought the union to a split. And the matter is not to give comrade Trotsky a failing grade — we are not schoolchildren and there is no need to assign us marks — but to say that comrade Trotsky's theses in their entire content are incorrect and therefore must be rejected.

Published January 26, 1921, in the "Bulletin of the 2nd All-Russian Congress of Miners," No. 2

Printed according to the text of the bulletin