V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:PSS/v42;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

I have still only briefly to touch upon a few points, silence on which might give rise to misunderstanding.

In Thesis 6 of his “platform”, Comrade Trotsky reproduced Section 5 of the economic part of the R.C.P. programme, which deals with the trade unions. Two pages further on, in Thesis 8, Comrade Trotsky declared:

“…Having lost the old basis of their existence, the class economic struggle, the unions…”—(this is incorrect, it is a hasty exaggeration: the unions have lost such a basis as the class economic struggle, but they have by no means lost, and for many years to come, unfortunately, will not be able to lose such a basis as the non-class “economic struggle” in the sense of combating the bureaucratic distortions of the Soviet apparatus, of safeguarding the material and spiritual interests of the working people by means and methods not accessible to this apparatus, etc.)— “…the unions, owing to a number of circumstances, have not had time to muster the necessary forces and evolve the necessary methods to enable them to cope with the new task set them by the proletarian revolution and formulated in our programme: to organise production” (Trotsky’s italics, p. 9, Thesis 8).

This, again, is a hasty exaggeration, containing the germ of a major error. The programme does not give such a formulation and does not set the unions such a task as “to organise production”. Let us follow step by step every thought, every proposition of our Party programme in the very order in which these propositions appear in the text of the programme:

(1) “The organisational apparatus of socialised industry must be based primarily” (not exclusively) “on the trade unions.” (2) “They must increasingly free themselves from craft narrowness” (how? under the Party’s guidance and in the course of the educational and all other influence of the proletariat on the non-proletarian working masses) “and become large-scale production associations covering the majority, and gradually all, of the working people in a given branch of industry…”

This is the first part of the section of the Party programme devoted to the trade unions. As you see, this part at once sets very “strict” “conditions” requiring very prolonged effort for the future. Then follows this:

“…Being already, in accordance with the laws of the Soviet Republic and established practice, participants…” (the word, as you see, is a very cautious one: only participants) “…in all local and central organs of industrial management, the trade unions must, in fact, concentrate in their hands the whole management of the whole national economy, as a single economic entity…” (note: must, in fact, concentrate the management not of branches of industry, nor of industry, but of the whole national economy, and moreover as a single economic entity; this condition, as an economic condition, can be regarded as actually fulfilled not earlier than when the small producers, both in industry and agriculture, constitute less than half the population and the national economy)… “Thus ensuring” (precisely “thus”, i.e., by gradually realising all the conditions previously indicated) “an indissoluble link between the central state administration, the national economy and the broad masses of working people, the trade unions must, on the broadest possible scale, draw the latter” (i.e., the masses, i.e., the majority of the population) “into the direct work of managing the economy. The participation of the trade unions in economic management and their drawing of the broad masses into this work is, moreover, the principal means of combating the bureaucratisation of the economic apparatus of the Soviet power and makes it possible to establish genuinely popular control over the results of production.”

Thus, in the last sentence we again have the very cautious word: “participation in economic management”; again an indication that drawing the broad masses into this work is the principal (but not the sole) means of combating bureaucracy; and, in conclusion, the extremely cautious indication: “makes it possible” to establish “popular”, i.e., workers’ and peasants’, by no means only proletarian, “control”.

To sum all this up by saying that our Party programme “formulated” the task of the trade unions “to organise production” is obviously incorrect. And if this incorrectness is insisted upon, if it is incorporated in theses and platforms, nothing but an anti-communist, syndicalist deviation can result.

Incidentally. Comrade Trotsky writes in his theses that “in the recent period we have not drawn nearer to the goal set in the programme, but have moved away from it” (p. 7, Thesis 6). This is an unsupported statement and, I think, an incorrect one. It cannot be proved, as Trotsky tried to do in the discussions, by reference to the admission of such a fact by the trade unions “themselves”. For the Party they are not the final authority. And in general it can be proved only by the most serious objective study of a large number of facts. That is the first point. And, in the second place, even if it were proved, the question would still remain open: why have we moved away? Because “many trade unionists” “are shying away from the new tasks and methods”, as Trotsky thinks, or because “we” “have not had time to muster the necessary forces and evolve the necessary methods to” put a stop to and correct some unnecessary and harmful extremes of bureaucracy.

In this connection it would be appropriate to touch on the reproach levelled at us by Comrade Bukharin on December 30 (and repeated by Trotsky yesterday, January 24, at our discussion in the Communist group of the Second Congress of Miners), namely, the reproach of “renouncing the line mapped out by the Ninth Party Congress” (p. 46 of the verbatim report of the discussion of December 30). It is alleged that Lenin at the Ninth Congress defended the militarisation of labour and ridiculed references to democracy, and now has “renounced” this. In his concluding speech on December 30, Comrade Trotsky added a special, so to speak, spice to this reproach: “Lenin is taking into account the fact that in the trade unions there is taking place… a grouping of opposition-minded comrades” (p. 65); Lenin’s approach is “from the diplomatic angle” (p. 69); “manoeuvring among Party groupings” (p. 70), etc. This presentation of the matter by Comrade Trotsky is, of course, very flattering to Comrade Trotsky and worse than unflattering to me. But let us look at the facts.

At the same discussion of December 30, Trotsky and Krestinsky established the fact that “Comrade Preobrazhensky, as far back as July (1920), raised in the Central Committee the question that we must adopt a new line in regard to the internal life of our workers’ organisations” (p. 25). In August, Comrade Zinoviev drafted a letter, and the Central Committee approved the Central Committee’s letter on combating bureaucracy and extending democracy. In September, the question was raised at the Party Conference, and its decision was approved by the Central Committee. In December, the question of combating bureaucracy was placed on the agenda of the Eighth Congress of Soviets. Thus, the entire Central Committee, the entire Party, and the entire workers’ and peasants’ republic recognised the necessity of placing on the order of the day the question of bureaucracy and the fight against it. Does this imply a “renunciation” of the decisions of the Ninth Congress of the R.C.P.? No. There is no renunciation whatever here. The decisions on the militarisation of labour, etc., are indisputable, and I have not the slightest need to retract my ridicule of the references to democracy made by those who disputed these decisions. All that follows from this is that in the workers’ organisations we shall extend democracy, without in any way making a fetish of it; that we shall devote particularly close attention to the work of combating bureaucracy; that we shall be particularly careful to correct all unnecessary and harmful extremes of bureaucracy, no matter who points them out.

One more remark on the minor question of shock work and equalisation. At the discussion on December 30, I said that the formulation of Thesis 41 of Comrade Trotsky on this point was theoretically incorrect, because it turned out that he advocated equalisation in consumption and shock work in production. Shock work means preference, I replied, and preference without consumption is nothing. Comrade Trotsky reproaches me for this, for “the greatest forgetfulness” and for “terrorising” (pp. 67 and 68)—I am only surprised that he does not reproach me for manoeuvring, diplomacy, etc. He, Trotsky, made “concessions” in favour of my equalisation line, and I attack him.

As a matter of fact, the reader who is interested in Party affairs has before him precise Party documents: the November resolution of the Central Committee plenum, Point 4, and Trotsky’s platform theses, Thesis 41. However “forgetful” I may be, however good Comrade Trotsky’s memory may be, the fact remains that Thesis 41 contains a theoretical error which is not present in the Central Committee resolution of November 9. That resolution reads: “Recognising the necessity of preserving the principle of shock work in carrying out the economic plan, the Central Committee, in full agreement with the decision of the last (i.e., September) All-Russian Conference, deems it necessary to effect a gradual but steady transition to equalisation in the conditions of the various groups of workers and the corresponding trade unions, while constantly strengthening the all-union organisation.” It is clear that this is directed against the Tsektran, and the exact meaning of this resolution cannot be misinterpreted. Shock work is not abolished. Preference for a shock (in carrying out the economic plan) enterprise, trade union, trust, or department remains, but at the same time the “equalisation line”, which was advocated not by “Comrade Lenin” but by the Party Conference and the Central Committee, i.e., the entire Party, clearly demands: go over to equalisation, gradually but steadily. That the Tsektran did not carry out this November resolution of the Central Committee is evident from the December decision of the Central Committee (carried by Trotsky and Bukharin), in which we again read a reminder of “the principles of normal democracy”. The theoretical error in Thesis 41 is that it says: in the sphere of consumption—equalisation, in the sphere of production—shock work. This is economic absurdity, for it divorces consumption from production. I never said anything of the kind and could not say it. A factory that is not needed should be closed down. Close down all factories that are not absolutely necessary. Among those that are absolutely necessary, give preference to shock factories. For instance, give preference to transport. That is indisputable. But to prevent this preference from being excessive, and in view of the fact that the Tsektran’s preference was excessive, the Party directive (not Lenin’s) is: go over gradually but steadily to equalisation. If, after the November plenum, which gave a precise and theoretically correct decision, Trotsky comes out with a factional pamphlet on “Two Trends” and in Thesis 41 offers his own formulation, which is economically incorrect, he has only himself to blame.

Today, January 25, it is exactly a month since Comrade Trotsky’s factional outburst. It is already very clear that the Party has been diverted by this outburst, which was inexpedient in form and incorrect in substance, from the businesslike, practical, economic, production work, and diverted for the purpose of correcting political and theoretical mistakes. But the old proverb says: “Every cloud has a silver lining.”

Fantastic things were being said, according to rumours, about the inner-Party disagreements in the Central Committee. The Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries were (and undoubtedly still are) hovering around the opposition, blowing up the rumours, giving them incredibly malicious formulations, inventing canards with the object of discrediting the Party in every way, giving a dirty interpretation to the conflict, aggravating it, and spoiling the Party’s work. This is a political device of the bourgeoisie, including the petty-bourgeois democrats, the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, who are boiling with furious hatred of the Bolsheviks and cannot help boiling for reasons that are only too obvious. Every class-conscious Party member is familiar with this political device of the bourgeoisie and knows its value.

The disagreements inside the Central Committee made it necessary to appeal to the Party. The discussion has clearly revealed the essence and extent of these disagreements. The rumours and slanders have been stopped. The Party is learning and steeling itself in the struggle against a new disease (new in the sense that after the October Revolution we forgot about it)—factionalism. In essence, it is an old disease, relapses of which will probably be inevitable for some years, but the cure for which can and must now proceed more quickly and easily.

The Party is learning not to exaggerate disagreements. It would be appropriate here to repeat Comrade Trotsky’s correct remarks about Comrade Tomsky: “In the most heated polemics with Comrade Tomsky I always said that it is absolutely clear to me that our leaders in the trade unions can only be men of experience and authority, such as Comrade Tomsky possesses. I said this in the group of the Fifth Trade Union Conference, and I said it the other day at the Zimin Theatre. An ideological struggle in the Party does not mean mutual elimination, but mutual influence{119}” (p. 34 of the verbatim report of the discussion of December 30). It goes without saying that the Party will apply this correct argument to Comrade Trotsky as well.

The syndicalist deviation was revealed during the discussion particularly in the case of Comrade Shlyapnikov and his group, the so-called “workers’ opposition”. Since this is an obvious deviation from the Party, from communism, it will be necessary to deal with this deviation separately, to discuss it separately, and to devote special attention to propaganda and explanation of the erroneousness of these views and the danger of such an error. Comrade Bukharin, who went so far as to use the syndicalist phrase “obligatory candidates” (of the trade unions for the managing organs), today in Pravda defends himself very unsuccessfully, and obviously incorrectly. He, you see, speaks in other points about the role of the Party! Of course! Otherwise it would be a departure from the Party. Otherwise it would not be merely an error that requires correction and admits of easy correction. If one speaks of “obligatory candidates” and does not add at the same time that they are not obligatory for the Party, it is a syndicalist deviation, it is irreconcilable with communism, irreconcilable with the R.C.P. programme. If one adds: “not obligatory for the Party”, it will be a deception of the non-Party workers by the phantom of some increase in their rights, whereas in fact there will not be the slightest change from what exists now. The more Comrade Bukharin defends his deviation from communism, which is obviously theoretically incorrect and politically deceptive, the more deplorable will be the fruits of his obstinacy. But he will not succeed in defending the indefensible. The Party is not against any extension of the rights of the non-Party workers, but a little reflection is enough to understand which way this can be done and which way it cannot.

At the discussion in the Communist group of the Second All-Russia Congress of Miners, Shlyapnikov’s platform, despite the fact that it was defended by Comrade Kiselyov, who enjoys special authority in that union, was defeated: 137 votes were cast for our platform, 62 for Shlyapnikov’s, and 8 for Trotsky’s. The syndicalist deviation must be, and will be, cured.

In one month, both Petrograd and Moscow and a number of provincial towns have already shown that the Party has responded to the discussion and has rejected Comrade Trotsky’s erroneous line by an overwhelming majority. If there were undoubtedly vacillations among the “higher-ups” and the “periphery”, in the committees and institutions, the mass of rank-and-file Party members, the working Party masses, in the vast majority, came out against this erroneous line.

Comrade Kamenev has informed me that at the discussion in the Zamoskvorechye District of Moscow on January 23, Comrade Trotsky declared that he was withdrawing his platform and joining Bukharin’s group on a new platform. Unfortunately, I did not hear a single word about this from Comrade Trotsky, either on January 23 or on January 24, when he spoke against me in the Communist group of the Miners’ Congress. Whether Comrade Trotsky’s intentions and platforms have again changed, or whether the matter is to be explained in some other way, I do not know. But in any case, Comrade Trotsky’s statement of January 23 shows that the Party, without even having time to mobilise all its forces, having succeeded in expressing the views only of Petrograd, Moscow and a minority of provincial centres, nevertheless at once firmly, resolutely, quickly and unswervingly corrected Comrade Trotsky’s mistake.

The enemies of the Party were rejoicing in vain. They have not been able, and will not be able, to turn the disagreements that are sometimes inevitable within the Party to the detriment of the Party and the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia.

January 25, 1921.