In early 1925 factional allegiances began shifting in the Russian Communist Party. The ‘triumvirate’ of Zinoviev, Stalin, and Kamenev that defeated Trotsky and the Left Opposition at 1924’s 13th Party Congress broke down. Unresolved divergences over the NEP and associated questions, particularly related to the peasant classes, ‘Socialism in one country,’ industrialization and foreign capital, and Bukharin’s’ inflammatory ‘Peasants, enrich yourselves!’ The disputes came to a head at the 14th Party Congress in December 1925 which saw Zinoviev, Kamenev, Krupsakaya, and Sokolnikov form the so-called New Opposition. Trotsky was not a direct participant in this dispute. Stalin allied himself with the Right bloc centered on Bukharin, Rykov, and Tomsky, forming a majority of the Central Committee. At the conference Stalin and Zinoviev were co-reporters representing the differences on the Central Committee. Zinoviev’s intervention was primarily directed at Bukharin, who delivered this speech, the first in discussion as a response. Bukharin in turn elaborates the increasingly central criticism of the Right bloc, that the Oppositions ‘underestimated the peasantry,’ along with Zinoviev’s alleged violation of ‘Leninist ban on factions.’

With only Zinoviev’s Leningrad base (unanimously) supporting the New Opposition, they were defeated with the Stalin-Bukharin faction gaining even more seats on the Central Committee, Politburo and the Party’s policy bodies. While Zinoviev retained his position in the Politburo, he lost his base in Leningrad to Sergei Kirov and was relegated to the Comintern, for the moment. While Kamenev, who had called for Stalin’s removal from office during the increasingly hostile discussion over the conference, lost his positions in the top leadership of the Bolsheviks entirely. Trotsky, recovering from illness was present but did not participate, however he was reelected to the Central Committee and Politburo. He and Stalin would be the only two consistent members of that body for the Revolution’s first decade. Zinoviev’s co-report for the Central Committee that this speech is a response to can be read here.

‘Response to Report by Comrade Zinoviev’ by Nikolai Bukharin from the XIV Congress from International Press Correspondence. Vol. 6. Nos. 5 January 15, 1926.

Comrade Bucharin, who was welcomed with enthusiastic applause, rose as first speaker in the discussion on the political report of the Central Committee.

I must first draw attention to the special significance of the fact that a member of the political bureau gives a co-report on the report of the Central Committee. At every Government Conference the opposition has emphasised that it opposes no other line to that laid down by the C.C. This is contradicted by the fact of the co-report which is without precedent in the history of the Party. In past struggles with various oppositional groups a co-report has never been given.

I ask: What practical measures does the opposition suggest? What new proposals does the opposition make for helping the poor peasantry? Nothing. The Fourteenth National Party Conference stated the necessity of establishing a material fund for aiding the poor peasantry, and of forming groups among the poor peasantry. The opposition is not in a position to bring forward new proposals, a proof of its political impotence.

The opposition has two propositions:

The first proposal is to organise delegates’ unions of the non-party middle peasant youth, in connection with the Young Communist League. This was rejected by the C.C., since the activity of the peasantry is such that these associations would become parallel organisations, incurring the danger of losing the proletarian leadership of the peasantry. This would be a capitulation of the proletariat to the petty bourgeoisie.

The second proposal has been made by a Leningrad comrade named Sarkis, who moved that by the time the Fifteenth Party Conference meets the character of the membership of the Party shall be so arranged that 90% of the members are workers in shops and factories. This would only be possible when the Party has 6 million members. This proposal thus means the extraordinary admittance of 5 million members to the Party within a year. The significance of this is not merely arithmetical but political. To follow this piece of advice implies the admittance of enormous numbers of peasant elements into the proletarian Party.

The opposition accuses us of abandoning our position under the pressure of the petty bourgeoisie. Both of the above proposals of the opposition are however precisely a capitulation to petty bourgeois peasant tendencies. These oppositional propositions cannot stand criticism.

The present discussion must be regarded in the light of the two preceding discussions against Trotsky.

At the present time we are in the midst of new economic conditions and a new international situation, The Party is seeking feverishly for its correct position in the peasant question under the new circumstances. The first discussion raised the question of inner Party democracy, etc. It turned out in the end that the actual question was the peasant question. By the second discussion the Party was better aware of the nature of the struggle. It is not by accident that the problems now placed in the foreground deal with state capitalism, the possibility of realising socialism in one single country, etc.

The nature of the two previous discussions was an enquiry into the relations between the working class and the peasantry. The present discussion is the continuation of the two first; at the present time the Party participates in the discussion with a fuller consciousness of the point at issue the problems no longer being presented with different labels, but directly. In the earlier discussions the peasant question was raised as a whole, this time the various strata of the peasantry are discussed.  

I am firmly convinced that the Party will emerge from this discussion ideologically strengthened and consolidated.

The present discussion is based on a social foundation characterised by three facts:

Firstly: The growth of bourgeois strata in town and country.

Secondly: The increased activity shown by all classes, especially by the peasant class.

Thirdly: The appearance of a new stratum: The semi-peasant and semi-worker is leaving the village for the towns, and asking whether he is being exploited or not; he is asking in what way the new factory differs from the old.

On the other hand, our policy has not yet had time enough to aid the poor to the extent projected. The poor peasantry naturally raises a number of questions. The Party is the sole political organisation which must and will solve these questions.

The questions under discussion must be considered in connection with practical politics. At an earlier discussion the question of permanent revolution was raised, as the standpoint of the opposition concealed the doubt as to the possibility of realising socialism in our country. This means the denial of the idea of realising socialism in ion with the peasantry under proletarian leadership, a denial based on the notion that the peasantry is entirely antagonist to the working class, and is even an ally of the counter-revolutionaries, It was proved at the time that the building up of socialism on a wretched technical basis is a very slow process, but nevertheless a possible one.

At a session of the Political Bureau comrades Zinoviev and Kamenev maintained that socialism could not be carried out completely on account of the technical backwardness We maintained that only an international socialist revolution would afford a guarantee against intervention, against new wars, and against a restoration of capitalism with the aid. of capitalist armies. But at the same time we most energetically rejected] the idea that we were destined to ruin on account of our technical backwardness.

This represents an attempt to shunt us back to a track which we have already left behind us. There is a tremendous difference between the assertion of the impossibility of the realisation of socialism in a country in the sense that there is no guarantee for this realisation owing to the danger of intervention, and the assertion of the impossibility of overcoming the difficulties of the transition to socialism on account of the backwardness oi technics and economics, and on account of an overwhelming majority of peasantry.

Comrade Zinoviev must be reproached for not having dealt with this difference in his lately published work. Comrade Zinoviev maintains in his book that the error which he committed in 1917 consisted in his having continued Lenin’s standpoint on compromises for some days further. This declaration appears simply ridiculous. In October 1917 comrades Zinoviev and Kamenev were not taken by surprise, but had formed their own judgment on the question. From April 1917 onwards comrade Kamenev had maintained that the peasants could not be come the allies of the proletariat, that the socialist revolution could not pre-suppose the co-operation of the proletariat and the peasantry. Comrade Zinoviev first combatted this standpoint in a weakened form, then he supported it, again in a weakened form.

This is the standpoint of lack of faith in the powers of the working class. At that time they maintained that nothing would come of the armed insurrection. Now they maintain that we are ruined unless the international revolution comes. This is the repetition of the same error in another form.

Comrade Zinoviev, in his book on the history of the Russian Communist Party, does not mention the peasantry when treating of class relations in 1905. But in the revolution of 1905 the peasant question was the main problem. Comrade Zinoviev has not admitted and corrected this error, and this is exceedingly harmful since the whole of the youth of the Party is educated in this spirit.

Now to the question of the NEP.

Comrade Zinoviev declares war on all who identify the NEP. with socialism. We support this holy war to the utmost extent -of our powers. Comrade Zinoviev declares war on all who confuse the NEP. with socialism. We are fully in accord with him. But there still remains a. fundamental difference between us. Comrade Zinoviev treats the NEP. almost exclusively as a retreat. Comrade Zinoviev formulates this as follows: The NEP. is the broadest path of retreat in Leninism.

How did Lenin regard the NEP.? Lenin said: The NEP. is a strategic manoeuvre on a large scale, comprising firstly an element of retreat, secondly a regrouping of forces, and thirdly an advance upon a reorganised front line.

Whilst Lenin expressly declared the retreat to be ended, the definition of the NEP as formulated by comrade Zinoviev is exactly on a par with the lack of faith in the possibility of socialist development under conditions of technical backwardness.

We are passing through a period of retardation in the world revolution. Comrade Salutzky has drawn from this the conclusion of a possible degeneration. (Laughter.) We decidedly contest the standpoint that the NEP. is only a retreat. Here we stand on a thoroughly Leninist standpoint.

A question closely bound up with the NEP. is that of state capitalism. Many comrades would prefer to evade the proper treatment of the question as now formulated. Instead of answering the question in the light of the most essential problem of the present moment, they put the question as it stood in 1921. The Leningrad comrades maintain that the accusation laid against them, that they deny the consistently socialist character state industry, is false. ‘Thus they have abandoned their former position, and accept the formulation: The state undertakings are undertakings of a consistently socialist type.

Comrade Zinoviev too is now in favour of this formula. But in his book: “Leninism” there is not a word about it in the chapter on “state industry”. On the other hand comrade Zinoviev expressly asserts that even in our state trusts, in their work system, and even in our co-operatives, there are capitalist elements. We. must not deceive the workers with sweet words as to all this being socialism. This is.one of the leading passages in comrade Zinoviev’s book.

Without doubt there are capitalist elements everywhere. But why is there no mention of the consistently socialist type of undertakings in comrade Zinoviev’s chapter on state industry?  

Objections must also be made to the interpretation of the resolution passed by the Eleventh Party Conference of the Russian C.P., moved by comrade Lenin, on the role and tasks of the trade unions under the conditions created by the NEP. Comrade Zinoviev maintains that in this resolution Lenin. declared the state undertakings to be state capitalism. In reality there is nothing of the kind in the resolution.

Special emphasis must be laid on the fact that comrade Zinoviev does not refer in his book to Lenin’s opinion on the consistently socialist undertakings. And comrade Zinoviev opposed the draft of the theses on the youth question, drawn up by the present speaker, and intended to be laid before the Fourteenth Party Conference, for the reason that he considered our undertakings to be state capitalist. Others of the Leningrad comrades, comrade Jevdokimov for instance, have failed to give a definite answer to the question: What are state undertakings? But the Party will have to reply to this question, for the whole proletariat demands it.

Now to the question of the character of state capitalism. This question must be put chiefly from the standpoint of our practical aims. It was from this standpoint that Lenin regarded it, and his article: “On Co-operatives” states that the practical aim of the NEP. was the obtaining of concessions. This viewpoint is important, for it answers the question of the difference of opinion existing at one time between Lenin and the present speaker.

Life has erased this difference of opinion in two ways: in the first. place we have experienced an enormous rise in State industry; secondly, we have not granted concessions to the extent anticipated. At that time we had almost no industry but only plans for concessions; now we have our own industry, built up by our own powers. Thus the whole: question must be put concretely and practically, in accordance with immediate actuality.

A few remarks on comrade Zinoviev’s assertion: Since we have free trade, we have complete capitalism in so far as free trade exists. It is true that Lenin said: “Free trade is capitalism”.

But this merely means: Capitalism is being continually born on the basis of free trade. But this is no reason for regarding capitalism and free trade as synonymous. For instance: One of our | state undertakings of the consistently socialist type buys from another similar undertaking. This is a form of exchange of commodities, not a form of socialist distribution. But it is surely not capitalism. Only on the broadest lines can capitalism be identified with free trade. Nobody will deny that we have elements of state capitalism elements of private capitalism, and elements of petty bourgeois economics. But the fundamental question is the judgment passed on the state undertakings.

Now to the question of the middle peasantry. I ask: Do many comrades under-estimate the middle peasantry? This question must be replied to in the affirmative. In a programmatic article by comrade Zinoviev, entitled “The philosophy of the Epoch”, we found at first no middle peasantry. It was only put in later. The decisions of the Fourteenth Conference are again dealt with differently by comrade Zinoviev than by the Party. These decisions chiefly represent the policy of the firm establishment of a close alliance with the middle peasantry.

Comrade Zinoviev, in his book: “Leninism”, writes that; “We must now grant supplementary concessions to precisely the capitalist elements of agriculture.”

What does this mean: “Precisely to the capitalist elements of agriculture?” It means that the NEP. is a concession to precisely the big bourgeoisie. If we want to formulate the decisions of the Fourteenth National Party Conference precisely as concessions to the village usurers, nobody will lend us an ear. The resolution passed at the Fourteenth National Conference aims precisely at a firm alliance with the middle peasantry. But comrade Zinoviev deems it a resolution in favour of the village kulak!

I expressly declare that it was I who wrote the fundamental part of the resolution for the Fourteenth National Party Conference and the October plenary session, without however encountering an objection from any side.

Comrade Zinoviev, in his “Leninism’”, fails to deal with the most important question of the alteration of the slogan of “civil war” into “civil peace”. Comrade Zinoviev does not touch upon this with as much as one word. Lenin’s words on the reformist methods, in his article: “The meaning of gold” are also lacking. Comrade Zinoviev quotes: Lenin’s formulation of the question of the rich peasantry, his designations of bloodsuckers, vampires, etc. But this dates from the year 1918. And comrade Zinoviev adds that these words should be repeated more than once.

Comrade Zinoviev’s book deals with the burning questions of the day, but the immediate line of Party action consists of the extermination of the last remains of war communism. At the Present moment we are fighting with other weapons against the rich peasant.

In Comrade Zinoviev’s words there lies hidden the idea of a disorganisation of the decisions passed by the Fourteenth National Party Conference: We are to take into account a growing differentiation in the peasantry; in other words, we are to see an intensification of the class struggle in the near future.

Many dangers of an international character exist, since we in the international markets. And inner dangers exist as well, for class activity and class differentiation are advancing rapidly. The most important task of all is to unite the working class. The pessimists have not yet grasped that we are confronted with the enormous task of educating fresh strata of the workers.

The Leningrad delegation must admit its errors, just as the One-time secretary of the Leningrad organisation, Salutzky, has admitted his error on the subject of state capitalism. I must strongly condemn the action of the Leningrad delegation in not sending a tested fighter like comrade Komarov to the Party Conference, merely because he is loyal to the C.C.

Unity, proletarian discipline, and loyalty to the leading organs are constituents of Bolshevism. We may disagree, criticize, attack; but we must not form fractions. The iron discipline of the Party must be maintained. (Applause.) I am fully convinced that the whole of the delegates will submit to the derision of the Party Conference, like one man, and will acknowledge it to be the sole and final interpretation of the Leninist line of the Party. (Applause.)

International Press Correspondence, widely known as”Inprecorr” was published by the Executive Committee of the Communist International (ECCI) regularly in German and English, occasionally in many other languages, beginning in 1921 and lasting in English until 1938. Inprecorr’s role was to supply translated articles to the English-speaking press of the International from the Comintern’s different sections, as well as news and statements from the ECCI. Many ‘Daily Worker’ and ‘Communist’ articles originated in Inprecorr, and it also published articles by American comrades for use in other countries. It was published at least weekly, and often thrice weekly. The ECCI also published the magazine ‘Communist International’ edited by Zinoviev and Karl Radek from 1919 until 1926 monthly in German, French, Russian, and English. Unlike, Inprecorr, CI contained long-form articles by the leading figures of the International as well as proceedings, statements, and notices of the Comintern. No complete run of Communist International is available in English. Both were largely published outside of Soviet territory, with Communist International printed in London, to facilitate distribution and both were major contributors to the Communist press in the U.S. Communist International and Inprecorr are an invaluable English-language source on the history of the Communist International and its sections.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/inprecor/1926/v06n05-jan-15-1926-Inprecor.pdf