The original translation of this important speech given on March 6, 1922 to the Communist delegates at the All-Russia Congress Of Metalworkers. Lenin, seriously ill and weeks away from his first stroke, looks at the results and difficulties of one year of the New Economic Policy in the context of a stabilizing international capitalism.

‘The International and Domestic Situation of The Soviet Republic’ by V.I. Lenin from International Press Correspondence. Vol. 2 No. 23. March 24, 1922.

At a meeting of the faction of the All-Russian Conference of Metal Workers held on the 6th of March, Comrade Lenin reported upon the internal and inter- national position of the Soviet Republic. He was greeted with a storm of applause. We give his speech in full.

Comrades, allow me to interfere somewhat with the ordinary order and touch upon other themes than those on the agenda of your conference, in order to share with you my deductions and opinions upon the question of the most important problems of politics. We address ourselves, as is our ingrained habit, to you who, although not the official representatives of the different government institutions, yet in fact bear a large part of the work of the state. And you all know that the real work in the majority of our government institutions is being carried out by the representatives of the working class, among which the metal workers stand in the front rank.

This is the reason why I think, that in the present case, the alteration in the order of business will not seem misplaced, if I speak not so much of trade union and party questions, but concentrate my attention upon political questions concerning our internal and international position. For, according to my opinion, there is something in our home affairs, which looks like a certain change in the policy, and which requires special attention on the part of every party member, as well as on the part of every class-conscious worker, in order that this change in our policy should be entirely understood, and properly assimilated with the Soviet, party, trade union and other work.

Of course, you all know full well, comrades, that at the head of the international problems stands Genoa. I cannot say that I am firmly convinced that it continues to stand there justifiably, but when we say “Genoa “, we understand it to mean the well known conference, which was to take place in Italy at Genoa, the work for which had been nearly completed, and which, at the present time, unfortunately, seems to be in such an uncertain position, that no one knows (I even fear, that the initiators of Genoa themselves do not know anything definite) if it has any chance of taking place, or whether these chances are nil. In any case, we must say to ourselves, and to all those that have the slightest interest in the fate of the workers and peasants’ Republic, that our position in that respect, i.e., in the question of the Genoa Conference, has, from the very beginning been a firm one and has remained such. It is not our fault, however, if someone else lacks not only firmness, but even elementary resolution, elementary ability to carry out his own intentions. We have, from the very beginning, stated that we welcome Genoa and that we shall go to it: we never intended to hide the fact, and knew very well that we were going to it as merchants, for trade with capitalist countries (as long as they have not yet gone to pieces) is necessary to us, and that we go there to negotiate politically suitable conditions of trade more correctly and more profitably, and nothing more. This, of course, is no secret for those capitalist countries, whose governments worked out the plan of the Genoa Conference. These governments are well aware that the trade agreements connecting us with a number of capitalist countries are growing in importance, that the number of practical business deals is growing, that detailed plans are being negotiated by business enterprises, both Russian and foreign; and that most varied combinations have been arranged between the different foreign governments and the different branches of our industry–their numbers at present being very large. Therefore, the practical basis of what will be negotiated in Genoa is well known to the capitalist governments. And if, in addition to this basis, we find a superstructure of varied political arguments, propositions, projects, etc. it must be clearly understood that this is only a superstructure, very well constructed, invented and carried out by those who are interested in the same.

During the four years’ existence of the Soviet power, we have naturally acquired practical experience (besides our already acquired theoretical knowledge) to be able to estimate in this diplomatic game, which has been unfolded according to the regulations of the old bourgeois diplomatic art by the representatives of the bourgeois countries. We understand perfectly well what lies at the root of this game; we know that the basis of it is trade. Bourgeois countries must trade with Russia; they know that without certain forms of economic relations, disintegration will go further in their countries than it has gone up to the present. Notwithstanding their great conquests, and their everlasting boasting, with which they filled the papers and news dispatches of the whole world, their economics is bursting at the seams, for they cannot solve the simplest question–not constructing anew, but only reconstructing the old–which, after four years of “splendid conquests” they cannot bring to any satisfactory issue. They still turn around the problem of how, discussing this point in threes and fours and fives (you note that their numbers grow and make it extremely difficult to come to an agreement) to plan out such combination which will to learn to trade. I understand that Communists need time to learn to trade, and that anyone who wishes to learn the same, will in the first few years make the crudest blunders, but these may be forgiven him for it is something entirely new. Brains must be made more pliable, and must lay all aside Communist, or rather Russian sluggishness and much more besides. But that the representatives of the bourgeoisie should be forced to learn the rules of trading which they have been carrying on for hundreds of years and upon which their whole existence is based–is rather strange.

We, however, are not so surprised at that. We long ago said that they did not estimate the imperialist war as correctly as we had estimated it. They estimated it from the point of view of what was under their very noses, and three years after their “gigantic victories” they still cannot find a way out of their position. We Communists said that we had estimated the war much more deeply and correctly, for its contradictions and misfortunes would have their effect upon a wider scale than had been anticipated by the capitalist governments. And, looking impartially at the bourgeois victorious states, we said: “They will remember our prophecies and our estimation of the war and its consequences more than once”. We are not surprised at the fact, that they have gotten into a blind alley, but at the same time we say: “Trade with capitalist countries is absolutely essential for us while they exist as such, we negotiate with them as merchants”; and that we can accomplish this is shown by the number of trade agreements which have been concluded with capitalist states. We cannot publish them before they are concluded. When a merchant and capitalist comes to us and says: “This should be kept a secret until we have come to the end of our negotiations”, of course, from the commercial point of view, we cannot refuse him that. But we know exactly how many agreements are in negotiation; the list alone is several pages long, whilst among their numbers, there are dozens of concrete practical propositions with solid finance groups. Naturally, the representatives, of the bourgeois states, who are getting ready to meet at Genoa, know that as well as we do: what else might have happened, the connections of the bourgeois firms with their respective governments has certainly remained intact.

Therefore, if in foreign telegrams we come across information to the effect that they do not seem to be quite clear as to what will take place at Genoa, it is clear they are inventing something new, wishing to surprise the world with something to the effect that Russia intends to present new conditions. Allow me to tell them (I hope to be able to say it personally to Lloyd George at Genoa):

“You will not surprise anyone with this, gentlemen. You are business men and are carrying on business very smartly. We are only learning to trade and are doing so very badly. But we have dozens and hundreds of agreements and projected agreements, from which one may gather how we are doing business, the conditions upon which we intend to conclude business deals, and upon which we shall conclude them. And if we come across all sorts of reports in the newspapers, which are intended to frighten us, to the effect that we shall have to undergo a certain examination, then we coolly smile at that. We have been threatened before, and what is more, the threats were much more severe than those of a tradesman who is getting ready to bang the door, in proposing his very lowest price…We have had threats uttered from the mouths of cannon on the part of the Allied governments, who now hold practically the whole world in their hands. We are not frightened by these threats. You gentlemen and European diplomats please do not forget this. We are not at all anxious to keep our diplomatic prestige, our renown, a thing which is of utmost importance to your bourgeois governments. We shall not even speak of it officially. Nevertheless, we have not forgotten it. Not a single worker, not a single peasant has forgotten, and what is more, will ever forget, that he has fought for the workers’ and peasants’ power against the union of all the most powerful states, which had supported intervention. We have a whole collection of agreements, which had been concluded with the Koltchaks and Denikins during a period of several years. These have been published, we know of them–in fact, the whole world knows of them. Why then play at hide and seek, and put the matter in such a light as if we had all turned into “stupid jackasses”? Every peasant and worker knows that he fought against these powers and that they did not conquer him. And, if it so pleases you, gentlemen, the representatives of the bourgeois governments, to amuse yourselves and waste paper (you have more of it probably than necessary), and ink and to overload your wires and radio stations with news to the effect that: ‘We shall put Russia to the test’, then we shall yet see, who does the testing. We have already been measured, not in words, nor in commerce and roubles, but with clubs. And we have certainly well earned the right by our bloody, heavy, and painful wounds, to say not only of ourselves but of our opponents that a beaten man, is “worth two unbeaten ones”.

We have merited that in warfare. But in the sphere of commerce, it is unfortunate that we Communists have not had enough blows dealt us, but I hope that this deficiency will be remedied in the very near future, with equal success.

I have already mentioned that I hope to speak personally with Lloyd George at Genoa upon the above mentioned topic, and to tell him that is useless to frighten us with trifles, for those that do that will in the end only lose their prestige. I hope that sickness will not prevent me from doing this, for it has hindered me greatly from direct participation in politics and does not permit me to carry on my work in my capacity as Soviet official. I have grounds to think that in the course of the next few weeks I shall be able to return to my work again. But will they, in threes and fours, and in the course of the next few weeks, come to some agreement concerning that which they have announced to the whole world--their supposed perfect agreement? I doubt that very much. I even go so far as to assert, that no one in the world is certain of that; and more, that they themselves do not know it- for when the victorious ones, who held the power of the whole world in their hands, met finally at Cannes, after having met many times previously–the number of their conferences was endless, even the European bourgeois papers make fun of them–they were unable to state definitely what they wanted.

From the point of view of practical problems, and not from that of diplomatic gambling, the present position has been most correctly pictured by Comrade Trotzky. The very next day after the receipt of the news that Genoa had been finally decided upon and that a perfect agreement had been arrived at, but that the wavering of one of the bourgeois governments (they have become suspiciously wavering) had brought about a slight delay, Comrade Trotzky published an army order:

“Let every Red Army man master the international situation. We know as a fact, that they have a strong group that has a tendency to try intervention; again we shall be on our guard, but every Red Army man must know, what diplomatic play means, and what is the force of arms, which, up to the present, has always solved all class conflicts. Let every Red Army man know what this game means, what the force of arms is like, and them we shall see. However strong capitalism is in some capitalist countries, still it may only be tried by a few parties, parties not without influence. If the governments are so unstable as not to be able to keep their conferences at the appointed time’, who knows in whose hands these governments may yet find themselves. We are well aware of the fact that they have powerful parties desiring war, and that they have powerful men in economics; we know everything, as well as the main point lying at the bottom of the economic agreements. We have outlived many hardships, and know what misfortunes and tortures we may have yet to bear, if a new war is forced upon us, and yet we say, that we shall bear this once more. Let those try that dare do so.” The deduction made by Comrade Trotzky, who published his firm appeal instead of diplomatic combinations, was that the international situation should be explained anew to every Red Army man, that is, that the postponement of the Genoa conference was due to the fact that the Italian Government was found to be unstable-which means the danger of a new war. We shall attain the goal; every Red Army man shall understand this. This will be done the more easily seeing that it is extremely difficult to find another such united family, as is the Red Army in Russia, which gets the truth not only from the newspapers, circulars and decrees, but also from its native villages, where it has seen the famine in all its nakedness and devastation, and knows the real cause of this, although it does not peruse the Paris editions of the Menshevik and Social Revolutionary press, which try to attribute these misfortunes to the malignity of the Bolsheviks. It has never before been as staunch as it is at present, in its desire to offer resistance to those that have carried on war against it and helped Koltchak and Denikin. We need have no fears on this account, for there is no need to organize new commissions for agitation and propaganda. With regard to Genoa one must be able rigidly to distinguish the important points from those newspaper fables which are being printed by the bourgeoisie: to the latter these fables seem infernal machines, but they do not scare us, for we have come across many of them before, and they are not even worth while wasting a faint smile over them. All attempts to impose conditions upon us as vanquished enemies are empty words, and it is not worth while paying any attention to these either. As merchants, we have started negotiations with foreign firms, and know exactly what is owing us, as well as what we ourselves owe; we also know very well what their lawful profits may amount to, and what figures their extremely high profits may reach. We note the increasing number of propositions; the number of agreements is growing and will still grow, quite independently of whatever frame the figure of the three and four so-called “victorious powers may shape itself into, they certainly will be the losers from this postponement, for by this procrastination they will only prove to their own people that they do not know themselves what they want, and are suffering from a disease of the will. This disease consists of their utter impossibility to understand economics and politics, which we have been able to estimate more correctly and deeply than they have done. It will soon be ten years since we made this estimation, while the ensuing destruction and devastation do not seem at all clear to the bourgeois governments.

We have already clearly defined our own situation, and only say with firmness that the retreat that we have started, can be stopped and will be stopped. Enough. We clearly see and do not hide the fact the new economic policy is a retreat. We went farther than we could control it, but such is the logic of fighting tactics.

If any of you remember what took place in October 1917, or if any of you, at the time politically ignorant, have studied the situation later, you must surely know of the number of compromise proposals that were made by the Bolsheviks to the bourgeoisie. They said then: “Gentlemen, everything is going to pieces; whilst we shall attain power, and shall hold everything together. Would it not be better to compromise without scandal. We know that there were not only scandals but even attempts at insurrection, which were instigated by Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries. They had formerly stated: “We are ready to hand the power over to the Soviets at their first bidding.” A few days ago, I went over an article of Kerensky’s, written against Tchernoff in a Paris journal (there is much of that trash there) in which Kerensky states: “Did we hold on to power? Even during the Democratic Convention, I made a statement to the effect that if people could be found to take over the organization of a homogeneous government, the power would be handed over to such a government without violence.”

We did not refuse to take over power. We even made statements to that effect early in June of 1917. In October 1917, this was carried through at the Conference of the Soviets for it received a Bolshevik majority. Then Kerensky turned to the Junkers, bolted to Krasnoe, and tried to mobilize the whole army against Petrograd. We broke their ribs somewhat and now offended, they exclaim: “What offenders, what usurpers, what hangmen!” Our answer to them is: “Blame your own selves, friends! Do not think that the Russian workers and peasants have forgotten your deeds! You called us out to a desperate fight in October 1917, in answer to which we put forward terror, a triple terror, and should it be once more necessary, and should you make fresh attempts we shall do it again! Not a single worker or peasant doubts this necessity; with the exception of the intellectual jackdaws, no one doubts it. We carried on war amidst most difficult conditions, against an enemy exceeding 100 times our own forces; and naturally it was necessary to go very far in the application of strong measures, further probably than necessary, but we were forced by circumstances to have recourse to these, for our enemies thought that they would make an end of us. They were certain of being able to force us to submit to them. They announced that they would accept no compromises. We answered them: “If you think that we shall not have recourse to extreme Communist measures, then you are mistaken.” We had decided upon extreme measures, and we succeeded. Now, we say that we cannot hold certain positions and we retreat, for we have conquered enough in order to secure the necessary positions. All the White Guard elements, with the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries at the head, triumph and exclaim: “Oh! you are retreating. Be merry! For you console yourselves. Our answer to them is:

“It is to our advantage when our enemy employs his time in self-consolation instead of hard work. Triumph! For you put us in a more advantageous position, by amusing yourselves with illusions. We have conquered difficult and important positions, and if beginning with 1917 and up to 1920 we had not conquered these positions, we should now be left without space upon which to retreat- geographically, economically and politically. We hold power in union with the peasants, and if you do not wish to agree to conditions which were offered you before the war, then after the war you will certainly be forced to accept worse conditions. This fact has been strictly inculcated in diplomatic, economic and political history since 1917 and up to 1920, so that is no mere boasting. This is merely stating facts, simply a reminder. If the capitalists had agreed to our conditions in 1917, they would now have five times more than they actually possess. You fought for three years. What did you get? Do you want to continue the fight? We know well, that not all among you are burning with the desire to fight. On the other hand, we also know, that in conditions of desperate hunger, with the present desperate state of industry all positions acquired since 1917 cannot be retained. We have given up quite a number of them. But now we can safely say, that retreats as far as the rights granted the capitalists are concerned, are at an end.”

We have made a series of scouting movements in the way of signing agreements with Russian and foreign capitalists and now say, and I hope and am convinced that the Party Congress will state that fact officially on behalf of the governing party in Russia: “We can now stop our economic retreat. Enough. We shall not go further back and shall in the future busy ourselves with the correct division and grouping of our forces”. When I say that we are stopping our economic retreat, it does not mean, that I am forgetting those diabolic difficulties in which we are placed, and that I wished to comfort you upon the point. The question of the limits of the retreat, and whether we are ceasing our retreat or not, is not the same question as that of the difficulties before us. We know perfectly well all the difficulties that lie before us. We know what famine means in such a peasant country a Russia. We know that, as yet, we have not been able to overcome the misfortunes brought about by the famine. We know the meaning of a financial crisis in a country which is forced to trade, and in which the surplus of paper money has reached such an extent, as has never been seen by the world before. We are aware of all difficulties and know them to be tremendous. I am not afraid to say that they are infinite. This fact does not scare us. On the contrary, we draw our force from the fact that we tell the workers and peasants openly: “Here are the difficulties which lie before us, here is the danger that menaces us from the Western States. Let us unite and work together and look at our problems in the face”. If we stop our retreat, it does not mean that we do not know of these dangers. We look at them in the face. We say: “Here is the main danger: the misfortunes caused by the war must be healed. We have not as yet got over our financial crisis. Therefore, the suspension of our retreat, must in no way be understood to mean, that we think that our foundation (the new economic policy) is firmly established, and that we may be calm upon that score. Nothing of the sort, the foundation has yet to be built.

We cannot yet look calmly at the future. We are encircled by many military dangers, of which I have already spoken at length; there are many even greater dangers within the country, where economic dangers exist which are based on the utter ruin of the peasantry, the famine, and the financial chaos. But if war will be imposed upon us we shall know how to fight. To direct a war is no easy matter. It was an easy matter for the foreign powers to carry on war in 1918 and continue it through 1919. But since then much water as well as blood has flowed under the bridge. The Western workers and peasants are not the same now as those of 1919. To hoodwink them by explaining to them that they are fighting the Germans, and that the Bolsheviks are their agents and nothing more is utterly impossible. We are not panic-stricken at our economic situation. At the present moment we have dozens of agreements signed with Russian and foreign capitalists. We know what difficulties are facing us and will still face us. We know the reasons that made the Russian capitalists sign agreements with us. We know the conditions upon which these agreements have been signed. The greater part of the capitalists negotiated terms as experts, specialists and business men. We are also merchants. Every merchant, however, takes a certain policy into account. And if he is not a merchant from an altogether savage country, he usually does not sign any obligations with a government that cannot guarantee the security of business agreements. The merchant that would do otherwise would no longer be a business man, but a fool. These latter are seldom to be found among business men, for the logic of commercial competition removes them from the battlefield. Our former calculation was as follows: “If Denikin has beaten us, now prove that we can beat him”; at present, however, the calculation is of a different nature: “If a merchant has beaten you, prove that you can make a bargain with him”. We have proved this. We have a number of agreements signed with the greatest Russian and West European firms. We know what they risk; they know what our risks are.

At present, our problems have somewhat changed, and I should like to say a few words upon that point to complete my already too long report. In connection with the situation, since Genoa so hangs in the balance that it seems to have no end, and since we have to make so many compromises in our home policy, we must now firmly say: Enough; on more compromising.” If the capitalists think that we can be drawn further they must be told: “Enough, for tomorrow you will not get anything at all.” If the history of the Soviet authority has taught them nothing, then leave them to their own fate. We have done what we could and we have announced it to the whole world. I hope that the coming Party Congress will confirm our determination to go no further on the road of the retreat. The retreat is at an end, and with it we shall change the nature of our work.

We must note, however, that up to the present, a certain nervousness, almost a sickness, is noticed in the discussions of this question, for many plans are made and resolutions carried through. I should like to emphasize the following. I have accidentally read some poetry of Mayakovsky printed in yesterday’s number of the “Izvestia”. I do not belong to those who worship Mayakovsky’s poetic talent, for I am an incompetent judge of it. But I must say that for some time I have not felt such a pleasure, both politically and administratively, as when I read his verses. He makes a laughing stock of meetings and Communists that are everlasting in session. I am no judge of poetry, but I am certain that the political side is perfectly correct. We are really in the situation of people that are everlasting in session, organizing commissions, working out plans–without end. There was a type of that sort in Russian life, the hero of a novel whose name was Oblomov. He lay in bed day and night making endless plans. Much time has elapsed since then, for Russia has undergone three revolutions, and still many Oblomovs remain. It is enough to look at the way we are incessantly meeting-making, how we work in our commissions to say that the spirit of the old Oblomov is still strong with us, that he must be thoroughly washed, scraped, cleaned, thrashed and beaten before any good may be got out of him. We must train ourselves to face our situation without illusions. We do not belong to the crew that writes the word “revolution” with a capital letter as do the Social-Revolutionaries. But we may quote Marx’s words: “No less stupidities are made during revolution, but usually even more. We must face these stupidities soberly and without fear-we revolutionaries should at least learn this. There is much that cannot be taken away from this revolution which has finally conquered, and which the whole world recognizes, but we should in no way be bashful and nervous. The situation is such at present, that bearing upon the investigations made, we are checking off all that we have done this check having a very important meaning, and from it we must make our way further. When we are faced with problems of winning victory over the capitalists we must resolutely mark our new path. We must construct our organization in such a manner that experts should find themselves at the head of all enterprises. Communists occupying positions as heads of institutions, perfectly honest, tested in the fight for Communism, people that have seen the inside of prisons, but that are devoid of administrative ability should be replaced. They may be endowed with the highest qualities as Communists, but, still may be hoodwinked by the merchant. It is useless to leave these efficient, honest Communists, whose loyalty is not to be doubted, in positions that ought to be occupied by alert, honest salesmen, who will probably prove ten times more efficient than their predecessors. This is where the Oblomov of the Russian nation comes to the fore; for we have often appointed for practical wort, Communists with perfect qualities, but entirely incompetent to carry out the work entrusted to them. We have gathered extensive material, serious works which would delight the heart of the most pedantic German scientist; we have heaps and heaps of papers, requiring some 50 years’ work of the Department of Party History to register and sort them, while in practice, you will not be able to receive an answer from any official as to what responsibilities he bears. The practical application of decrees, of which we have more than necessary, and which we bake with the haste which is so well described in Mayakovsky’s verses, is not regulated nor controlled. Are the resolutions concerning responsible Communist workers carried out in your institutions? Have these responsible workers the capacity to put an institution upon a working basis? No, this is nowhere to be seen, and that is why our domestic policy stands at the crossroads. What are commissions and meetings? They are often only a comedy. After we had started the cleansing of the Party, we told ourselves: “Grafters and thieves that have smuggled themselves into the Party must be thrown out”; and the Party has improved since? We have thrown out say a hundred thousand, but this is as yet only the beginning. We shall discuss this question at length at the coming Party Congress. And then I feel sure, that those tens of thousands, who are now organizing so many commissions, while they do not carry any practical work, and are unable to bear such, will undergo a similar fate as the rest. When we shall have thoroughly cleaned our ranks, our Party will then in reality start its real work and will handle it in the same manner as it was able to handle the military question. Of course, this work will probably take more than a year. We must show our unflinching resoluteness with regard this problem. We need not be afraid that the character of our work is changed. Our worst domestic enemy is the Communist that occupies a responsible (or ordinary) Soviet post, enjoying general respect as an honest person. For he has not learnt to fight with bureaucracy, he cannot struggle with it and even encourages it. We must free ourselves of this foe, and with the help of the conscious workers and peasant masses must be up against the common enemy, as well as against all absurdity and slovenliness which are to be met with everywhere, and must unanimously follow the vanguard of the Communist Party. There can be no hesitation upon that point.

Before concluding, I will sum up. The game at Genoa, the game of leap-frog which is taking place around it, does not make us waver. We shall not be deceived anymore. We shall turn to the businessman, making bargains, continuing our policy of compromises, but the limits are already set. What concessions have already been made to the merchants in our agreements are so to say, a step backward in our legislation, and we shall not budge an inch more.

In connection with this resolution, our most important problems change entirely; especially so in the sphere of internal economic policy. We do not need new decrees, no new institutions, no new methods of strife. What we need is to verify the ability of people and to control the accomplishment of practical work. The next cleansing will tackle all the Communists that imagine themselves administrators. It would be much better that you should turn to agitational and propaganda work, or any other useful work, all you Communists that sit in commissions, wasting time and doing no work, fabricating intricate and useless methods, excusing yourselves by saying that as the new economic policy is in force, something new should be invented, while leaving your work to take care of itself. These people do not concern themselves with economizing a kopeck where possible and turning the same into double the amount if possible, but waste time making plans and estimates for Soviet billions and even trillions. We intend to turn our weapons against this foe. The control of people and the practical carrying out of work--this is the fulcrum of our whole work, of our whole policy. This is the work of years. We must officially state, on behalf of the Party, that the new nucleus of our work is to reform our ranks. Then will we be as victorious in this new sphere, as we have been in all others which the Bolshevik proletarian power, backed up by the peasant masses, has ever undertaken.

International Press Correspondence, widely known as”Inprecor” 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. Inprecor’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 Inprecor, and it also published articles by American comrades for use in other countries. It was published at least weekly, and often thrice weekly. A major contributor to the Communist press in the U.S., Inprecor is 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/1922/v02n024-mar-28-1922-inprecor.pdf