Speech Delivered at the Fourth Session of the Ninth Convocation of the VTsIK, October 31, 1922
(Bursts of thunderous, long‑lasting applause. All rise.) Comrades! Allow me to limit myself to just a few words of greeting. First and foremost, we must, of course, extend our heartfelt greetings to the Red Army, which, only a few days ago, once again demonstrated its valor by capturing Vladivostok and clearing the entire territory of the last republic still closely bound to Soviet Russia. I am confident that I speak for the general sentiment when I say that we all here salute this new feat of the Red Army—and we also hail the fact that, with the war drawing to a close, a step has been taken that seems sufficiently decisive: the last remnants of White Guard forces have been cast into the sea. (Applause.) I believe that our Red Army has, for the foreseeable future, spared us from any possible resurgence of White Guard aggression against Russia—or against any of the republics that are directly or indirectly, closely or more remotely, linked to us.
Yet at the same time, we must also acknowledge—so as not to fall too quickly into the trap of excessive self‑congratulation—that it was not only the Red Army’s heroic deeds and its sheer might that played a role here, but also the international context and the skillful diplomacy of our own foreign policy.
There was a time when Japan and the United States of America were signing agreements to support Kolchak. That era has receded so far into the past that many of us have perhaps forgotten it altogether. But it was indeed a time—and if we have managed to ensure that such an agreement is now impossible; if we have reached the point where the Japanese, despite all their military strength, have announced their withdrawal and then fulfilled that promise, then, of course, our diplomacy deserves much of the credit.
I will not dwell at length on this brief greeting, nor will I attempt to explain the precise factors behind this success. Let me simply say that in the near future, our diplomats will once again be called upon to prove themselves on an issue of immense importance—a question in which we have a profound stake: the Near Eastern Conference, which England is convening on November 13 in Lausanne. I am confident that our diplomats will not disgrace themselves there, and that we will succeed in safeguarding the interests of all the federated republics together with the RSFSR; in any case, we will be able to make it clear to the masses where the obstacles lie, what those obstacles consist of, and to what extent they run counter to our most legitimate desires and aspirations—not only our own, but those of all states concerned with the question of the Straits.
With these brief remarks on foreign policy, I will conclude my address and now turn to your work.
I believe that we have achieved considerable successes here, even though, at first glance, some may have regarded these efforts—or may still regard them—as less than crucial. Take, for example, the first code you have already enacted: the Labor Code. This represents a monumental achievement of Soviet power: at a time when every nation is arrayed against the working class, we are putting forward a code that firmly establishes the foundations of labor legislation—such as the eight‑hour workday. To be sure, one might perhaps wish for certain improvements in this code. Yet I believe that such a desire would be misguided.
We must recognize that, compared with all the other nations currently locked in frenzied capitalist competition—nations where millions, even tens of millions, are unemployed; where capitalists, through their own concerted efforts, are building mighty capital-

SPEECH DELIVERED AT THE FOURTH SESSION OF THE IX CONVOCATION OF THE VTsIK
ist alliances and launching campaigns against the working class—compared with them, we are the least developed in terms of culture; our productive forces are the least advanced; and our ability to work is the weakest of all. It may be rather unpleasant to admit this—but I believe that precisely because we do not cloak such realities in flowery rhetoric or empty official pronouncements, but instead face them head‑on; precisely because we acknowledge these shortcomings and are not afraid to declare from the rostrum that we are devoting more resources to rectifying them than any other state—we will, in fact, manage to catch up with the other nations at a pace they could never have dreamed of.
Of course, this is not some fantastical speed; of course, it will take several years of relentless effort to achieve this goal. Naturally, nothing can be accomplished overnight. We have already lived through five years and seen how rapidly social relations change. We have learned to understand what time truly means—and we must continue to learn. No one will believe in the kind of fantastical speed at which all things might suddenly transform; but we do believe in real, tangible speed—in the kind of rapidity that, when measured against any given period of historical development, however it may have unfolded—when movement is guided by a truly revolutionary party, we do believe in that kind of speed—and we will, come what may, attain that speed.
Next, I would like to touch upon the Land Code that you have enacted. As you know, from the very first day after the fateful October 25, 1917, our laws—unlike all other laws—immediately introduced provisions concerning land that were, technically—and perhaps even legally—far from perfect. Yet they did, in essence, provide everything that a peasant absolutely needed, everything that ensured his alliance with the worker. And from that moment onward, no matter how difficult it was for us to survive the past five years amid continuous wars, we never ceased to devote ourselves to ensuring that the peasant received the greatest possible satisfaction from the land. And if the law that you have now adopted… dialectics will likewise, in one way or another, prove to be in need of amendment; and we shall, without the slightest difficulty, adopt these further amendments, these further improvements, just as you have, this very moment, adopted the amendments and enhancements to our Criminal Code. The question of land—and the question of organizing the daily lives of the vast majority of the population, the peasant population—is for us a fundamental issue. In this regard, we have already achieved the result that the Russian peasant knows that any proposal concerning the revision of old laws will always meet not with obstruction, but with support and the most favorable disposition within our highest legislative body.
Then there were also such matters before you as the Civil Code and the general system of judicial administration. You know that, given the policy we are pursuing with firm resolve—about which we can have no hesitation—you know that this is the most important issue for the broad masses of the population. You also know that here, too, we have striven to strike a balance between what constitutes legitimate satisfaction of every citizen’s needs in connection with modern economic life, and what amounts to abuses of the New Economic Policy—abuses that are legal in all states, yet which we have no intention of legalizing. How successful the amendments you specifically introduced for this very purpose, and which you have approved, will prove to be—only time will tell. Under no circumstances will we bind our own hands in this regard. Should current events reveal abuses that we may have overlooked in the past, we will promptly introduce the necessary corrections. On this point, you are all, of course, well aware that no other nation possesses legislation as swift as ours. Let us see whether the near future will not compel those nations as well to take steps to catch up with Soviet Russia in this respect, even if only by a small margin.
Next, among questions of no less importance, we must pause to consider an issue that you, too, have brought to a final resolution here: the question of local Council congresses and of provincial executive committees. This is a question, SPEECH AT THE FOURTH SESSION OF THE IX CONVOCATION OF THE VTsIK
whose approval had been long delayed under all previous systems of legislation and under all previous constitutions. It was regarded as unimportant—indeed, it seemed that the old ways could be left intact at the local level. We, however, think otherwise. We are convinced that if our revolution has achieved genuine success, it is precisely because we have always accorded the greatest attention to local authorities and to the experience of the localities themselves. When the October Revolution of 1917 achieved such rapid successes that by the spring of 1918 it seemed to us that the war had already come to an end—when in fact it had only just begun, and had begun in its worst form, in the guise of civil war; when in fact the peace treaty with Germany amounted to nothing more than German support for the most reactionary elements of the civil war; when in fact that very peace with Germany, which collapsed by autumn, was all too often backed by the Allied Powers—powers that accused us of having made peace with Germany—then, I say, if the revolution accomplished its task with such swiftness, within just a few months, even within a matter of weeks, it was because we placed our full trust in local forces, because we opened up for them the widest possible scope for action, because it was precisely from the localities that we expected the very enthusiasm that gave our revolution its irresistible momentum and its remarkable speed. I know that since then our local organs have endured many quite varied, so to speak, upheavals. The relationship between the localities and the center has been no small challenge for us—and I am far from claiming that we have always solved this challenge perfectly: given the level of culture we possess, we can hardly dream of achieving anything approaching perfection in this regard. But we can confidently say that the relationship between the localities and the center has been conducted with greater sincerity, greater truthfulness, and greater solidity than in any other state.
In conclusion, I would like to touch upon just one more issue—one that particularly interests me and that, I believe, should also interest all of you, even though, formally speaking, it does not appear on your agenda nor is it listed among the items on the agenda. This is the question of our state apparatus—a question both old and ever new.

In August 1918, we conducted a census of our administrative apparatus in Moscow. We recorded a total of 231,000 state and Soviet officials in Moscow—numbers that encompassed both central-level personnel and local, municipal officials within the city. Recently, in October 1922, we carried out this census once again, confident that we had already begun to streamline our bloated apparatus and that it should by now have shrunk considerably. Yet the final figure came in at 243,000—a stark reminder of all the cuts and reductions we had made. This example alone calls for extensive study and rigorous comparison. Back in 1918, when we undertook such a census in the fervor of our first wave of reforms, we could scarcely extract any meaningful insights from its results—simply put, there was little time for anything but survival. The Civil War left us with not a single free moment. Now, however, we are hopeful that this task will be accomplished. We are convinced that our administrative apparatus—riddled with numerous shortcomings, swollen far beyond twice its proper size, and all too often working not for us but against us—there is no reason to shy away from stating this truth, even from the rostrum of our republic’s highest legislative body—and that it can and must be improved. To effect this improvement requires great effort and considerable skill. We have begun to lay the groundwork for a truly serious examination of precisely how this improvement ought to take shape; yet for now, our efforts remain only tentative—consisting of isolated articles and fragmented local studies. If we all leave this chamber resolved to devote far more attention to this issue than we have in the past; if we resolve to spend less time on trivialities and petty distractions—though we so often waste an inordinate amount of time on just such matters—and if we genuinely study our administrative apparatus and work on it year after year, then this will represent a tremendous achievement—and it will, in turn, secure our ultimate success. We must summon the courage to admit that we have been building our administrative apparatus in a largely haphazard, unstructured manner. The finest workers among us stepped forward and took on the most arduous responsibilities, whether in the military sphere or in the civil administration—often undertaking tasks for which they were ill-prepared—but they possessed the capacity to learn from their mistakes and to adapt and to work effectively. The balance between those who— ADDRESS AT THE FOURTH SESSION OF THE IX CONVOCATION OF THE VTsIK
…dozens of courageous individuals, alongside hundreds who sit idly by, either sabotaging or half‑sabotaging their duties while becoming hopelessly entangled in the sheer volume of their paperwork—this very imbalance has, time and again, drowned our vital endeavors beneath an overwhelming sea of paper. We must now examine this question with the utmost thoroughness—something we have thus far been unable to do. Years and years must pass; we must continue to learn, for the cultural level of our workers remains low, and it is exceedingly difficult for them to take up entirely new lines of production—yet it is only in the workers themselves that we can place our trust, in terms of sincerity and genuine enthusiasm. Years and years must go by before we can achieve a true transformation of our state apparatus, lifting it—not merely in the case of individual officials, but in its entirety—to the highest rungs of cultural development. I am convinced that, by dedicating our energies to this kind of work in the years to come, we will inevitably—and quite naturally—arrive at the very best possible outcomes. (Long, sustained applause.)
“Pravda,” No. 247, November 1, 1922.

Printed according to the text of the newspaper “Pravda,” verified against the stenographic record.