(THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NEW POLICY AND ITS CONDITIONS)
INSTEAD OF AN INTRODUCTION
The question of the food tax is currently attracting a great deal of attention, discussion, and debate. This is perfectly understandable, as it is indeed one of the main policy issues under the present conditions.
The discussion is somewhat chaotic. We all suffer from this sin, for reasons that are all too clear. All the more useful, then, will be an attempt to approach this question not from its "topical" side, but from its general, fundamental side. In other words: to look at the general, fundamental background of the picture on which we are now drawing the pattern of specific practical measures of the policy of the day.
To make such an attempt, I will take the liberty of quoting at length from my pamphlet: "The Chief Task of Our Day. - On 'Left-Wing' Childishness and Petty-Bourgeois Mentality" *. This pamphlet was published by the Petrograd Soviet in 1918 and contains, first, a newspaper article of March 11, 1918, on the Brest Peace, and second, a polemic with the then group of Left Communists, dated May 5, 1918. The polemic is no longer needed, and I am discarding it. I am leaving what relates to the discussion of "state capitalism" and the basic elements of our modern economy, transitional from capitalism to socialism.
Here is what I wrote then:

* See Collected Works, 5th ed., vol. 36, pp. 283-314. Ed.

ON THE MODERN ECONOMY OF RUSSIA (FROM A PAMPHLET OF 1918)
"... State capitalism would be a step forward compared to the present state of affairs in our Soviet republic. If, for example, state capitalism were established in our country in about six months, it would be a great success and the surest guarantee that socialism would be finally consolidated and become invincible in a year.
I imagine with what noble indignation some people will recoil from these words... What? In the Soviet socialist republic, the transition to state capitalism would be a step forward? Is this not a betrayal of socialism?
It is precisely on this point that we must dwell in more detail.
First, we must analyze exactly what kind of transition from capitalism to socialism gives us the right and the basis to call ourselves a socialist republic of Soviets.
Secondly, we must expose the error of those who do not see the petty-bourgeois economic conditions and the petty-bourgeois element as the main enemy of socialism in our country.
Thirdly, we must thoroughly understand the significance of the Soviet state in its economic distinction from the bourgeois state.
Let us consider all three of these circumstances.
There has not yet been, it seems, a person who, when asking about the economy of Russia, denied the transitional nature of this economy. No communist, it seems, has denied that the expression "Socialist Soviet Republic" means the determination of the Soviet power to carry out the transition to socialism, and not at all the recognition of the given economic order as socialist.
But what does the word transition mean? Does it not mean, when applied to the economy, that in a given system there are elements, particles, pieces of capitalism and socialism? Everyone will admit that it does. But not everyone, admit-

ON THE FOOD TAX
ting this, reflects on what exactly are the elements of the various socio-economic structures that are present in Russia. And this is the crux of the matter. Let us list these elements:
1) patriarchal, i.e., to a large extent natural, peasant farming;

2) small commodity production (this includes the majority of peasants who sell grain);

3) private capitalist capitalism;

4) state capitalism;

5) socialism.
Russia is so large and so diverse that all these different types of socio-economic structure are intertwined in it. The peculiarity of the situation lies precisely in this.
The question is, which elements predominate? It is clear that in a small-peasant country the petty-bourgeois element predominates, and cannot but predominate: the majority, and the vast majority, of farmers are small commodity producers. The shell of state capitalism (the grain monopoly, controlled entrepreneurs and traders, bourgeois co-operators) is torn apart here and there by speculators, and the main object of speculation is grain.
The main struggle unfolds precisely in this area. Between whom and whom is this struggle going on, if we speak in terms of economic categories, such as "state capitalism"? Between the fourth and fifth stages in the order in which I listed them now? Of course not. It is not state capitalism that is fighting here with socialism, but the petty bourgeoisie plus private capitalist capitalism are fighting together, in concert, both against state capitalism and against socialism. The petty bourgeoisie resists all state interference, accounting, and control, both state-capitalist and state-socialist. This is a completely indisputable fact of reality, in the misunderstanding of which lies the root of a whole series of economic errors. The speculator, the marauder of trade, the disruptor of the monopoly – that is our main “internal” enemy, the enemy of the economic measures of the Soviet power. If 125 years ago it was still excusable for the French petty bourgeois, the most ardent and most sincere revolutionaries, to strive to defeat the speculator by executing individual, few “chosen” ones and with thunderous declarations, then now a purely French attitude to the question on the part of some Left Socialist-Revolutionaries evokes in every conscious revolutionary only disgust or disdain. We know perfectly well that the economic basis of speculation is the petty-proprietor stratum, unusually broad in Russia, and private-enterprise capitalism, which has its agent in every petty bourgeois. We know that millions of tentacles of this petty-bourgeois hydra encompass now here, now there, individual strata of workers, that speculation, instead of state monopoly, bursts into all the pores of our socio-economic life.
Whoever does not see this, precisely by his blindness reveals his captivity to petty-bourgeois prejudices...
The petty bourgeois has a stock of money, several thousand, accumulated “righteously” and especially unrighteously during the war. Such is the economic type, characteristic as the basis of speculation and private-enterprise capitalism. Money is a certificate for receiving public wealth, and the multi-million stratum of small proprietors, firmly holding this certificate, hides it from the “state,” not believing in any socialism or communism, “sitting out” the proletarian storm. Either we subject this petty bourgeois to our control and accounting (we will be able to do this if we organize the poor, i.e., the majority of the population or semi-proletarians, around the conscious proletarian vanguard), or he will overthrow our, the workers', power inevitably and inescapably, as Napoleons and Cavaignacs overthrew the revolution, precisely on this petty-proprietor soil and growing out of it. That is how the question stands. Only that is how the question stands...

ON THE FOOD TAX
The petty bourgeois, hoarding thousands, is an enemy of state capitalism, and he wants to realize these thousands necessarily for himself, against the poor, against any state control, and the sum of thousands gives a multi-billion base of speculation, disrupting our socialist construction. Let us assume that a certain number of workers gives in a few days a sum of values expressed by the number 1000. Let us further assume that 200 of this sum is lost to us as a result of petty speculation, all sorts of theft, and petty-proprietor circumvention of Soviet decrees and Soviet regulations. Every conscious worker will say: if I could give 300 out of a thousand, at the price of creating greater order and organization, I would gladly give three hundred instead of two hundred, because under Soviet power it will be a very easy task to reduce this “tribute” later, say, to one hundred or to fifty, once order and organization are established, once the petty-proprietor disruption of any state monopoly is finally broken.
This simple numerical example – which is intentionally simplified to the extreme for popular exposition – explains the relationship between the present state of state capitalism and socialism. The workers have power in the state, they have the fullest legal possibility to “take” the entire thousand, i.e., not to give away a kopeck without socialist designation. This legal possibility, based on the actual transfer of power to the workers, is an element of socialism. But in many ways the petty-proprietor and private-capitalist element undermines the legal position, drags in speculation, disrupts the implementation of Soviet decrees. State capitalism would be a gigantic step forward, even if (and I deliberately took such a numerical example to sharply show this) we paid more than now, because it is worth paying “for science,” because it is useful for the workers, because the victory over disorder, ruin, laxity is most important of all, because the continuation of petty-proprietor anarchy is the greatest, the most formidable the danger that will ruin us (if we do not overcome it) without a doubt, whereas the payment of a greater tribute to state capitalism will not only not ruin us, but will lead us by the surest path to socialism. The working class, having learned how to defend the state order against petty-bourgeois anarchism, having learned how to establish a large, nationwide organization of production on state-capitalist principles, will then have, - excuse the expression, - all the trumps in its hands, and the consolidation of socialism will be assured.
State capitalism is economically incomparably higher than our present economy, that is the first point.
Secondly, there is nothing terrible in it for the Soviet power, for the Soviet state is a state in which the power of the workers and the poor is secured...
* * *
To further clarify the question, let us first give a very concrete example of state capitalism. Everyone knows what this example is: Germany. Here we have the "last word" of modern large-capitalist technology and planned organization, subordinated to Junker-bourgeois imperialism. Discard the emphasized words, put in place of the military, Junker, bourgeois, imperialist state also a state, but a state of a different social type, of a different class content, a Soviet state, i.e., a proletarian state, and you will get the whole sum of conditions that gives socialism.
Socialism is unthinkable without large-capitalist technology, built according to the latest word of modern science, without a planned state organization that subjects tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a single norm in the production and distribution of products. We Marxists have always said this, and it is not worth spending even two seconds talking to people who have not even understood this

ON THE FOOD TAX
(anarchists and a good half of the Left SRs).
Socialism is unthinkable at the same time without the domination of the proletariat in the state: this is also elementary. History (from which no one, except perhaps the Menshevik blockheads of the first rank, expected it to give a "complete" socialism smoothly, calmly, easily and simply) went so peculiarly that by 1918 it gave birth to two separate halves of socialism, side by side, exactly like two future chickens, under one shell of international imperialism. Germany and Russia embodied in themselves in 1918 most clearly the material realization of the economic, productive, socio-economic, on the one hand, and political conditions of socialism, on the other hand.
A victorious proletarian revolution in Germany would immediately, with enormous ease, break any shell of imperialism (made, unfortunately, of the best steel and therefore not broken by the efforts of any chicken), would ensure the victory of world socialism for sure, without difficulties or with negligible difficulties, - of course, if the scale of the "difficult" is taken as world-historical, and not philistine-circle.
If the revolution in Germany is still slow to "give birth," our task is to learn state capitalism from the Germans, to adopt it with all our might, to spare no dictatorial methods in order to accelerate this adoption of Westernism by barbaric Russia, not stopping at barbaric means of struggle against barbarism. If there are people among the anarchists and Left SRs (I accidentally remembered the speeches of Karelin and Gê in the All-Russian Central Executive Committee) who are capable of reasoning in the Karelin manner that it is not fitting for us, revolutionaries, to "learn" from German imperialism, then one thing must be said: the revolution that takes such people seriously would perish hopelessly (and quite deservedly).
In Russia, petty-bourgeois capitalism now prevails, from which both to state large capitalism and to socialism leads one and the same road, leads the way through the same intermediate station, called "nationwide accounting and control over the production and distribution of products." Whoever does not understand this is making an unforgivable economic error, either not knowing the facts of reality, not seeing what is, not being able to face the truth, or limiting themselves to an abstract opposition of "capitalism" to "socialism" and not delving into the concrete forms and stages of this transition now with us.
In parentheses, let it be said: this is the same theoretical error that misled the best of the people in the camp of "New Life" 84 and "Forward": the worst and the average of them, due to their dullness and lack of character, trail behind the bourgeoisie, intimidated by it; the best - did not understand that the teachers of socialism spoke not in vain and emphasized not without reason "the long pangs of childbirth" 85 of the new society about a whole period of transition from capitalism to socialism, and this new society, again, is an abstraction that cannot be embodied in life except through a series of diverse, imperfect concrete attempts to create one or another socialist state.
Precisely because it is impossible to move forward from the current economic situation in Russia without going through what is common to both state capitalism and socialism (nationwide accounting and control), frightening others and ourselves with "evolution towards state capitalism" is complete theoretical nonsense. This means precisely spreading thought "to the side" from the real road of "evolution," not understanding this road; in practice, this is tantamount to pulling back to petty-bourgeois capitalism.
In order for the reader to be convinced that the "high" assessment of state capitalism is given by me not only now, but was given even before the Bolsheviks seized power, I will allow myself to quote the following from my pamphlet: "The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It," written in September 1917:

ON THE FOOD TAX
"... Try to substitute a revolutionary-democratic state for the Junker-capitalist, for the landowner-capitalist state, i.e., a state that revolutionarily destroys all privileges, that is not afraid to revolutionarily implement the most complete democratism? You will see that state-monopoly capitalism under a truly revolutionary-democratic state inevitably, inevitably means a step towards socialism.
... For socialism is nothing other than the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly.
... State-monopoly capitalism is the fullest material preparation for socialism, it is its antechamber, it is that step on the historical ladder, between which (step) and the step called socialism, there are no intermediate steps" (pp. 27 and 28) *.
Note that this was written under Kerensky, that we are not talking here about the dictatorship of the proletariat, not about a socialist state, but about a "revolutionary-democratic" one. Is it not clear that the higher we have risen above this political step, the more fully we have embodied the socialist state and the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviets, the less we are allowed to fear "state capitalism"? Is it not clear that in the material, economic, production sense we are not yet in the "antechamber" of socialism? And that one cannot enter the door of socialism except through this "antechamber," which we have not yet reached?..
* * *
The following circumstance is also extremely instructive.
When we argued in the Central Executive Committee with Comrade Bukharin, he remarked, among other things: on the issue of high salaries for specialists "we" are "more right than Lenin," because we see no deviation from principles here, remembering

* See Works, 5th ed., vol. 34, pp. 191, 192, 193. Ed.

Marx's words that, under certain conditions, it would be most expedient for the working class to "buy off this gang" 86 (namely, the gang of capitalists, i.e., to buy out the land, factories, plants, and other means of production from the bourgeoisie).
This is an extremely interesting remark...
... Reflect on Marx's idea.
It concerned England in the 1870s, the culminating period of pre-monopoly capitalism, a country in which there was then the least militarism and bureaucracy, a country in which there were then the most opportunities for a "peaceful" victory of socialism in the sense of the workers "buying out" the bourgeoisie. And Marx said: under certain conditions, the workers will not at all refuse to buy out the bourgeoisie. Marx did not tie his own hands - or those of future actors in the socialist revolution - regarding the forms, methods, and means of the revolution, perfectly understanding what a mass of new problems would then arise, how the whole situation would change in the course of the revolution, how often and strongly it would change in the course of the revolution.
Well, and in Soviet Russia, after the proletariat seized power, after the suppression of the military and sabotage resistance of the exploiters - is it not obvious that certain conditions have developed along the lines of those that could have developed half a century ago in England, if it had then peacefully begun to transition to socialism? The subordination of capitalists to workers in England could then have been ensured by the following circumstances: 1) the complete predominance of workers, proletarians, in the population, due to the absence of a peasantry (in England in the 1870s there were signs that allowed one to hope for extremely rapid successes of socialism among rural workers); 2) the excellent organization of the proletariat in trade unions (England was then the first country in the world in this respect); 3) the comparatively high culture of the proletariat, trained by centuries of development of political freedom; 4) the long habit of the magnificently organized capitalists of England -

ON THE FOOD TAX
then they were the best organized capitalists of all the countries of the world (now this primacy has passed to Germany) - to resolving political and economic issues by compromise. It is by virtue of what circumstances the idea of the possibility of the peaceful subordination of the capitalists of England to its workers could then have arisen.
With us, this subordination is ensured at the present moment by certain concrete premises (victory in October and the suppression from October to February of the military and sabotage resistance of the capitalists). With us, instead of the complete predominance of workers, proletarians, in the population and their high organization, the support of the proletarians by the poorest and rapidly ruined peasantry was the factor of victory. With us, finally, there is neither high culture nor a habit of compromise. If one thinks through these concrete conditions, it will become clear that we can and must now achieve a combination of methods of merciless retribution against uncultured capitalists who are not going for any "state capitalism," who are not thinking about any compromise, who continue to disrupt Soviet measures by speculation, bribery of the poor, etc., with methods of compromise or buyout in relation to cultured capitalists who are going for "state capitalism," who are capable of implementing it, who are useful to the proletariat as intelligent and experienced organizers of the largest enterprises, truly covering the supply of products to tens of millions of people.
Bukharin is a superbly educated Marxist economist. Therefore, he remembered that Marx was profoundly right when he taught the workers the importance of preserving the organization of the largest production precisely in the interests of facilitating the transition to socialism and the complete admissibility of the idea of paying the capitalists well, buying them out, if (as an exception: England was then an exception) circumstances develop in such a way that they force the capitalists to peacefully submit and culturally, in an organized manner, transition to socialism on the condition of a buyout.

But Bukharin fell into error, for he did not reflect on the concrete distinctiveness of the given moment in Russia, a moment precisely exceptional, when we, the proletariat of Russia, are ahead of any England and any Germany in our political system, in the strength of the political power of the workers, and at the same time behind the most backward of the West European states in the organization of respectable state capitalism, in the level of culture, in the degree of preparation for the material and productive "introduction" of socialism. Is it not clear that from this distinctive situation there follows for the given moment precisely the necessity of a distinctive "ransom" that the workers must offer to the most cultured, most talented, most organizationally capable capitalists, ready to enter the service of the Soviet power and respectably help in the organization of large and the largest "state" production? Is it not clear that in such a distinctive situation we must strive to avoid errors of two kinds, each of which is petty-bourgeois in its own way? On the one hand, it would be an irreparable error to declare that since the discrepancy between our economic "forces" and political power is recognized, then "consequently" we should not have taken power. This is how "men in boxes" reason, forgetting that "correspondence" will never exist, that it cannot exist in the development of society, as in the development of nature, that only through a series of attempts, each of which, taken separately, will be one-sided, will suffer from a certain discrepancy, is victorious socialism created from the revolutionary cooperation of the proletarians of all countries.
On the other hand, it would be a clear error to give free rein to shouters and phrase-mongers who allow themselves to be carried away by "bright" revolutionary spirit, but are incapable of sustained, thought-out, balanced revolutionary work that takes into account even the most difficult transitions.
Fortunately, the history of the development of revolutionary parties and the struggle of Bolshevism with them has left us a legacy of sharply defined types, of which the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries and anarchists illustrate the type of poor revolutionaries quite clearly. They are now shouting - hysterically, choking, shouting against the "compromise" of the "right-wing Bolsheviks." But they cannot think about what was bad about "compromise" and why it was justly condemned by history and the course of the revolution.
The compromise of Kerensky's time surrendered power to the imperialist bourgeoisie, and the question of power is the fundamental question of any revolution. The compromise of part of the Bolsheviks in October-November 1917 either feared the seizure of power by the proletariat, or wanted to divide power equally not only with "unreliable fellow travelers" like the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, but also with enemies, the Chernovs, the Mensheviks, who would inevitably hinder us in the main thing: in the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly, in the merciless crushing of the Bogayevskys, in the full implementation of the measures of Soviet institutions, in every confiscation.
Now power has been taken, retained, and strengthened in the hands of one party, the party of the proletariat, even without "unreliable fellow travelers." To speak now of compromise, when there can be no question of dividing power, of renouncing the dictatorship of the proletarians against the bourgeoisie, means simply repeating, like a magpie, learned but misunderstood words. To call "compromise" the fact that, having come to a position where we can and must govern the country, we are trying to attract to ourselves, sparing no money, the most cultured of the elements trained by capitalism, to take them into service against petty-bourgeois disintegration, means not being able to think at all about the economic tasks of building socialism..." *.

ON THE FOOD TAX, ON FREEDOM OF TRADE, ON CONCESSIONS
There are a number of errors in the above reasoning of 1918 regarding the time frames. The time frames turned out to be longer than expected then. This is not surprising. But the main

* See Works, 5th ed., Vol. 36, pp. 295-307. Ed.

the elements of our economy remained the same. The peasant "poor" (proletarians and semi-proletarians) have, in a very large number of cases, turned into middle peasants. From this, the petty-bourgeois, small-proprietor "element" has strengthened. And the civil war of 1918-1920 greatly intensified the country's ruin, delayed the restoration of its productive forces, and bled the proletariat most of all. To this was added the crop failure of 1920, lack of fodder, and livestock mortality, which further delayed the restoration of transport and industry, affecting, for example, the delivery of firewood, our main fuel, by peasant horses.
As a result, the political situation by the spring of 1921 was such that immediate, most decisive, and most urgent measures to improve the situation of the peasantry and raise its productive forces became urgently necessary.
Why the peasantry in particular, and not the workers?
Because to improve the situation of the workers, bread and fuel are needed. Now the biggest "delay" - from the point of view of the entire state economy - is precisely because of this. And it is impossible to increase the production and collection of grain, the procurement and delivery of fuel, except by improving the situation of the peasantry, raising its productive forces. We must start with the peasantry. Anyone who does not understand this, who is inclined to see in this putting the peasantry in the first place an "renunciation" or something like a renunciation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, simply does not think about the matter, gives himself over to the power of the phrase. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the leadership of politics by the proletariat. The proletariat, as the leading, as the ruling class, must be able to direct policy in such a way as to solve in the first place the most urgent, the most "painful" task. Most urgent now are measures capable of raising the productive forces of peasant farming immediately. Only through this can we achieve both an improvement in the situation of the workers, and the strengthening of the alliance of workers with the peasantry, and the strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

ON THE FOOD TAX
That proletarian or representative of the proletariat who would want to go to improve the situation of the workers not through this, would in fact turn out to be an accomplice of the White Guards and capitalists. For not going through this means: putting the guild interests of the workers above the class interests, means: sacrificing the interests of the entire working class, its dictatorship, its alliance with the peasantry against the landowners and capitalists, its leading role in the struggle for the liberation of labor from the yoke of capital, to the interests of the immediate, momentary, partial benefit of the workers.
So: first of all, immediate and serious measures are needed to raise the productive forces of the peasantry.
This cannot be done without serious changes in food policy. Such a change was the replacement of the surplus appropriation system with a tax in kind, associated with freedom of trade after payment of the tax, at least in local economic circulation.
What is the essence of replacing the surplus appropriation system with a tax in kind?
There are very widespread misconceptions on this score. The incorrectness stems mostly from the fact that they do not delve into the essence of the transition, do not ask themselves what this transition leads from and to. They imagine the matter as if the transition was from communism in general to bourgeoisness in general. Against this error, it is inevitably necessary to point out what was said in May 1918.
The tax in kind is one of the forms of transition from a peculiar "war communism," forced by extreme need, ruin, and war, to a correct socialist exchange of products. And this latter, in turn, is one of the forms of transition from socialism with peculiarities, caused by the predominance of the small peasantry in the population, to communism.
The peculiar "war communism" consisted in the fact that we actually took from the peasants all the surpluses and even sometimes not surpluses, but part of the food necessary for the peasant, took it to cover the costs of the army and the maintenance of the workers. We took mostly on credit, for paper money. We could not have defeated the landowners and capitalists in a ruined petty-peasant country otherwise. And the fact that we did defeat them (despite the support of our exploiters by the most powerful powers in the world) shows not only what miracles of heroism the workers and peasants are capable of in the struggle for their liberation. This fact also shows what role the lackeys of the bourgeoisie played in reality, the Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries, Kautsky and Co., when they blamed us for this "war communism." It should be counted to our credit.
But it is no less necessary to know the true measure of this merit. "War communism" was forced by war and ruin. It was not and could not be a policy that met the economic tasks of the proletariat. It was a temporary measure. The correct policy of the proletariat, exercising its dictatorship in a petty-peasant country, is the exchange of grain for industrial products needed by the peasant. Only such a food policy meets the tasks of the proletariat, only it is capable of strengthening the foundations of socialism and leading to its complete victory.
The tax in kind is a transition to it. We are still so ruined, so crushed by the oppression of the war (which was yesterday and may flare up, thanks to the greed and malice of the capitalists, tomorrow), that we cannot give the peasant industrial products for all the grain we need. Knowing this, we are introducing a tax in kind, that is, we take the minimum necessary (for the army and for the workers) amount of grain as a tax, and we will exchange the rest for industrial products.
At the same time, we must not forget the following. Need and ruin are such that we cannot immediately restore large-scale, factory, state, socialist production. This requires large reserves of grain and fuel in the centers of large industry, the replacement of worn-out machines with new ones, etc. We have learned from experience that this cannot be done immediately, and we know that after a devastating imperialist war, even the richest and most advanced countries will only

ON THE TAX IN KIND
be able to solve such a task over a certain, rather long, period of years. Consequently, it is necessary to help to a certain extent the restoration of small industry, which does not require machines, does not require either state or large reserves of raw materials, fuel, food - which can immediately provide some assistance to the peasant economy and raise its productive forces.
What does this result in?
It results in the revival of the petty bourgeoisie and capitalism on the basis of a certain (even if only local) freedom of trade. This is certain. It is ridiculous to close our eyes to this.
The question is, is this necessary? Can this be justified? Is this not dangerous?
Many questions of this kind are asked, and in most cases they reveal only the naivety (to put it mildly) of the one asking such questions.
Look at how I defined the elements (component parts) of different socio-economic formations present in our economy in May 1918 *. No one will be able to dispute that all these five stages (or component parts) of all these five formations are present, from the patriarchal, that is, semi-savage, to the socialist. That the petty-peasant "formation," that is, partly patriarchal, partly petty-bourgeois, predominates in a petty-peasant country is self-evident. The development of small-scale farming is petty-bourgeois development, is capitalist development, since there is exchange; this is an indisputable truth, an elementary truth of political economy, confirmed moreover by everyday experience and even philistine observation.
What policy can the socialist proletariat pursue in the face of such an economic reality? Give the small peasant all the products he needs from the production of a large socialist factory in exchange for grain and raw materials? That would be

* See Collected Works, 5th ed., Vol. 36, p. 296. Ed.

the most desirable, the most "correct" policy – we have begun it. But we cannot provide all products, far from it, and we will not be able to very soon – at least not until we complete at least the first stage of work on the electrification of the entire country. What is to be done? Either try to prohibit, to completely lock up any development of private, non-state exchange, i.e., trade, i.e., capitalism, which is inevitable with the existence of millions of small producers. Such a policy would be folly and suicide for the party that would try it. Folly, because this policy is economically impossible; suicide, because parties that try such a policy inevitably suffer a collapse. There is no point in hiding the sin, some of the communists have sinned "in thought, word, and deed," falling into just such a policy. Let us try to correct these mistakes. We must correct them, otherwise it will be very bad.
Or (the last possible and only reasonable policy) not to try to prohibit or lock up the development of capitalism, but to try to direct it into the channel of state capitalism. This is economically possible, because state capitalism is present – in one form or another, to one degree or another – everywhere where there are elements of free trade and capitalism in general.
Is it possible to combine, unite, reconcile the Soviet state, the dictatorship of the proletariat, with state capitalism?
Of course, it is possible. I proved this in May 1918. I hope I proved it in May 1918. Moreover: I proved then that state capitalism is a step forward compared to the petty-proprietor (and petty-patriarchal, and petty-bourgeois) element. A multitude of errors are made by comparing or contrasting state capitalism only with socialism, whereas in this political and economic situation it is necessary to compare state capitalism with petty-bourgeois production as well.
The whole question – both theoretical and practical – consists in finding the correct ways

ON THE FOOD TAX
of how exactly to direct the inevitable (to a certain extent and for a certain period) development of capitalism into the channel of state capitalism, what conditions to surround it with, how to ensure the transformation of state capitalism into socialism in the near future.
To approach the resolution of this question, it is necessary, first of all, to imagine as clearly as possible what state capitalism will be and can be in practice within our Soviet system, within the framework of our Soviet state.
The simplest case or example of how the Soviet power directs the development of capitalism into the channel of state capitalism, how it "plants" state capitalism, is concessions. Now we all agree that concessions are necessary, but not everyone reflects on the significance of concessions. What are concessions under the Soviet system, from the point of view of socio-economic structures and their relationship? This is an agreement, a bloc, an alliance of the Soviet, i.e., proletarian, state power with state capitalism against the petty-proprietor (patriarchal and petty-bourgeois) element. The concessionaire is a capitalist. He conducts business capitalistically, for profit, he agrees to a contract with the proletarian power in order to obtain extraordinary profit, above the ordinary, or in order to obtain such raw materials that he cannot obtain otherwise or with extreme difficulty. The Soviet power benefits in the form of the development of productive forces, an increase in the quantity of products immediately or in the shortest possible time. We have, say, a hundred of such-and-such trades, mines, forest areas. We cannot develop all of them – there is a shortage of machines, food, transport. We develop the remaining areas poorly for the same reasons. Due to the poor and insufficient development of large enterprises, the petty-proprietor element is strengthened in all its manifestations: the weakening of the surrounding (and then the entire) peasant economy, the undermining of its productive forces, the decline of its trust in the Soviet authority, embezzlement, and petty (most dangerous) mass speculation, etc. "Introducing" state capitalism in the form of concessions, the Soviet government strengthens large-scale production against small-scale, advanced against backward, machine against manual, increases the quantity of large-scale industry products in its hands (percentage deduction), strengthens state-regulated economic relations in opposition to petty-bourgeois-anarchic ones. Implemented moderately and cautiously, the concession policy will undoubtedly help us to quickly improve (to a certain, small, degree) the state of production, the situation of workers and peasants – of course, at the cost of certain sacrifices, giving to the capitalist tens and tens of millions of poods of the most valuable products. Determining the measure and those conditions under which concessions are beneficial and not dangerous to us depends on the balance of forces, is decided by struggle, for a concession is also a form of struggle, a continuation of the class struggle in another form, and in no way a replacement of the class struggle with class peace. Practice will show the methods of struggle.
State capitalism in the form of concessions is, compared to other forms of state capitalism within the Soviet system, perhaps the simplest, most distinct, clear, precisely defined. Here we have a directly formal, written agreement with the most cultured, advanced, Western European capitalism. We know exactly our benefits and our losses, our rights and our obligations, we know exactly the term for which we are granting the concession, we know the conditions for early redemption, if the agreement provides for the right of early redemption. We pay a certain "tribute" to world capitalism, "redeem ourselves" from it in such-and-such relations, receiving immediately a certain measure of strengthening the position of the Soviet government, improving the conditions of our economy. The whole difficulty of the task, in relation to concessions, boils down to thinking through and weighing everything when concluding the concession agreement, and then being able to monitor its implementation. There are undoubtedly difficulties here, and

ON THE FOOD TAX
mistakes here are probably inevitable at first, but these difficulties are the smallest compared to other tasks of the social revolution and, in particular, compared to other forms of development, admission, and introduction of state capitalism.
The most important task of all party and Soviet workers, in connection with the introduction of the food tax, is to be able to apply the principles, beginnings, foundations of the "concession" (i.e., similar to "concession" state capitalism) policy to other forms of capitalism, free trade, local turnover, etc.
Let us take cooperation. It is no accident that the decree on the food tax immediately caused a revision of the provisions on cooperation and a certain expansion of its "freedom" and its rights. Cooperation is also a type of state capitalism, but less simple, less clearly defined, more confusing, and therefore posing greater difficulties in practice for our government. Cooperation of small commodity producers (it is about it, and not about workers' cooperation, that we are talking about here, as the predominant, typical one in a small-peasant country) inevitably gives rise to petty-bourgeois, capitalist relations, promotes their development, puts capitalists in the foreground, and gives them the greatest benefit. This cannot be otherwise, once there is a predominance of small proprietors and the possibility, as well as the necessity, of exchange. Freedom and rights of cooperation, under the given conditions of Russia, mean freedom and rights to capitalism. To close our eyes to this obvious truth would be stupidity or a crime.
But "cooperative" capitalism, in contrast to private-enterprise capitalism, is, under Soviet power, a type of state capitalism, and, as such, it is beneficial and useful to us now – of course, to a certain extent. Insofar as the food tax means freedom to sell the remaining (not collected as tax) surpluses, we must make efforts so that this development of capitalism – for freedom of sale, freedom of trade is to direct the development of capitalism into the channel of cooperative capitalism. Cooperative capitalism resembles state capitalism in that it facilitates accounting, control, supervision, and contractual relations between the state (Soviet in this case) and the capitalist. Cooperation, as a form of trade, is more advantageous and useful than private trade, not only for the reasons indicated, but also because it facilitates the unification and organization of millions of people, then of the entire population without exception, and this circumstance, in turn, is a gigantic plus from the point of view of the further transition from state capitalism to socialism.
Let us compare concessions and cooperation as forms of state capitalism. Concessions are based on large-scale machine industry, cooperation on small-scale, manual, partly even patriarchal industry. A concession concerns one capitalist or one firm, one syndicate, cartel, or trust in each individual concession agreement. Cooperation covers many thousands, even millions of small proprietors. A concession allows and even presupposes a precise contract and a precise term. Cooperation allows neither a completely precise contract nor a completely precise term. It is much easier to repeal a law on cooperation than to break a concession agreement, but breaking an agreement immediately, simply, and directly means breaking off the actual relations of economic alliance or economic "cohabitation" with the capitalist, whereas no repeal of a law on cooperation, no laws at all, will not only fail to immediately break off the actual "cohabitation" of the Soviet government with the petty capitalists, but will also be unable to break off the actual economic relations at all. It is easy to "keep an eye" on the concessionaire, difficult on the co-operators. The transition from concessions to socialism is a transition from one form of large-scale production to another form of large-scale production. The transition from the cooperation of small proprietors to socialism is a transition from small-scale production to large-scale production, i.e., a more complex transition, but one capable of encompassing,

ON THE FOOD TAX
in the event of success, broader masses of the population, capable of uprooting the deeper and more tenacious roots of the old, pre-socialist, even pre-capitalist relations, the most stubborn in terms of resistance to any "novelty." The policy of concessions, in the event of success, will give us a small number of model - compared to our own - large enterprises, standing at the level of modern advanced capitalism; after a few decades, these enterprises will pass entirely to us. The cooperative policy, in the event of success, will give us a rise in small-scale farming and facilitate its transition, for an indefinite period, to large-scale production on the basis of voluntary association.
Let us take a third type of state capitalism. The state attracts the capitalist as a trader, paying him a certain commission percentage for the sale of state products and for the purchase of products from the small producer. A fourth type: the state leases to an entrepreneur-capitalist an establishment or trade or a plot of forest, land, etc., belonging to the state, and the lease agreement is most similar to a concession agreement. We do not talk about these last two types of state capitalism at all, we do not think about them at all, we do not notice them at all. But this happens not because we are strong and smart, but because we are weak and stupid. We are afraid to look directly at the "low truth" and too often give ourselves over to the "elevating deception" 87. We are constantly straying into the idea that "we" are transitioning from capitalism to socialism, forgetting to accurately and clearly imagine to ourselves who exactly this "we" is. The list of all - necessarily all without exception - constituent parts, all the heterogeneous structures of the social economy in our economy, given by me in the article of May 5, 1918 *, must be kept before our eyes so that this clear idea is not forgotten. "We," the vanguard, the advanced

* See Collected Works, 5th ed., Vol. 36, p. 296. Ed.

the detachment of the proletariat, are proceeding directly to socialism, but the advanced detachment is only a small part of the entire proletariat, which, in turn, is only a small part of the entire population. And in order for "us" to successfully solve the task of our direct transition to socialism, it is necessary to understand what intermediate paths, methods, means, and aids are needed for the transition from pre-capitalist relations to socialism. That is the whole crux of the matter.
Look at the map of the RSFSR. To the north of Vologda, to the southeast of Rostov-on-Don and Saratov, to the south of Orenburg and Omsk, to the north of Tomsk, there are vast expanses that could accommodate dozens of huge cultural states. And in all these spaces, patriarchalism, semi-savagery, and outright savagery reign. And in the peasant backwoods of the rest of Russia? Everywhere where dozens of versts of dirt road – or rather: dozens of versts of impassable roads – separate the village from the railways, that is, from material connection with culture, with capitalism, with large-scale industry, with the big city. Does not patriarchalism, Oblomovism, and semi-savagery also prevail everywhere in these places?
Is it conceivable to carry out a direct transition from this state, which prevails in Russia, to socialism? Yes, it is conceivable to a certain extent, but only under one condition, which we now know, thanks to one enormous and completed scientific work 88, precisely. This condition is electrification. If we build dozens of regional electric power stations (we now know where and how they can and should be built), if we bring energy from them to every village, if we obtain a sufficient number of electric motors and other machines, then no transitional stages, intermediate links from patriarchalism to socialism, or almost none, will be required. But we know perfectly well that this "one" condition requires, at the very least, ten years just for the first stage of work, and a reduction of this period is conceivable, in its

ON THE FOOD TAX
turn, only in the event of the victory of the proletarian revolution in countries such as England, Germany, and America.
In the coming years, we must be able to think about intermediate links capable of facilitating the transition from patriarchalism, from small-scale production to socialism. "We" often still lapse into the reasoning: "capitalism is evil, socialism is good." But this reasoning is incorrect, because it forgets the entire totality of existing socio-economic structures, singling out only two of them.
Capitalism is evil in relation to socialism. Capitalism is good in relation to the Middle Ages, in relation to small-scale production, in relation to the bureaucratism associated with the dispersal of small producers. Since we are not yet able to carry out a direct transition from small-scale production to socialism, capitalism is inevitable to a certain extent, as a spontaneous product of small-scale production and exchange, and therefore we must use capitalism (especially directing it into the channel of state capitalism) as an intermediate link between small-scale production and socialism, as a means, path, method, way of increasing the productive forces.
Take the question of bureaucratism and look at it from the economic side. On May 5, 1918, bureaucratism is not in our field of vision. Six months after the October Revolution, after we smashed the old bureaucratic apparatus from top to bottom, we do not yet feel this evil.
Another year passes. At the VIII Congress of the RCP, March 18-23, 1919 89, a new party program is adopted, and in this program we say directly, not being afraid to admit evil, but wanting to reveal it, expose it, put it to shame, evoke thought and will, energy, action to fight evil, we speak of "a partial revival of bureaucratism within the Soviet system."
Two more years have passed. In the spring of 1921, after the VIII Congress of Soviets, which discussed (December 1920)

The question of bureaucratism, after the Tenth Congress of the RCP (March 1921), which summed up the debates most closely connected with the analysis of bureaucratism, shows us this evil even more clearly, even more distinctly, even more menacingly. What are the economic roots of bureaucratism? These roots are mainly twofold: on the one hand, the developed bourgeoisie, precisely against the revolutionary movement of workers (and partly peasants), needs a bureaucratic apparatus, first and foremost military, then judicial, etc. We do not have this. Our courts are class-based, against the bourgeoisie. Our army is class-based, against the bourgeoisie. Bureaucratism is not in the army, but in the institutions serving it. We have a different economic root of bureaucratism: the fragmentation, the atomization of the small producer, his poverty, lack of culture, impassability of roads, illiteracy, the absence of exchange between agriculture and industry, the absence of connection and interaction between them. To a great extent, this is the result of the civil war. When we were blockaded, besieged from all sides, cut off from the whole world, then from the grain-producing south, from Siberia, from coal, we could not restore industry. We had to not stop before "war communism," not be frightened by the most desperate extremity: we will endure a semi-starved and worse than semi-starved existence, but we will defend, at all costs, despite the most unprecedented ruin and the absence of exchange, we will defend the worker-peasant power. And we did not allow ourselves to be intimidated by what intimidated the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks (who in fact followed the bourgeoisie to a large extent out of fear, out of intimidation). But what was a condition of victory in a blockaded country, in a besieged fortress, revealed its negative side precisely by the spring of 1921, when the last White Guard troops were finally driven out of the territory of the RSFSR. It is possible and necessary to "lock up" all exchange in a besieged fortress; with the special heroism of the masses, this can be endured for three years. After that, the ruin of the small producer increased even more, the restoration of large-scale industry was further delayed, postponed. Bureaucratism, as

ON THE TAX IN KIND
a legacy of the "siege," as a superstructure over the atomization and oppression of the small producer, revealed itself fully.
We must be able to recognize the evil fearlessly, in order to wage the struggle against it more firmly, in order to start again and again from the beginning - we will have to start repeatedly from the beginning in all areas of our construction, correcting what has not been completed, choosing different ways of approaching the task. The postponement of the restoration of large-scale industry has become apparent, the intolerability of the "locked up" exchange of industry with agriculture has become apparent - therefore, we must lean on what is more accessible: the restoration of small-scale industry. To help the cause from this side, to support this side of the structure half-ruined by war and blockade. To develop exchange in every possible way and at all costs, without fearing capitalism, for the framework for it is set for us (by the expropriation of landlords and the bourgeoisie in the economy, by the worker-peasant power in politics) sufficiently narrow, sufficiently "moderate." Such is the basic idea of the tax in kind, such is its economic significance.
All workers, Party and Soviet, must direct all efforts, all attention, to create, to evoke greater initiative of localities - provinces; even more districts; even more volosts and villages - in the matter of economic construction precisely from the point of view of raising immediately, even if by "small" means, on a small scale, the peasant economy, helping it by the development of small, local, industry. The unified state economic plan requires that this become the center of attention and concern, the center of "shock" work. A certain improvement achieved here, closest to the "foundation," the broadest and deepest, will allow us to move in the shortest possible time to a more energetic and more successful restoration of large-scale industry.
The food worker has so far known one basic directive: collect 100% of the surplus appropriation. Now the directive is different: collect 100% of the tax in the shortest term, then collect another 100% by exchange for products of large and small industry. He who collects 75% of the tax and 75% (from the second hundred) by exchange for products of large and small industry will do a more useful state service than he who collects 100% of the tax and 55% (from the second hundred) by exchange. The task of the food supply worker becomes more complex. On the one hand, it is a fiscal task. Collect the tax as quickly as possible, as rationally as possible. On the other hand, it is a general economic task. Try to direct cooperation in such a way, to assist small industry in such a way, to develop initiative, the start in the localities, so that the turnover of agriculture and industry increases and strengthens. We still do this very, very poorly; the proof is bureaucracy. We must not be afraid to admit that here we can and should learn a great deal from the capitalist. Let us compare by gubernias, by uezds, by volosts, by villages the results of practical experience: in one place private capitalists and capitalist women have achieved such and such. Their profit is approximately such and such. This is a tribute, a payment that we have given "for science." It is not a pity to pay for science, if only the learning goes well. But in a neighboring place, through cooperative means, such and such has been achieved. The profit of the cooperatives is such and such. And in a third place, purely by state, purely communist means, such and such has been achieved (this third case will be a rare exception at the present time).
The task should be to ensure that each regional economic center, each gubernia economic conference under the executive committee, immediately sets as a priority the organization immediately of various kinds of experiments or systems of "turnover" regarding those surpluses that remain after the payment of the food tax. In a few months, it is necessary to have practical results in order to compare and study them. Local or imported salt; kerosene from the center; handicraft woodworking industry; craft, using local raw materials to produce some, even if not very important, but necessary and useful for the pea-

ON THE FOOD TAX

sant, products; "green coal" (the use of local water power of small importance for electrification) and so on and so forth - everything must be put into action in order to revive the turnover of industry and agriculture at all costs. Whoever achieves the greatest results in this area, even through private capitalist means, even without cooperation, without directly transforming this capitalism into state capitalism, will bring more benefit to the cause of all-Russian socialist construction than he who will "think" about the purity of communism, write regulations, rules, instructions for state capitalism and cooperation, but practically not move the turnover.
This may seem like a paradox: private capitalism as an accomplice to socialism?
But this is not at all a paradox, but an economically completely indisputable fact. Once there is a small-peasant country with particularly ruined transport, emerging from war and blockade, politically led by the proletariat, which holds transport and large industry in its hands, then from these premises the paramount importance at the moment of local turnover, firstly, and the possibility of assisting socialism through private capitalism (not to mention state capitalism), secondly, follows quite inevitably.
Less argument about words. We still sin immeasurably in this regard. More diversity in practical experience and more study of it. There are conditions when the exemplary organization of local work, even on the smallest scale, is of more important state significance than many branches of central state work. And we just at the moment, in relation to peasant farming in general and the exchange of surpluses of agricultural production for industrial products in particular, the conditions are precisely such. The exemplary organization of the matter, in the indicated respect, even for one volost, has a larger general state more than an "exemplary" improvement of the central apparatus of one or another people's commissariat. For the central apparatus with us has already taken shape so much in three and a half years that it has managed to acquire a certain harmful ossification; we cannot significantly and quickly improve it, we do not know how to do it. Assistance to it for a more radical improvement, for a new influx of fresh forces, for a successful struggle against bureaucracy, for overcoming harmful ossification must come from the localities, from below, from an exemplary organization of a small "whole," but precisely a "whole," i.e., not one farm, not one branch of the economy, not one enterprise, but the sum of all economic relations, the sum of the entire economic turnover, even if of a small locality.
Those of us who are doomed to remain in central work will continue the work of improving the apparatus and cleansing it of bureaucracy, even if on a modest, directly accessible scale. But the main assistance, in this respect, comes and will come from the localities. In the localities, in general, things are better - as far as I can survey - than in the center, and this is understandable, for the evil of bureaucracy, naturally, is concentrated in the center; Moscow cannot but be in this respect the worst city and generally the worst "place" in the republic. In the localities, deviations from the average exist in both directions; deviations in the worse direction are rarer than deviations in the better. Deviations in the worse direction are abuses by old officials, landowners, bourgeois, and other scum who have attached themselves to the communists, who sometimes commit disgusting outrages and atrocities, outrages against the peasantry. Here a terrorist purge is needed: trial on the spot and execution without appeal. Let the Martovs, Chernovs, and non-party philistines like them beat their breasts and exclaim: "I praise you, Lord, that I am not like 'them,' that I have not recognized and do not recognize terror." These simpletons "do not recognize terror" because they have chosen for themselves the role of lackeying accomplices of the White Guards in deceiving the workers and peasants. The Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks "do not recognize

ON THE FOOD TAX
terror" because they are fulfilling their role of leading the masses under the banner of "socialism" under White Guard terror. This was proven by Kerenskyism and Kornilovism in Russia, Kolchakism in Siberia, Menshevism in Georgia, this was proven by the heroes of the Second International and the International "Two and a Half" in Finland, Hungary, Austria, Germany, Italy, England, etc. Let the lackeying accomplices of White Guard terror praise themselves for their denial of all terror. And we will speak the harsh but undoubted truth: in countries experiencing an unprecedented crisis, the disintegration of old ties, the exacerbation of the class struggle after the imperialist war of 1914-1918 - such are all the countries of the world - one cannot do without terror, despite the hypocrites and phrasemongers. Either White Guard, bourgeois terror of the American, English (Ireland), Italian (fascists), German, Hungarian, and other fashions, or red, proletarian terror. There is no middle ground, there is no "third" and cannot be.
Deviations in the better direction: a successful struggle against bureaucracy, the most attentive attitude to the needs of workers and peasants, the most careful raising of the economy, increasing labor productivity, developing local turnover between agriculture and industry. These deviations in the better direction, although more frequent than deviations in the worse direction, are still rare. However, they exist. The development of new, young, fresh communist forces, tempered by the civil war and hardships, is underway everywhere in the localities. We are still doing far and far from enough for the systematic and steady movement of these forces from the bottom up. It is possible and necessary to do this more widely and persistently. Some workers can and should be removed from central work and placed in local work: as leaders of districts and volosts, creating there an exemplary organization of all economic work as a whole, they will bring enormous benefits and do a state-wide work more important than any central function. For an exemplary organization of work will serve a breeding ground of workers and an example to emulate, which it will be comparatively easy to adopt, and we will be able to help from the center to ensure that the "adoption" of the exemplary example proceeds widely everywhere and becomes obligatory.
The matter of developing "turnover" between agriculture and industry, regarding surpluses after payment of the tax in kind and regarding small, primarily handicraft industry, by its very nature requires independent, knowledgeable, intelligent initiative from the localities, and therefore the exemplary organization of district and volost work acquires, at the present moment, completely exceptional importance from a national point of view. In military affairs, for example, during the last Polish war, we were not afraid to deviate from the bureaucratic hierarchy, not afraid to "demote," to transfer members of the Revolutionary Military Council of the Republic (while retaining them in this high, central position) to lower posts. Why not now transfer some members of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, or members of collegiums, or other high-ranking comrades to work even in the district, even in the volost? Surely we have not become so "bureaucratized" as to be "embarrassed" by this. And we will find dozens of central workers who will gladly go for it. And the cause of economic construction of the entire republic will benefit from this immensely, and exemplary volosts or exemplary districts will play not only a major, but a directly decisive, historical role.
By the way. As a minor, but still significant circumstance, it should be noted that a necessary change is needed in the fundamental formulation of the question of combating speculation. We must support "correct" trade that does not deviate from state control; it is beneficial for us to develop it. And speculation cannot be distinguished from "correct" trade if speculation is understood in a political-economic sense. Freedom of trade is capitalism, capitalism is speculation; it is ridiculous to close our eyes to this.
So what to do? Declare speculation unpunishable?

ON THE TAX IN KIND
No. It is necessary to review and revise all laws on speculation, declaring punishable (and prosecuting in fact with triple the former severity) any theft and any evasion, direct or indirect, open or concealed, of state control, supervision, accounting. It is precisely with such a formulation of the question (work has already begun in the Council of People's Commissars, i.e., the Council of People's Commissars has already ordered the start of work on revising the laws on speculation) that we will achieve the channeling of the inevitable, to a certain extent, and necessary development of capitalism into the channel of state capitalism.
POLITICAL RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
I still have to touch, even briefly, on the political situation, as it has taken shape and changed in connection with the economy outlined above.
It has already been said that the main features of our economy in 1921 are the same as they were in 1918. The spring of 1921 brought - mainly due to crop failure and livestock mortality - an extreme exacerbation in the situation of the peasantry, which was already extremely difficult due to the war and the blockade. The result of the exacerbation was political vacillation, which, generally speaking, constitutes the very "nature" of the small producer. The most vivid expression of these vacillations was the Kronstadt rebellion.
The most characteristic thing about the Kronstadt events is precisely the vacillation of the petty-bourgeois element. There is very little that is fully formed, clear, and definite. Vague slogans of "freedom," "freedom of trade," "emancipation," "Soviets without Bolsheviks," or re-election of Soviets, or deliverance from "party dictatorship," and so on and so forth. Both Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries declare the Kronstadt movement "their own." Viktor Chernov sends a messenger to Kronstadt, votes for the "Constituent Assembly" in Kronstadt, at the suggestion of this messenger, the Menshevik Valk, one of the Kronstadt leaders. The entire White Guard mobilizes "for Kronstadt" instantly, with the speed, one might say, of radio-telegraph.

fically. The White Guard military specialists in Kronstadt, a number of specialists, not just one Kozlovsky, are developing a plan for a landing in Oranienbaum, a plan that frightened the vacillating Menshevik-SR-non-party mass. Over fifty White Guard Russian newspapers abroad are developing a campaign "for Kronstadt" with furious energy. Large banks, all the forces of financial capital, are opening collections to help Kronstadt. The clever leader of the bourgeoisie and landowners, the Cadet Milyukov, patiently explains to the fool Viktor Chernov directly (and to the Mensheviks Dan and Rozhkov, sitting in a St. Petersburg prison for their connection with Kronstadt, indirectly) that there is no need to rush with the Constituent Assembly, that one can and should speak out for Soviet power - only without the Bolsheviks.
Of course, it is not difficult to be smarter than such self-infatuated fools as Chernov, the hero of petty-bourgeois phraseology, or as Martov, the knight of a bourgeois reformism forged "to look like Marxism." The point is not really that Milyukov, as an individual, is smarter, but that the party leader of the big bourgeoisie sees more clearly, understands the class essence of the matter and political relationships better by virtue of his class position than the leaders of the petty bourgeoisie, the Chernovs and Martovs. For the bourgeoisie is indeed a class force that inevitably dominates under capitalism, both in a monarchy and in the most democratic republic, also inevitably enjoying the support of the world bourgeoisie. And the petty bourgeoisie, that is, all the heroes of the Second International and the "Two-and-a-Half" International, cannot be anything other, in its economic essence, than an expression of class impotence - hence the vacillations, the phraseology, the helplessness. In 1789, the petty bourgeois could still be great revolutionaries; in 1848, they were ridiculous and pathetic; in 1917-1921, they are repulsive accomplices of reaction, its direct lackeys, in their actual role, regardless of whether they are called Chernovs and Martovs or Kautskys, MacDonalds, and so on and so forth.

ON THE FOOD TAX
When Martov, in his Berlin journal, 90 declares that Kronstadt not only carried out Menshevik slogans, but also provided proof that an anti-Bolshevik movement is possible that does not serve the White Guards, capitalists, and landowners entirely, this is precisely an example of a self-infatuated bourgeois Narcissus. Let us simply close our eyes to the fact that all the real White Guards greeted the Kronstadters and collected funds through banks to help Kronstadt! Milyukov is right against the Chernovs and Martovs, because he reveals the real tactics of the real White Guard force, the force of the capitalists and landowners: let's support anyone, even anarchists, any Soviet power, just to overthrow the Bolsheviks, just to carry out a shift of power! It doesn't matter, to the right or to the left, to the Mensheviks or to the anarchists, just a shift of power away from the Bolsheviks; and the rest - and the rest "we," the Milyukovs, "we," the capitalists and landowners, will do "ourselves," we will drive the anarchistiks, the Chernovs, the Martovs away with slaps, as they did in Siberia in relation to Chernov and Maisky, as they did in Hungary in relation to the Hungarian Chernovs and Martovs, as they did in Germany in relation to Kautsky, in Vienna in relation to Fr. Adlers and Co. These bourgeois Narcissuses - Mensheviks, SRs, non-party members - have been fooled and driven away hundreds of times by the real business bourgeoisie in all revolutions in dozens of countries. This is proven by history. This is verified by facts. The Narcissuses will chatter. The Milyukovs and the White Guards will do business.
"If only there is a shift of power away from the Bolsheviks, it doesn't matter, a little to the right or a little to the left, and the rest will follow," in this Milyukov is absolutely right. This is a class truth, confirmed by the entire history of revolutions in all countries, the entire centuries-old epoch of modern history, after the Middle Ages. The scattered small producer, the peasant, is united economically and politically either by the bourgeoisie (this has always been the case under capitalism, in all countries, in all revolutions of modern times, so it will always be under capitalism), or the proletariat (as has happened, in an embryonic form, during the highest development of some of the greatest revolutions in modern history, for the shortest time; as was the case in Russia in 1917-1921 in a more developed form). Only self-infatuated Narcissuses can chatter and dream about a "third" path, a "third force."
With the greatest difficulty, in a desperate struggle, the Bolsheviks developed a vanguard of the proletariat capable of governing, created and defended the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the correlation of class forces in Russia became clearer than clear, after being tested by the experience and practice of four years. A steel and tempered vanguard of the only revolutionary class, a petty-bourgeois vacillating element, the Milyukovs lurking abroad and having the support of the world bourgeoisie, capitalists, landowners. The matter is clearer than clear. Any "shift of power" is used and can only be used by them.
The pamphlet of 1918 quoted above stated this directly: "the main enemy" - "the petty-bourgeois element." "Either we subject it to our control and accounting, or it will overthrow the workers' power inevitably and unfailingly, as Napoleons and Cavaignacs overthrew the revolution, growing precisely on this petty-proprietor soil. That is how the question stands. That is the only way the question stands" (from the pamphlet of May 5, 1918, see above).
Our strength lies in the complete clarity and sobriety of accounting for all available class magnitudes, both Russian and international, and then the iron energy, firmness, determination and selflessness of the struggle stemming from this. We have many enemies, but they are disunited, or do not know what they want (like all petty bourgeois, all Martovs and Chernovs, all non-party people, all anarchists). And we are united - directly among ourselves and indirectly with the proletarians of all countries; we know what we want. And therefore we are invincible on a world scale, although this in no way excludes the possibility of defeat

* See Works, 5th ed., vol. 36, p. 298. Ed.

ON THE FOOD TAX
of individual proletarian revolutions for one time or another.
The petty-bourgeois element is not called an element for nothing, for it is indeed something most shapeless, indefinite, unconscious. The Narcissuses of the petty bourgeoisie think that "universal suffrage" destroys the nature of the small producer under capitalism, but in reality it helps the bourgeoisie, with the help of the church, the press, the teaching profession, the police, the military, economic oppression in thousands of forms, helps it to subjugate the scattered small producers. Ruin, need, the severity of the situation causes fluctuations: today for the bourgeoisie, tomorrow for the proletariat. Only the tempered vanguard of the proletariat is able to withstand and resist fluctuations.
The spring events of 1921 showed once again the role of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks: they help the vacillating petty-bourgeois element to recoil from the Bolsheviks, to make a "shift of power" in favor of capitalists and landowners. The Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries have now learned to repaint themselves as "non-party." This has been fully proven. And only fools can now fail to see this, fail to understand that we must not allow ourselves to be fooled. Non-party conferences are not a fetish. They are valuable if it is possible to get closer to the masses, not yet affected, to the layers of the working millions, standing outside of politics, but they are harmful if they give a platform to the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, repainted as "non-party." Such people help rebellions, help the White Guards. The Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, both open and repainted as non-party, belong in prison (or in foreign journals, next to the White Guards; we willingly let Martov go abroad), but not at a non-party conference. Other ways can and should be found to check the mood of the masses, to get closer to them. Let those who want to play at parliamentarism, at constituent assemblies, at non-party conferences go abroad, go there, to Martov, you are welcome, experience the charm of "democracy," ask Wrangel's soldiers about this charm, do us a favor.

But we have no time for playing at "opposition" in "conferences." We are surrounded by the world bourgeoisie, lying in wait for every minute of vacillation in order to bring back "their own," in order to restore the landowners and the bourgeoisie. We will keep the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, both overt and those who have repainted themselves as "non-party," in prison.
We will by all means forge closer ties with the mass of working people untouched by politics—except for those means that give scope to the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, give scope to vacillations, advantageous to Milyukov. We will especially diligently promote to Soviet work, primarily promote to economic work, hundreds and hundreds of non-party people, genuine non-party people from the masses, from rank-and-file workers and peasants, and not those who have "repainted" themselves as non-party in order to read from crib sheets Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary instructions, so advantageous to Milyukov. We have hundreds and thousands of non-party people working for us, dozens of them in the most important and responsible positions. More verification of their work. More promotion for new verification of thousands and thousands of rank-and-file working people, testing them, systematically and steadily, in hundreds, moving them to higher positions on the basis of verification by experience.
Communists still have little understanding of their real task of management: not to try to do "everything" "themselves," straining and not succeeding, taking on 20 tasks and not finishing a single one, but to verify the work of dozens and hundreds of assistants, to establish verification of their work from below, i.e., by the real mass; to direct the work and learn from those who have knowledge (specialists) and experience in establishing large-scale enterprises (capitalists). A smart communist is not afraid to learn from a military specialist, even though 9/10 of the military specialists are capable of treason at every opportunity. A smart communist will not be afraid to learn from a capitalist (regardless of whether this capitalist is a large concessionaire capitalist, or a merchant-commission agent, or a small capitalist-cooperator, etc.), even though a capitalist is no better than a military specialist.

ON THE FOOD TAX
In the Red Army, we have learned to catch traitorous military specialists, to single out honest and conscientious ones, to use in general thousands and tens of thousands of military specialists. We are learning to do the same (in a unique form) with engineers, teachers—although we are doing this much worse than in the Red Army (there, Denikin and Kolchak spurred us on well, forced us to learn faster, more diligently, more intelligently). We will learn to do the same (again, in a unique form) with commission agent-merchants, with buyers working for the state, with capitalist-cooperators, with concessionaire-entrepreneurs, etc.
The mass of workers and peasants needs an immediate improvement in their situation. By putting new forces to useful work, including non-party people, we will achieve this. The food tax and a number of related measures will help with this. We will cut off the economic root of the inevitable vacillations of the small producer with this. And we will fight ruthlessly against political vacillations, useful only to Milyukov. There are many vacillators. There are few of us. The vacillators are disunited. We are united. The vacillators are economically dependent. The proletariat is economically independent. The vacillators do not know what they want: they both want it and are afraid of it, and Milyukov does not allow it. But we know what we want.
And therefore we will win.
CONCLUSION
Let us sum up.
The food tax is a transition from war communism to proper socialist product exchange.
Extreme ruin, exacerbated by the crop failure of 1920, made this transition urgently necessary due to the impossibility of quickly restoring large-scale industry.
Hence: first of all, improve the situation of the peasants. The means: the food tax, the development of the turnover of agriculture with industry, the development of small-scale industry.

Trade is freedom of commerce, is capitalism. It is useful to us to the extent that it helps to combat the fragmentation of the small producer, and to a certain degree, bureaucratism. Practice, experience will determine the measure. There is nothing terrible here for the proletarian power, as long as the proletariat firmly holds power in its hands, firmly holds transport and large industry in its hands.
The struggle against speculation must be transformed into a struggle against theft and evasion of state supervision, accounting, and control. Through such control, we direct capitalism, inevitable to a certain extent and necessary for us, into the channel of state capitalism.
Comprehensive, all-out, at all costs development of initiative, enterprise, independence of localities in promoting the exchange of agriculture with industry. Studying practical experience in this regard. The greatest possible diversity of it.
Assistance to small industry serving peasant agriculture and helping it to rise; assistance to it, to a certain extent, also by distributing state raw materials. It is most criminal to leave raw materials unprocessed.
Do not be afraid of the "learning" of communists from bourgeois specialists, including merchants, and capitalist-cooperators, and capitalists. Learn from them in form differently, but in essence in the same way as we learned and learned from military specialists. The results of "science" should be verified only by practical experience: do better than the bourgeois specialists did nearby, be able to achieve both this way and that way the rise of agriculture, the rise of industry, the development of the exchange of agriculture with industry. Do not skimp on paying "for science": it is not a pity to pay dearly for science, if only the learning goes well.
In every possible way help the mass of working people, get closer to it, promote from it hundreds and thousands of non-party workers to economic work. And "non-party people" who in fact are nothing more than disguised

ON THE FOOD TAX
Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries in a fashionable, Kronstadt-non-party outfit, - keep them carefully in prison or send them to Berlin to Martov for the free use of all the charms of pure democracy, for the free exchange of ideas with Chernov, with Milyukov, with the Georgian Mensheviks.
April 21, 1921
Printed in May 1921 in Moscow as a separate brochure, published by the State
Publishing House

Printed according to the text of the brochure, checked against the manuscript