But if there are fundamental and deep principled disagreements, one might say to us – do they not justify even the harshest and most fractional pronouncements? If something new and incomprehensible must be said, does this not sometimes justify even a split?

Of course it justifies, if the disagreements are truly extremely deep and if corrections of an incorrect policy line of the party or the working class cannot be achieved otherwise.

But therein lies the trouble – that no such disagreements exist. Comrade Trotsky endeavored to point them out, but could not. And if before the appearance of his pamphlet (December 25) one could – and should – have spoken conditionally or in a conciliatory manner ("one cannot approach the question in this way even on condition that there are unrecognized new tasks, that there are disagreements"), then after this pamphlet one had to say: in what is new in his position, Comrade Trotsky is wrong on the merits.

This is most clearly evident from a comparison of Comrade Trotsky's theses with the theses of Rudzutak, which were adopted by the Fifth All-Russian Conference of Trade Unions (November 2–6). I cited them in my speech of December 30 and in *Pravda* of January 21[23]. These theses are both more correct and more complete than Trotsky's theses. That in which Trotsky's theses differ from Rudzutak's theses is wrong in Trotsky.

Let us take first the notorious "production democracy," which Comrade Bukharin hastened to insert into the CC resolution of December 7. Of course, it would be absurd to cavil at this clumsy and intellectually-artificial ("flourishes") term if it had been used in a speech or an article. But precisely Trotsky and Bukharin have placed themselves in such a ridiculous position that they insist in their theses on this very term, which distinguishes their "platforms" from the theses of Rudzutak adopted by the trade unions!

This term is theoretically incorrect. Any democracy, like any political superstructure in general (inevitable as long as the destruction of classes has not been completed, as long as a classless society has not been created), serves, in the final analysis, production and is determined, in the final analysis, by the production relations of the given society. Therefore, singling out "production democracy" from any other democracy says nothing. It is – confusion and an empty phrase. This is, first of all.

Second. Look at the explanation of this term by Bukharin himself in the resolution of the CC plenum of December 7 written by him. "Therefore," Bukharin wrote there, "the methods of workers' democracy must be the methods of production democracy. This means" – note: "this means"! Bukharin begins his address to the masses with such a convoluted term that it requires special explanation: in my view, from the standpoint of democratism, this is undemocratic; one must write for the masses without such new terms that require special explanation; from the standpoint of "production," this is harmful, for it forces one to waste time needlessly explaining an unnecessary term – "this means that all elections, nomination of candidates, their support, etc. must proceed not only from the angle of view of political steadfastness, but also from that of economic capabilities, administrative experience, organizational qualities, and proven concern for the material and spiritual interests of the toiling masses."

The argument is clearly forced and incorrect. Democracy does not mean only "elections, nomination of candidates, their support, etc." This is on one hand. On the other hand, not all elections must proceed from the angle of view of political steadfastness and economic capabilities. One must also, contrary to Trotsky, in a million-strong organization have a certain percentage of petitioners, bureaucrats (one cannot get by without good bureaucrats for many years). But we do not speak of "petitioning" or "bureaucratic" democracy.

Third. It is incorrect to look only at the elected, only at organizers, administrators, and the like. These are still a minority of outstanding people. One must look at the rank-and-file, at the masses. In Rudzutak this is expressed not only more simply, more understandably, but also theoretically more correctly (thesis 6):

"…it is necessary that each participant in production understand the necessity and expediency of the production tasks assigned to him; that each participant in production participate not only in fulfilling assignments from above, but also consciously take part in correcting all defects, technical and organizational, in the sphere of production."

Fourth. "Production democracy" is a term that generates the possibility of misinterpretation. It can be understood in the sense of negation of dictatorship and one-man leadership. It can be interpreted in the sense of postponement of ordinary democracy or of an evasion of it. Both of these interpretations are harmful, and to avoid them, one cannot do without special and lengthy commentaries.

Simple exposition of the same thoughts in Rudzutak is both more correct and avoids all these inconveniences. And Trotsky in his article "Production Democracy" in *Pravda*, January 11, not only does not refute that these incorrectnesses and inconveniences exist (he passes over this entire question, does not compare his theses with Rudzutak's), but, on the contrary, indirectly confirms the inconvenience and incorrectness of his term precisely by drawing a parallel to it with "military democracy." Fortunately, we never, as I recall, raised fractional disputes over such a term.

Even more unsuccessful is such a term of Trotsky's as "production atmosphere." Zinoviev justly laughed at it. Trotsky became very angry and objected: "We had a military atmosphere… Now a production atmosphere must be created in the working masses, in their substance, not only on the surface – that is, the same tension, business-like interest, attention to production that existed at the fronts…" That is precisely the point – that "in the working masses, in their substance" one must speak as it is spoken in Rudzutak's theses, and not by using words like "production atmosphere," which will cause bewilderment or a smile. In essence, by using the expression "production atmosphere," Comrade Trotsky expresses the same thought that is expressed by the concept of production propaganda. But precisely for the working masses, for their substance, production propaganda must be conducted in such a way as to avoid such expressions. This expression serves as an example of how production propaganda among the masses should not be conducted.