When disagreements, however profound, were proclaimed to be ‘deviations,’ divides then became unbridgeable. In early 1925 factional allegiances began shifting, with the ‘triumvirate’ of Zinoviev, Stalin, and Kamenev that defeated Trotsky and the Left Opposition at 1924’s 13th Party Congress breaking down over Bukharin’s elaboration of ‘Socialism in one country’ and continued divergences of the NEP and associated questions related to the peasant classes. 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, sometimes called the Leningrad Opposition. Stalin allied himself with the Right bloc centered on Bukharin, Rykov, and Tomsky. With only Zinoviev’s Leningrad base (unanimously) supporting the New Opposition, the Opposition was soundly defeated with the Stalin-Bukharin faction gaining more seats on the Central Committee and Politburo and the Party’s policy bodies. While Zinoviev retained his position in the Politburo, he lost his base in Leningrad and was relegated to the Comintern, for the moment, while Kamenev, who had called for Stalin’s removal from office during the discussion, lost his positions in the top leadership of the Bolsheviks entirely. As 1926 developed the United Opposition with Trotsky would be formed. Trotsky, recovering from illness was present but did not participate, however he was reelected to the Politburo. He and Stalin would be the only two consistent members of that body for the Revolution’s first decade. Below is the official report of the discussion with interventions, mainly attacking Zinoviev’sco-report, by Bukharin, Rutin, Postischov, Krupskaya, Polonsky, Petrovksy, Laschevitsch, Mikojem, Uglanov, Yaroslovky, Medvedjev, Evdokimov, Komarov, Ordschonikidze, Salutzky, Kaganovitch, Antipov, Sokolnikov, Kamanev, Rutsutak, Tomsky, Sarkis, Lombov, Larin, Kirov, Schdanov, Safarov, Tschaplin, Lomov, Vorochilov, and Rykov. Nearly all, regardless of their allegiances in 1925, with a few exceptions, would perish in the late-30s purges.

‘Discussion at the 14th Party Congress’ from International Press Correspondence. Vol. 6. Nos. 5 & 7. January 15 & 22, 1926.

Discussion on the Political and Organisatory Report of the Central Committee.

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 Gouvernement 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 villages 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 peasantry 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 conection 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 co-operation 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 of 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 presuppose 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 of 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 Zinovjev, 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 reckon with an intensification of the class struggle in the near future.

Many dangers of an international character exist, since we participate 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, oriticise, 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 decision 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.)

After Bucharin, the next speaker was Rutin. In his opinion Zinoviev makes no concrete proposals. There is not a single member who overlooks the kulak danger, but we see it as it really is, and not in an exaggerated light.

Comrade Postischov pointed out the impermissibility of allowing a co-report to be given in the present situation.

The next speaker, comrade Krupskaja, declared: Kamenev was right in saying that the course of the Party is directed towards the rich peasantry. The poverty among the peasantry is the result of our backwardness, and therefore the whole of the Party forces must be concentrated on overcoming this backwardness. This policy was rightly determined. Bucharin’s slogan of: “enrich yourselves” is faulty, for it can be applied to the middle and rich peasantry as well as to the poor. The speaker declared herself not in agreement with the policy of extending the NEP in the village. The successes of industry have led to an over-estimation of the economic situation. The same over-estimation may be observed with respect to the state apparatus. The present growing activity of the proletariat must be directed towards rendering state industry completely socialist.

Comrade Krupskaja concluded her speech with the declaration that there is no thought of a split or of lack of confidence in the Central. It is solely a question of determining the confines of a collective consultation of constantly recurring questions.

The next speaker, Petrovsky (Ukraine) declared that the speakers from Leningrad had proposed no political programme. Zinoviev’s co-report was delivered with the intention of Showing that there existed some sort of vacillation in the Party. Comrade Krupskaja had been at fault in publishing an article directly asserting that the Central is pursuing a false policy, and demanding that our policy be altered into one of crushing the kulaks. There is no single organisation which sees a kulak deviation in the policy pursued by the C.C. The attitude taken by the Leningrad comrades is an insult to the Party.

The next speaker, Polonsky, declared that at the time of the Trotzky discussion the Party landed with the right foot in the petty bourgeois bog. The Central dragged it out of the bog again. And now Zinoviev thrusts the left foot of the Party into the bog. Doubtless the Central will again prove powerful enough to prevent this. The Leningrad delegation must not be confused with the Leningrad organisation or the Leningrad working class.

Comrade Laschevitsch maintained that no collective leadership exists in the Party. Uglanov was wrong in declaring at the Moscow Conference that our task consists in continuing the centralisation of the organisation and in centralising the leadership. This is not so.

Comrade Mikojem declared that nobody wants the Central to be set aside. What we want is that everyone should submit to the iron will of the majority. (Applause.) So long as Zinoviev has the majority on his side, he is in favour of iron discipline and submission, but when he has not the majority, then he is against submission, (hear hear!) Zinoviev should not have given a co-report. He would have had the opportunity of speaking for five hours in the discussion. But the fact of his delivering a co-report means the opposing of his standpoint to that of the Central. (hear hear!) Bucharin has corrected his former errors, and therefore he should not be attacked again. (hear hear! and applause.) In some districts the middle peasant has not yet been won over, but he is already wavering. Stalin is right in his assertion that the under-estimation of the kulaks means the disarming of the Party. There is however no need to exaggerate the danger. The peasant question has not raised any indissoluble differences of opinion. The Party invariably seeks the right line, and cannot always find it at once. Zinoviev’s speech is not clear. Nobody knows exactly how the peasant country is going to arrive at socialism. Not only must international perspectives be correctly judged, but above all the concrete connections between the questions must be found. In this respect we find no reply from Zinoviev. There is a great difference between the tone of the Leningrad articles and that of the resolutions passed by the Leningrad workers. (Applause.) After the Party Conference the discussion should be definitely terminated. It is a luxury which the Party cannot afford. (Applause.)

The next speaker, Uglanov, declared that Zinoviev’s co-report contained no programme whatever. The Party has no difficulty in solving the questions set by Zinoviev. The speaker criticised some of the declarations contained in Zinoviev’s article: “Philosophy of the Epoch”. In conclusion the speaker demanded that Zinoviev should abandon his errors.

The next speaker, Jaroslavsky, began his speech by asking how it was possible that a member of the Political Bureau, who voted for all the fundamental theses at the plenary session of the Central three days before the Party Conference, without saying a word about differences of opinion, should now appear with this co-report. The history of the Leningrad workers is one of heroism; but this present episode in their history is better forgotten. (Applause.)

Zinoviev is mostly to blame for this. He, with his colossal authority as chairman of the Comintern, declared at the Leningrad conference that Moscow has coined the slogan: “Against Leningrad”. No such slogan has been issued, and Zinoviev has no right to make such irresponsible declarations.

In Leningrad it has been said that the nearest disciples of Lenin, Zinoviev and Kamenev, are being suppressed. It is however the whole Party which is Lenin’s nearest disciple. (Applause.)

Comrade Jaroslavsky then read a number of resolutions passed by large nuclei in Leningrad, differing from the head of the Leningrad organisation. Protest must be raised against the assertion of Wardin that the C.C. purposely depreciates the dangers, in order to capitulate to them on the morrow. If there has been any weakness in the C.C., it has consisted of the weak leadership of the Leningrad organisation. Everyone must submit to the decision of the Party conference, and the Leningrad delegation must agree to this decision. (Applause.)

The next speaker, Medvedjev, reproached Zinoviev for declaring the political line of the C.C. to be wrong, and its organisatory line right. This is inconsistent. since the organisatory questions arise from the political.

Comrade Evdokimov (Leningrad) protested against the assertion that the Leningrad delegation does not represent the Leningrad organisation. We demand the objective treatment of the fundamental questions submitted to the Party conference. Bucharin is wrong in accusing Zinoviev of declaring the NEP to be a retreat only. Zinoviev himself speaks expressly of the NEP. The most important thing is to create greater clarity in regard to fundamental questions. The C.C. of the Communist Youth is wrong in asserting that the Leningrad Youth organisation is afraid of the middle peasantry. The tasks of our Communist Youth in the villages are extremely complicated. New forms must be sought. The Leningrad organisation has accomplished a great work in creating the “Societies of the Smytschka”, the alliance between town and country. In Leningrad these organisations have 400,000 workers. The Leningrad organisation will submit to every decision come to by the Party.

The next speaker, Komarov (Leningrad) first raised the question of why the Leningrad Party bureau has split into a majority and a minority. He then touched upon organisatory questions in connection with the superseding and nomination of responsible functionaries, including the superseding of the secretary of the bureau of the Gouvernement, Salutsky. In spite of the demand sent by the C.C. that Salutsky should be superseded on account of a serious offence, the Leningrad committee had vacillated greatly. Zinoviev himself supported this opposition. Comrade Komarov declared that at this time he had expressed the opinion, during a personal interview with Zinoviev, that we should exert every effort to place the leadership of all organisations in the hands of the C.C., and not of individual persons.

The next speaker, Ordschonikidze, emphasised that Zinoviev’s co-report signified the opposition of a special programme against that of the C.C. It is entirely wrong to represent this co-report merely as an exchange of opinions, although Zinoviev himself declares the line taken by the C.C. in the question of the poor peasantry to be correct. The Party accepts Bucharin’s line where it agrees with Lenin. The unfounded attacks upon Bucharin should not be tolerated, for Bucharin is one of our best Party theoreticians; we all love and support him. The Leningrad comrades have subjected the Party to a severe crisis. But it is none the less certain that the Leningrad comrades will tolerate no opposition against the Party majority, and will declare the decisions of the Party to be theirs.

The next speaker, Salutzky (Leningrad), declared that he had never attempted to discredit the C.C., and that he had recognised his former errors. All the members of the Leningrad delegation will carry out the Party decisions with the utmost energy.

The speaker Kaganovitch (general secretary of the Ukrainian C.P.) criticised Zinoviev’s co-report severely. In his opinion Zinoviev has offered neither a practical programme nor concrete proposals. Zinoviev’s co-report does not devote one word to the great progress made by the C.C. during the past year. He has only spoken of difficulties. To be sure there is a class differentiation taking place among the peasantry, but this has already been expressly stated by the C.C. and by the XIV. National Party Conference.

We in Ukraine raised the question of the poor peasantry as early as July, and properly dealt with the question of the committees of poor peasants executing the decisions of the Party conference on the defence of the interests of the poor peasantry and the efforts to be made to gain the middle peasantry. We have exempted 22% of the poor peasantry, or 1,200,000 poor peasants, from taxation. In the Ukraine 400,000 peasant undertakings are cooperating in the organisation of beet sugar cultivation.

Our concrete work aims at separating the middle peasantry from the village usurer. It is no easy matter to include 10 million peasants in Soviet constructive work. We say to the poor peasantry: Organise the cooperatives, organise the committees, organise the mutual aid between the Party and the Soviet power, seek to help yourselves in organisatory and material ways. The poor peasantry cannot be helped by means of such empty slogans as: “A horse for every farmer”! This is mere demagogy, and only makes real work more difficult.

Comrades Sokolnov and Kamenev come forward as eager defenders of the interests of the poor peasantry. But why have these representatives of finance and economics not made concrete suggestions for the aid to be given to the poor peasantry?

Many comrades demand the monopoly of a hundred per cent interpretation of Leninism. It is only the whole Party and the Party conference which can apply Leninism properly, not individual persons. (Applause.) Zinoviev’s book “Philosophy of the Epoch” contains great pessimist deviations. The Leningrad organisation is attempting to terrorise us by its authority. We must overcome all differences of opinion by an unequivocal formulation. The decisions of the Party conference must guarantee the efficient carrying out of the tasks confronting us.

The next speaker, Antipov (Ural), declared it to be the task of the theoretician to provide the theoretical basis for our practical constructive socialist work, and not to spread want of faith in the possibility of realising socialism in one country. The Leningrad organisation has isolated itself from the Party. But it will surely correct its errors. (Applause.)

Antipov was followed by the People’s Commissar for Finance Sokolnikov.

Three fundamental questions arise:

1. The question of the socialist elements in economics; 2. The question of what changes in the relations between town and country will result from the growing differentiation; 3. The question of the relations between Soviet economics and the foreign market.

The first question is that of State Capitalism and Socialism. The speaker combatted Bucharin’s standpoint, and asserted that the railways, for instance, did not become a socialist organisation on passing into the hands of the workers’ state. Foreign trade, again, is carried on as a state capitalist undertaking. The monetary system is permeated by the principles of capitalist economics, and serves the sole purpose of organising economics under the dictatorship of the proletariat, in order that the socialist elements may grow.

Conditions in the factories are doubtless socialistic, but it is another question as to what degree actual Socialism has been realised. In the process of reproduction private capital also takes its share.

The errors committed in the grain transactions were caused by an over-estimation of the present possibilities of carrying out a systematic plan.

With respect to the second question, the speaker declared that in the future the rich peasant will acquire more and more economic spheres, the capitalist elements in the village are increasing, and it is thus most necessary to concentrate our fire against these. It is necessary that the agricultural taxes should be employed as weapons restricting the growth of the kulak elements.

With regard to the third question, the speaker declared that he was not in agreement with Stalin’s formulation. It is true that industry must be developed to the utmost, but our progress depends solely upon the export of agricultural products.

Comrade Kamenev. Sokolnikov was followed by Kamenev. He first protested against the demands that the minority should observe discipline, for since the disagreement is not yet ended, and the Party has not yet issued its decision, such demands are practically an attempt to throttle the discussion. The minority brings forwards resolutions, and has supported the co-report for the reason that it is convinced that a new theoretical school is arising in the Party, whose wrong principles the Party cannot too energetically repress. The minority is anxious to warn the Party against this current. The second cause of the co-report has been the fact that during the course of the Party Conference serious accusations of liquidation and defeatism have been brought up, and the Party knew nothing of these until the Conference. What ought to have been done was to permit a great open discussion before the Party conference, in order to clear up all the differences of opinion. (Interjection: “Then you would have lost even the present minority!”)

Stalin declared in his Report that our efforts must be concentrated against the deviation of an under estimate of the rich peasantry danger. Bucharin accuses the minority of striving to revoke the new economic policy and to return to War Communism.

The October plenary session of the C.C. pointed out in its resolution the existence of two deviations: 1. The over-estimation of the negative aspect of the new economic policy; 2. The lack of comprehension of the necessity for the NEP.

Kamenev energetically denied the accusation of lack of comprehension of the necessity of the NEP, and declared that after five years of experience with the NEP there was no member who failed to recognise the importance and inevitableness of the NEP. (Interjection: “Is the under-estimation of the middle peasantry then not a lack of comprehension for the NEP?”) There is one artificial current in the Party, contradictory to the actual policy of the Party, and this consists of the attempt to beautify the negative aspect of the NEP, to hide the difficulties brought about by the growth of capitalist elements; it–confusion of the NEP as means to Socialism with Socialism itself. It is against this tendency that our forces must be concentrated. The whole international situation, especially the retardation of the world revolution, and further the whole social situation within the Soviet Republics, form a fruitful soil for the growth of this tendency to embellish the NEP. Sooner or later the Party will have to concéntrate its whole efforts against these stabilisation moods. In the Party, and in practical economic work, we already have to combat precisely these tendencies. not the alleged attempts at breaking up the NEP.

Stalin’s error consists in the fact that though he does not identify himself with this tendency towards the embellishment of the NEP, this deviation of whom Bucharin is the ideologist (laughter), still he covers it. The representatives of this deviation fail to recognise that every expansion of the NEP. signifies the strengthening of not only the socialist elements, but at the same time of the capitalist elements in town and country.

Kamenev contested the assertion that the decisions of the XIV. National Party conference on facilitating the leasing of land, and permitting agricultural wage labour, can be of advantage to the broad masses of the middle and poor peasantry. He did not contest the correctness of the decisions, but considers them solely as concessions to the kulaks.

The dispute over state capitalism again affords an opportunity for the tendency to beautify the NEP. We do not contest the consistently socialist character of state industry, but this socialist character consists of the socialisation of the means of production, whilst the working conditions in these undertakings are not yet socialist. There are people in our Party who maintain that our state industry is perfect socialism. (Interjection: “That is your imagination!”)

The accusations brought against the minority of lack of understanding of the necessity of civil peace after the period of civil war, are untenable and again betray the tendency to glorify the NEP, and the failure to recognise the class war in the NEP. There is no danger of the NEP being destroyed, but there is a growing resistance among the capitalist elements, and the danger exists that if we fall behind in the support of the growth of the socialist economic elements, we may lose much ground.

Kamenev emphasised how greatly the economic plans projected by the state are dependent on the pressure exercised by the peasantry, as evidenced in particular in the reduced quantity of grain procured. (Interjection: “That is just where you miscalculated!”). It must be recognised that the kulaks are doing their utmost to take advantage of the development of the forces of production in a capitalist direction.

We are not liquidators, but give warning of existing dangers.

Comrade Tomsky. Since some members of the Political Bureau have declared at the Party conference that the Political Bureau of the C.C. has possessed no definite political line, it is necessary that the whole of the Party members be quite clear as to how the differences of opinion have arisen.

The first misunderstandings arose shortly after the conclusion of the last Party discussion against Trotzkyism, and were the consequence of the various attitudes taken towards the former and now non-existent opposition. Some comrades were of the opinion that the Party has not such a superfluity of forces at its disposal that it should not give every comrade who has committed an error which has been corrected by the Party the opportunity of returning to the normal line of work. Others considered that the former members of the opposition should not only be defeated, but crucified at the same time so to speak.

But this difference of opinion was not fought out within the confines of the Political Bureau, whose majority maintained the first standpoint, but the Leningrad organisation of the Communist Youth was mobilised in the most irresponsible manner against this majority and against this first standpoint. We were well aware that the initiative did not come from the Communist Youth, but had been forced upon it. Still our sole care was the preservation of unity, and we contented ourselves with calling the Leningrad Youth to order.

When the resolution on the peasant policy was drawn up before the XIV, National Conference, nobody declared that it contained concessions to the rich peasantry; the disagreement in the C.C. referred to the question of whether it is possible to build up Socialism in one single country. Zinoviev and Kamenev the whole time swore allegiance to the resolution of the XIV. National Party Conference; to the Leningrad organisation they invariably expressed their solidarity with the policy of the C.C. only to appear on the scene at the Conference with a co-report. For the Leningrad organisation would never send delegates who would oppose the policy of the C.C. Instead of settling all differences of opinion with the C.C. itself attempts were made in Leningrad to create an opposition.

Bucharin has repeatedly withdrawn his words: “Enrich yourselves”; he has repeatedly acknowledged this error before the whole Party; this slogan has been disavowed by the C.C. And yet it is still being subjected to criticism, simply for the reason that there are comrades who are anxious, not so much to disavow this slogan, as to discredit Bucharin. The attempt is thus being made to crucify not only the members of the former opposition, but Bucharin with them. This will not succeed. (Applause.)

Where has any real fundamental change in the political situation taken place in the period between the XIV. National Party conference and this year’s October plenary session of the C.C.? There has been no such fundamental alteration in the political and economic situation. And yet Zinoviev rakes allusions to this effect in his series of articles directed against Professor Ustrjalov, the “Philosophy of the Epoch”. In these articles Zinoviev declares that the idea uppermost in the thoughts of the people at the present time is that of equality. But Zinoviev does not deal with the question of equality on that large scale where we declare that every day of our work is bringing us nearer to perfect equality, to complete abolition of class society, class antagonisms, and wage labour; he applies the idea to the present epoch. Under present conditions the desire for equality arises, for instance among the rich peasantry, who want their political rights to be made equal with those of the workers; and again among the workers themselves, where the less qualified workers desire to receive wages equal to those of the better paid highly skilled workers. It is not very loyal to bring such slogans suddenly before the public, without first discussing them thoroughly with the other members of the C.C.

The same applies to the question of the workers’ sharing in the profits of the undertakings in which they are employed; this question has been raised in the same manner by Kamenev. Apart from the fact that this slogan can only be regarded theoretically, for the undertakings actually making profits, and cannot satisfy the wishes of the whole working class, but only of a tew categories of workers, the slogan is in itself false, even as discussion slogan. Kamenev confines himself today to the explanation that he merely touched upon this slogan in general, but he forgets that every such declaration has a practical effect, and he further feels himself impelled to attack Bucharin once more on account of his well-known and frequently revoked error (Enrich yourselves”).

Molotov’s peasant resolution was passed unanimously at the October plenary session. Kamenev and Zinoviev proposed no amendments whatever. Who is it then who under-estimates the Importance of the rich peasantry and of the class war among the peasantry, as maintained by the critics of the C.C.?

The other members of the Party see the difficulties of the present situation just as plainly as the Leningrad comrades. These latter are making a mistake if they suppose that the Party will overcome these difficulties more easily by admitting fresh masses of the working class into the Party.

It is to be regretted that comrade Krupskaja, who is so familiar with Lenin’s views, should not have mentioned his opinions on the composition and increase of the membership of the Party, on the occasion of the Party conference.

Tomsky quoted the exact wording of two of Lenin’s letters. The first was written to Molotov with regard to a motion brought before the plenary session of the C.C. in March 1922. In this Lenin proposed that the period of probation suggested by Zinoviev for candidates for admittance into the Party, i.e. six months for workers, should be applied only to such workers as have actually worked for no less than ten years in leading industrial undertakings; for all other workers the probation period to be eighteen months, for peasants and Red Army soldiers two years, for other candidates three years. Lenin’s actual words are:

“I consider it to be dangerous to retain the short period of probation proposed by Zinoviev. There is no doubt that there are among us many, who are counted to the workers who have not passed through the slightest big industrial training. Often enough these are real petty bourgeois, temporarily in the position of workers by some accident. All intelligent White Guard elements cherish the hope that the alleged proletarian character of our Party will not really secure it from the preponderance of the petty bourgeois element within the not distant future. If we have 300,000 to 400,000 members in the Party, even this is too many, since we know that many of the members are inadequately schooled.”

Two days later Lenin addressed a second letter to the C.C., expressing the same idea in greater detail. This contains the following:

“It must always be taken into account that it is a great temptation to enter the party of the government. The throng of petty bourgeois and even anti-proletarian elements anxious to join our Party will increase enormously in the near future. The six months period probation for the workers will not be able to dam back this throng, the more so as it will be easy for the petty bourgeois elements to become workers for the time being. If we are not to deceive ourselves and others, we must apply the definition of worker solely to those whose life has imparted to them a proletarian psychology, and who have worked for several years in shops or factories, not for the attainment of outside aims, But in consequence of the general social and economic conditions. To state the matter openly: it must be recognised that at the present time the proletarian Party policy is determined not so much by its membership as by the unlimited and powerful authority of that thin layer which we may name the old Party guard.”

In this letter Lenin proposes various concrete measures for testing the suitability of the candidates, and for the prolongation of the period of probation.

Tomsky regretted that Kamenev and Zinoviev made no mention of the role and position of the Communist Party under the present historical conditions, especially the conditions formed by the idea that anyone wanted to get rid of Kamenev or Zinoviev. The Party is not so rich in leading forces that anyone could have such a mad idea. Kamenev’s attempts to show that Stalin is trying to acquire sole rule, and that the majority of the Political Bureau are aiding him, are equally ridiculous. Tomsky declared that a truly collective leadership is exercised in the Political Bureau, and the system of individual rulers will never be permitted; this system never can and never will exist. (Enthusiastic applause.)

Tomsky concluded his speech by calling upon the critics of the C.C. to exercise loyalty and discipline, and pointed out that Zinoviev and Kamenev had never laid before the C.C. these questions of the Party leadership which they were now submitting to the Party conference. Zinoviev and Kamenev have never made any definite suggestions for the alteration of important decisions of the C.C. The Party sees the difficulties, but the critics of the C.C. should not raise additional ones by their attitude; they should admit their errors and respect the will of the Party. (Prolonged and enthusiastic applause.)

The next speaker was comrade Rutsutak (People’s Commissar for traffic service). He protested against Sokolnikov’s opinion that our economics contain no socialist elements and that Bucharin is relapsing into Left infantile diseases.

It was already shown by Lenin that the passing of industry from the hands of the capitalist class into the hands of the working class creates all the pre-requisites for the building up of Socialism. It was not the “infantile diseases” of Bucharin which were at fault for the failure of Sokolnikov’s beautiful financial and economic plans. Sokolnikov even intended to regulate the whole money market of Europe with the aid of our state bank. Now that economic derangements had become apparent, and we have committed errors in our campaign for raising the required amount of grain, Sokolnikov throws all the blame on Bucharin’s “infantile diseases”. And why did Kamenev protest against the admittance of Stalin and Kujbischev into the collegium of the council for labour and defence. This was merely a most justifiable attempt on the part of the C.C. to bring about an even closer contact between the political and economic leaders.

Comrade Zinoviev has drawn a very melancholy picture of the faulty estimation of state capitalism, of the lack of faith in the working class, etc. But Zinoviev’s co-report gives us even greater proofs of pessimistic deviation.

The Leningrad organisation suffers from too much self-conceit. The C.C. must more than ever realise firm leadership, and then the mistakes committed hitherto will not occur. Then there will be no room for such plans as those of Sokolnikov, according to which our economics are to develop on the basis of foreign industry. Our path is that pointed out by Stalin, that is the development of our economics on the basis of our own industry, thus securing the firm proletarian foundation of the Soviet power.

The next speaker, Sarkis (Leningrad) protested against the false interpretation of his demand that the Party membership should be proletarised up to 99%. Only it must not be permitted that the workers’ quote in the Party is lessened by the admittance of peasants and employees. Stalin is wrong in deeming the deviation which under-estimates the importance of the middle peasantry to be more dangerous than the deviation of under-estimating the danger represented by the kulaks.

Comrade Sarkis was followed by Comrade Larin. He pointed out that the views held by the opposition on State capitalism involve important practical conclusions. Sokolnikov has stated that purely state undertakings should be converted into private economic undertakings, participated in by foreign capital. Lenin spoke of the conversion of the private undertakings of the big and petty bourgeoisie into the form of state capitalism. Lenin called upon us to advance, Sokolnikov calls the retreat. If we speak of a purely academic interpretation of the cover sought for the retreat represented by the NEP, this has the practical result that there will be talk of abolishing the foreign trade monopoly.

The question of the possibility of a “Stoicism” in one single country again appears purely theoretical to many. But when Kamenev and Zinoviev take the technical backwardness of our industry, and its economic backwardness that is, the petty bourgeois character of our country as a reason for setting all their faith in the international revolution, is this not much worse than the views held by the opposition of 1923?

There are fundamental differences of opinion between the majority and the opposition. For instance in the question of the existence of the Soviet power, the task of the NEP, the abolition of the foreign trade monopoly. We shall tell this to the Leningrad workers. We shall propose to them that they do not discuss the academic formulation of these differences of opinion, but their practical consequences.

The next speaker was Comrade Lombov. He declared that the question in dispute regarding practical work will be solved. In the course of his speech comrade Lombov protested against the attitude taken by Sokolnikov, who stands for the development of the economics of the rich peasantry and against the development of industry. The Party must emphatically reject Sokolnikov’s views. The new Central must receive directions from the Party Conference to take energetic measures against all who commit errors.

The next speaker, Kirov, polemised against Sarkis and Sokolnikov, and called upon the Leningrad delegation to adopt the standpoint of the majority.

The next speaker, Schdanov, defended Bucharin as one of the best theoreticians in the Party. The speaker condemned Zinoviev’s view of the NEP as a mere retreat, this being an expression of lack of faith in the powers of the working class. The standpoint of the Leningrad delegation is by no means the standpoint which should be held by the vanguard of the organisation. The speaker closed with a protest against the attempt to create two centrals in the Party.

The next speaker, the representative of the C.C. of the Youth League, Tschaplin, declared that the plenary session of the C.C. of the Youth Union had declared itself, before the Party conference, by a majority of votes, to be in perfect agreement with the line taken by the C.C. of the Party.

The questions in dispute are of immediate importance for the education of our Youth. The speaker, after describing the history of the struggle within the Youth C.C., declared that Zinoviev’s attitude has resulted in the Youth being set up against the C.C. of the Party. The speaker further declared that the Youth movement should be developed under the leadership of the whole Party and the whole C.C., and must not become the monopoly of individual leaders intent on exploiting the Youth in the interests of their internal struggles in the C.C. of the Party.

Zinoviev’s proposal to organise delegate meetings of the middle peasant Youth shows a state of panic in face of the tremendous increase of the Communist Youth in the villages. The Youth League is according to its membership, a workers’ and peasants’ league, but according to its character and tasks it is a proletarian and communist league. The leadership of the league must be secured to the Party cadre.

The speaker protested against the view that the Youth should be more Left than the Party. This would lead to the destruction of the Party leadership in the Youth League. The speaker concluded with the assurance that the leadership of the Youth League will always and everywhere be realised in harmony with the collective Party and its C.C.

The next speaker, Safarov, declared that the obscuring of the questions of state capitalism and of the struggle against patty bourgeois tendencies involve an enormous danger for the Party. The speaker attacked the attitude of those comrade sharing the views of the majority of the C.C.

The next speaker, Lomov, declared that the opposition is composed of various self-contradictory elements. Of Left elements on the one hand, such as Salutzky, of Right elements on the other, such as Sokolnikov. The speaker charged the opposition with lack of principle, and closed by expressing the hope that the Leningrad organisation would overcome these individual currents and fall into line with the C.C. (Applause)

Comrade Vorochilov, People’s Commissar for war, declared: Our opposition is built up on the territorial principle. (Laughter and applause.) The Leningrad comrades maintain that the discussion has taken them by surprise. This is not the case. Even the White Guard newspaper “Dni” wrote as early as the 10. December that at the Leningrad Gouvernement conference Zinoviev had discussed the necessity of a severe struggle against the deviations in the Communist Party. Thus it was the Leningrad comrades who first opened the attack against the C.C. How was it possible for them to do this? Simply because the Leningrad organisation has been isolated from the Party and the C.C. for a number of years. We appreciate the merits of the Leningrad organisation very highly, but an individual or ganisation must not have a privileged position. The system of the privileged position must cease. The Moscow organisation has overcome this error, and has realised actual Leninist unit by means of collective work.

Shortly before the Party conference, responsible comrades of the opposition denied the existence of any great differences of opinion. But at the Conference itself they come forward with their own views, which actually differ but little from those of the C.C. The reason is to be found in the fundamental question: in the structure of the organisation of our leading centres. What is required is a really collective leadership. The opposition has its own peculiar views on this point: This collective leadership should be placed in the hands of two or three persons. We others want a collective leadership in which the entire power and authority is in the hands of the whole C.C. The practical work accomplished by young members of the C.C. has proved that these are really capable of collective leadership and work. The opposition is desirous of altering the mutual relations between the Political Bureau and the Secretariat. But the opposition has no idea of the extent of the work carried out by the Secretariat. The Secretariat does not occupy itself with politics at all. But Stalin as General Secretary is, of course a member of the Political Bureau as well. The opposition believes that Stalin. because he has the apparatus in his hands, arranges everything. That is, they do not grasp the organisation and structure of our Party. The Party represents an enormous organism. This organism requires careful treatment, if it is to develop properly and lead the whole state. The comrades who believe, that the leadership of the Party can be altered have but an empty and wrong conception of this leadership.

Comrade Rykov. No uniform political line has ever existed, exists, or can exist, among the separate representatives of the new opposition. When Kamenev, Zinoviev, Sokolnikov, Laschevitsch, and Krupskaja, now form a group, it is one held together only by the desire to change the Party leadership. In the important questions themselves these comrades hold entirely different views from one another.

Comrade Sokolnikov, for instance, supports the opposition from the Right, from the standpoint that the existing dangers and the difficulties of socialist development render further concessions necessary, Comrade Krupskaja points out that the slogan: “Enrich yourselves” has been as damaging as the tendency, originated by Sokolnikov, towards the abolition of the foreign trade monopoly.

The fundamental point of contention is the peasantry question, and the dangers from the village. In the present stage of our revolution passive sympathy or neutrality towards the peasants is no longer sufficient. It is now time to work along with the peasantry towards the realisation of socialism, and to find effective means of gaining political and economic influence over the peasantry, to the end that the progress of socialism may be facilitated. Thus the question of our relations to the middle peasantry, already raised by Lenin with the utmost clearness at the VIII Party Conference, is of the greatest importance. The necessity of lending further support to the poor peasantry and to the agricultural labourers, who form our main auxiliary in the work of winning over the middle peasantry, needs not be emphasised.

The negative aspects of the NEP which are being especially emphasised at the present time, will continue to exist until our whole state of society has been rebuilt on socialist principles. But this is no reason to keep shrieking out the whole time that the negative aspects of the NEP. must be combatted; the transitional stage will be better employed in examining what new tasks are imposed by the new changes in the economic situation and in class relations. The task imposed by the present period differs from that of the last in demanding the establishment of a really firm alliance between the working class and the middle peasantry for the common task of constructive socialism. by means of the co-operatives, the industrialisation of agriculture, etc.

The real danger represented by the kulak peasantry at the present time does not consist of any immediate danger of a bourgeois restoration, but in the fact that the rich peasant strata are striving to drag the middle peasantry in their train. Thus the fight against the rich peasantry is a struggle for the winning of the middle peasantry. To win over the middle peasantry is synonymous with rendering the rich peasantry harmless. It is necessary to isolate the rich peasant strata, and gradually to induce the middle peasantry to take part in the work of constructive socialism. Comrade Stalin was therefore right in laying special emphasis on the necessity of combatting that deviation which under-estimates the importance of the middle peasantry. When fighting against the rich peasantry for the middle peasantry, and when assimilating agriculture into the system of our planned state economics, we shall make not a few mistakes, the more so as there are not sufficient trained workers available, and there are many difficulties to overcome, including that of the resistance within the Party itself, supported by some of the Party leaders possessing their own press organ and their own organisation centre.

Comrade Zinoviev has polemised against the negation of the petty bourgeois social character of the middle peasantry which he alleges exists in the Party. Not only is the middle peasant a petty bourgeois, but the small peasant as well, but still they differ from the rich peasant, from the village bourgeoisie, in that the poor and the middle peasant can join us in the work of realising socialism, which is what the real village bourgeoisie will never do. To identify the middle peasantry with the rest of the bourgeoisie is to disorientate the Party on an important matter, and to undermine the policy of winning over the middle peasantry. Comrade Kamenev has attempted to prove to the Party conference that the deviation of under-estimating the importance of the middle peasantry differs from the deviation of failing to recognise the negative aspects of the NEP in not being dangerous. Comrade Stalin was right in repeatedly emphasising the harmfulness of both these deviations, and the fact that it is particularly difficult for the Party to establish an alliance with the middle peasantry, as we have no experience in this direction, so that it is especially necessary to remove all obstacles in the way of this alliance, Comrade Zinoviev’s assertion that there is a current in the Party which identifies the NEP with socialism is untenable; this current only exists in Zinoviev’s imagination.

I must further draw attention to the erroneousness of Zinoviev’s thesis in his book: “Leninism”, according to which the alliance between the workers and the peasants will continue to be necessary after the victory of the proletarian revolution in the other countries, whilst the NEP. is merely a temporary expedient. Zinoviev’s idea that a transitional period lies between the NEP. and socialism arises from his lack of belief in the building up of socialism through the NEP. On the other hand it is equally false to regard the economic structure as unalterable during the whole of the transition stage of the NEP. At the time when our industrial production only amounted to 5% of the pre-war level, our economic system was very different to what it is at present, now that we have almost reached the pre-war level. The idea of the transitional stage presupposes a change in the economic elements, the continuous advance from capitalism to Socialism.

Comrade Sokolnokov stated that the Soviet state industry cannot be designated as fully socialist, since there still exists so much lack of culture, illiteracy, house shortage, etc. But socialist constructive work consists precisely in abolishing these negative aspects. The specific peculiarity of the present stage of economic development consists in the fact that various decisive factors in socialist construction, for instance state industry, are developing favourably, and that the right line of advance to socialism, and the right class relations between workers and working peasants, this first prerequisite for the realisation of socialism have been found. To the assertion that it is not possible to realise Socialism in technically backward Soviet Russia without the aid of the proletarian revolution in the West, we reply that, on the contrary, this is entirely possible, given the right policy. Whether we can secure our socialism from foreign intervention does not depend upon us, but upon our surroundings. Comrade Zinoviev’s pamphlet, “The Philosophy of the Epoch” contains many repetitions of the statement that the idea mainly possessing the masses of the people in the Soviet Union at the present time is the idea of equality, and that the Party must place itself at the head of the struggle for equality. To this I reply in Lenin’s words:

“So long as a class difference exists between workers and peasants we cannot speak of equality, or we should only be supplying grist to the mill of the bourgeoisie. Those who do not understand that during the period of transition from capitalism to socialism there can be no equality between the workers and the peasants, and those who promise any such equality, are following Koltschack’s programme: even though they may not be conscious of it.”

With respect to the inner Party situation, I recall Kamenev’s assertion that in the C.C. there are no deviations from Leninism, but that a group of young Red professors is forming round Bucharin, and setting up wrong theories. Even if this were really the case, would it be sufficient reason to throw the Party into the present fever of discussion, and to oppose a co-report to the C.C.? On the eve of the Conference, comrade Zinoviev declared that he recognised the possibility of a unanimous common drafting of the resolution to the political report, all Stalin’s theses being acceptable, but that no changes must be made in the present leadership of the Leningrad organisation. Thus the differences of opinion resolve themselves into a conflict as to whether the Party should have one or two centres. We are of the opinion that there can only be one Centre in the Party. (Hear hear!) We therefore declined to accede to Zinoviev’s demand with regard to Leningrad, in consequence of which Zinoviev refused to take part in the common drawing up of the draft resolution, and moved that his co-report be heard at the Party conference. (Cries of “Shame”!)

If the opposition had made any practical proposal for combatting or lessening the negative effects of the NEP, this proposal would have been accepted without discussion. But apart from Sokolnikov’s suggestion of abolishing the foreign trade monopoly, not a single practical suggestion was submitted. It is nonsense to accuse anyone of under-estimating the rich peasantry danger. Let the opposition name even one delegate who fails to recognise the negative aspects of the NEP or the growing strength of the village bourgeoisie.

I must remind you that the accusation of under-estimating the rich peasant danger, and of emphasising the existing difficulties, became particularly vehement just at the moment when it became evident that the expectations placed upon the good crops had been exaggerated. The members of the opposition held the resistance of the rich peasantry to be the cause of the grain deficiency of 200 million poods. As a matter of fact the middle and small farmers have been equally unwilling to part with their grain. The whole point is not the resistance of the rich peasantry, but the wrong economic plans, which was not corrected in time by comrade Kamenev, although his position as chairman of the council for labour and defence imposed upon him the duty of regulating the economic plans in general. The majority of the C.C. on the other hand, recognised the error in time and altered the first plans. The opposition should remember that the great public discussion demanded by the opposition cannot possibly under present conditions remain within the confines of the Party. The question of the varying attitude taken to the various strata of the peasantry would be discussed with even greater passion by these strata themselves, and political strife would be aroused with the non-partisan masses. When the opposition makes such impossible demands, it does it with the object of intimidating the majority, for the opposition is quite aware that the Party is anxious that comrades Stalin, Zinoviev, Rykov, Kamenev, and the others, should all work together. The opposition and all other members of the Party may take note that the Party will never accede to such demands, and that the Party never has, and never will, bow down either to Stalin or Kamenev (Enthusiastic applause.)

The party has grown; fresh trained cadres have been brought forward during the years of the revolution, and the Party will not be placed in any difficulty if it has to do without one or the other of us. (Applause.)

I must also remind you of various declarations made by comrade Zinoviev at the time of last year’s discussion against comrade Trotzky, at which time he most strenuously opposed any formation of fractions, any grouping of Comrades and I express the wish that comrade Zinoviev and the Leningrad delegation would repeat their words regarding unshakeable Party unity and impermissibility of group formation today, now that this is doubly necessary. (Applause.)

I will not deny that our socialist construction is encountering, and will encounter obstacles, or that the NEP contains negative and dangerous aspects. But every member of the Party should realise that the conduct of the opposition at the Party conference will be the cause of hundredfold greater difficulties, should a fraction struggle result therefrom. The Party conference must therefore see to it that the future C.C., regardless of the elements of which it is composed, does not find itself opposed by another Centre, another organisation with its own press and its own connections. A double Centre, feudalism, and the League of Nation, all these have no place in our Party. (Enthusiastic and prolonged applause with ovations. Singing of the Internationale. Shouts of: “Long live the unity of the Russian Communist Party!”)

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. 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

PDF of full issue 2: https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/inprecor/1926/v06n07-jan-22-1926-inprecor.pdf