Speech in Defense of the Resolution on the Current Moment. April 29 (May 12)
Речь в защиту резолюции о текущем моменте. 29 апреля (12 мая)
Date: 1917-04-29 (May 12)
Source: PSS vol 31
Translated by: AI (Claude)

In the resolution on the current moment to speak only of Russian conditions is a mistake. The war has bound us so inseparably that it would be a major mistake if we ignored the whole totality of international relations.

What tasks will stand before the Russian proletariat under the condition that the world movement places us before social revolution? - that is the main question examined in this resolution.

"The objective prerequisites of socialist revolution, undoubtedly already present before the war in the most developed advanced countries, ripened further and continue to ripen as a consequence of the war with enormous speed. The displacement and ruin of small and medium economies is accelerating even more. The concentration and internationalization of capital grows gigantically. Monopoly capitalism is passing into state-monopoly capitalism, social regulation of production and distribution, by force of pressure of circumstances, is being introduced in a number of countries, some of them are passing to universal labor duty."

Before the war there existed a monopoly of trusts, syndicates, during the war - state monopoly. And general labor duty is something new, such as constitutes a part of the socialist whole - this is often forgotten by those who are afraid to examine concretely created conditions.

The center of gravity of the first part of the resolution is the characterization of conditions of world capitalist economy. It is interesting that Engels 21 years ago noted the unsatisfactoriness of such a formulation of the question about capitalism that does not take into account the role of trusts, which says: "capitalism is distinguished by absence of planning." Engels remarks on this: "where there is a trust, there is no absence of planning and there is capitalism." This indication is all the more appropriate to make now, when we have a military state - state-monopoly capitalism. The introduction of planning does not save workers from being slaves, and capitalists take profit more "systematically." Now we have a direct outgrowth of capitalism into its higher systematic form.

The second part of the resolution requires no explanations.

On the third part of the resolution it is necessary to stop in more detail (reads the resolution).

"The proletariat of Russia, acting in one of the most backward countries in Europe, among a mass of small peasant population, cannot set itself the goal of immediate implementation of socialist transformation.

But it would be the greatest mistake, and in practice even complete transition to the side of the bourgeoisie, to derive from this the necessity of support of the bourgeoisie by the working class, or the necessity of limiting one's activity to the framework acceptable to the petty bourgeoisie, or refusal of the leading role of the proletariat in the matter of explaining to the people the urgency of a number of practically ripe steps toward socialism."

Usually from the first premises such a conclusion is made: "Russia is a backward country, peasant, petty-bourgeois, and therefore about social revolution one cannot even speak," but they forget that by war we are placed in extraordinary conditions and that alongside the petty bourgeoisie there is large capital. And what are the Soviets of W. and S. D. to do when power passes to them? Go over to the side of the bourgeoisie? The working class continues its class struggle - that is the answer.

What is possible and what is necessary under the power of the Soviets of W. and S. D.?

First of all, nationalization of land. Nationalization of land is a bourgeois measure, it does not exclude capitalism, and capital does not exclude it, but the blow dealt by it to private property is great. Further (reads):

"...establishment of state control over all banks, with their unification into a single central bank, as well as over insurance institutions and the largest syndicates of capitalists (for example, the syndicate of sugar manufacturers, Produgol, Prodamet, etc.), with gradual transition to more just, progressive taxation of incomes and properties. Such measures are economically fully ripe, technically absolutely implementable immediately, politically can meet the support of the overwhelming majority of peasants, benefiting from these transformations in all respects."

This point required discussion. I have already had occasion to speak in "Pravda" about Plekhanov's articles: "when they speak of the impossibility of socialism, they try to present the latter as is advantageous to them: vaguely, unclearly, in the form of a leap." Kautsky himself writes: "not one socialist speaks of abolition of private property for peasants." But does this mean that existing large capital should save us from control of the Soviets of W. and S. D. over production, over syndicates of sugar manufacturers, etc.? This measure is not socialism, it is a transitional measure, but the implementation of such measures in connection with the existence of the Soviets of W. and S. D. will make it so that Russia with one foot will stand in socialism, with one - because the peasant majority guides the other of the economic sides of the country. That the change is economically ripe - cannot be denied. To implement them politically - it is necessary to have a majority, and the majority is peasants, who, understandably, are interested in these transformations. Whether they have enough organization - this is another question, we are not responsible for them.

The old popular expression against socialism, that this is "mass barracks," "mass bureaucracy." We must now pose the question of socialism differently than it was posed, from the realm of the vague we must transfer it to the most concrete realm: nationalization of lands, control over syndicates, etc. (reads the resolution).

"All indicated and similar measures can and should be not only discussed and prepared for carrying them out on an all-state scale under the condition of transfer of all power to proletarians and semi-proletarians, but also implemented by local revolutionary organs of popular power, when the possibility for this presents itself.

In implementing the named measures, extraordinary circumspection and caution is necessary, conquest of a solid majority of the population and its conscious conviction in the practical preparedness of one or another measure, but it is precisely in this direction that the attention and efforts of the conscious vanguard of the working masses must be directed, obliged to help peasant masses find a way out of the created ruin."

In the last words is the nail of the whole resolution: socialism is posed by us not as a leap, but as a practical way out of the created ruin.

"The revolution is bourgeois, and therefore one should not speak of socialism," say opponents. And we will say, on the contrary: "since the bourgeoisie cannot exit the created situation, the revolution goes further." We need not to limit ourselves to democratic phrases, but to explain the situation to the masses and point them to a number of practical measures: take into our hands the syndicates - control them through the Soviets of W. and S. D., etc. And all these measures implemented will make it so that Russia will stand with one foot in socialism. Our economic program must say how to exit ruin - this is what we must be guided by.

First published in 1925 in the book "Petrograd City-Wide and All-Russian Conferences of the RSDLP (b) in April 1917"
Printed from the handwritten copy of the protocol record