works of stalin vol 12

8/6/2019 WORKS OF STALIN VOL 12

1/431


2/431


3/431


4/431


5/431

W O R K E R S O F A L L C O U N T R I E S, U N I T E !


6/431

From Marx to Mao

M

L

Digital Reprints

2006


7/431

RUSSIAN EDITION

PUBLISHED BY DECISION

OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEEOF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

OF THE SOVIET UNION

(BOLSHEVIKS)


8/431

pma puu cex cm pa, coeumec!

CTTT KCC p K K()

n.b. CTAlnH

E

o c a 1 9 4 9


9/431

FOREIGN LANGUAGES PUBLISHING HOUSE

M o s c o w 1 9 5 4

E

FROM MARX

TO MAO

NOT FORCOMMERCIAL

DISTRIBUTION

J.V. STALINwoRks

VOLUME

APRIL !(@(_ JUNE !(#)


10/431


11/431

FROM MARX

TO MAO

NOT FORCOMMERCIAL

DISTRIBUTION

C O N T E N T S

Page

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI

THE RIGHT DEVIATION IN THE C.P.S.U.(B.). Speech Delivered at the Plenum of the Central Committee and

Central Control Commission of the C.P.S.U.(B.) in April 1929. (Verbatim Report) . . . . . . . . . 1

I. One Line or Two Lines? . . . . . . . . . 3

II. Class Changes and Our Disagreements . . . . 11

III. Disagreements in Regard to the Comintern . . 21

IV. Disagreements in Regard to Internal Policy . . 29

a) The Class Struggle . . . . . . . . . . . 30

b) The Intensification of the Class Struggle . . . . . 37

c) The Peasantry . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

d) NEP and Market Relations . . . . . . . . 46

e) The So-Called Tribute . . . . . . . . . 52f) The Rate of Development of Industry and the New Forms

of the Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60g) Bukharin as a Theoretician . . . . . . . . . 72

h) A Five-Year Plan or a Two-Year Plan . . . . . 84

i) The Question of the Crop Area . . . . . . . 87

j) Grain Procurements . . . . . . . . . . . 91

k) Foreign Currency Reserves and Grain Imports . . . 98

V. Questions of Party Leadership . . . . . . . . 101

a) The Factionalism of Bukharins Group . . . . . 102

b) Loyalty and Collective Leadership . . . . . . 104

c) The Fight Against the Right Deviation . . . . . 109

VI. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112


12/431

CONTENTSVIII

EMULATION AND LABOUR ENTHUSIASM OF THEMASSES. Foreword to E. Mikulinas PamphletEmula-

tion of the Masses . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

TO COMRADE FELIX KON. Copy to Comrade Kolotilov,Secretary, Regional Bureau of the Central Committee,

Ivanovo-Voznesensk Region . . . . . . . . . . 118

TO THE YOUNG COMMUNIST LEAGUE OF THEUKRAINE ON ITS TENTH ANNIVERSARY . . . 122

ENTRY IN THE LOG-BOOK OF THE CRUISER CHER-VONA UKRAINA . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

A YEAR OF GREAT CHANGE. On the Occasion of theTwelfth Anniversary of the October Revolution . . . 124

I. In the Sphere of Productivity of Labour . . . . 125

II. In the Sphere of Industrial Construction . . . . 127

III. In the Sphere of Agricultural Development . . . 131

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

TO THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE NEWSPAPERTREVOGA, ORGAN OF THE SPECIAL FAR EASTERNARMY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

A NECESSARY CORRECTION . . . . . . . . . 143

TO ALL ORGANISATIONS AND COMRADES WHO SENT

GREETINGS ON THE OCCASION OF COMRADESTALINS FIFTIETH BIRTHDAY . . . . . . . 146

CONCERNING QUESTIONS OF AGRARIAN POLICYIN THE U.S.S.R. Speech Delivered at a Conference of

Marxist Students of Agrarian Questions, December 27,1929 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

I. The Theory of Equilibrium . . . . . . . 149

II. The Theory of Spontaneity in Socialist Construc-

tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153


13/431

CONTENTS IX

III. The Theory of the Stability of Small-PeasantFarming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

IV. Town and Country . . . . . . . . . . . 162V. The Nature of Collective Farms . . . . . . 167

VI. The Class Changes and the Turn in the PartysPolicy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

VII. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

LETTER TO A. M. GORKY . . . . . . . . . . 179

CONCERNING THE POLICY OF ELIMINATING THEKULAKS AS A CLASS . . . . . . . . . . 184

REPLY TO THE SVERDLOV COMRADES . . . . . 190

I. The Sverdlov Students Questions . . . . . . 190

II. Comrade Stalins Reply . . . . . . . . . 192

DIZZY WITH SUCCESS. Concerning Questions of the Col-

lective-Farm Movement . . . . . . . . . . . 197

LETTER TO COMRADE BEZYMENSKY . . . . . . 206

REPLY TO COLLECTIVE-FARM COMRADES . . . . 207

TO THE FIRST GRADUATES OF THE INDUSTRIALACADEMY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

REPLY TO COMRADE M. RAFAIL. (Regional Trade-UnionCouncil, Leningrad.) Copy to Comrade Kirov, Secretary Regional Committee of the C.P.S.U.(B.) . . . . . 237

AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY WORKS, ROSTOV . . 240

TRACTOR WORKS, STALINGRAD . . . . . . . . 241

POLITICAL REPORT OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE TO

THE SIXTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE C.P.S.U.(B.), June 27, 1930 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242


14/431

CONTENTSX

I. The Growing Crisis of World Capitalism and theExternal Situation of the U.S.S.R. . . . . . . . 242

1. The World Economic Crisis . . . . . . . . . 2442. The Intensification of the Contradictions of Capitalism . . 254

3. The Relations Between the U.S.S.R. and the CapitalistStates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

II. The Increasing Advance of Socialist Construction andthe Internal Situation in the U.S.S.R. . . . . . . 269

1. The Growth of the National Economy as a Whole . . . 270

2. Successes in Industrialisation . . . . . . . . . 2723. The Key Position of Socialist Industry and Its Rate ofGrowth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

4. Agriculture and the Grain Problem . . . . . . . 2825. The Turn of the Peasantry Towards Socialism and the Rate

of Development of State Farms and Collective Farms . . 2886. The Improvement in the Material and Cultural Conditions of

the Workers and Peasants . . . . . . . . . . 2997. Difficulties of Growth the Class Struggle and the Offensive

of Socialism Along the Whole Front . . . . . . . 3098. The Capitalist or the Socialist System of Economy . . . 3269. The Next Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334

a) General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334b) Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341c) Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342d) Transport. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347

III. The Party . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348

1. Questions of the Guidance of Socialist Construction . . 3522. Questions of the Guidance of Inner-Party Affairs . . . . 362

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386

Biographical Chronicle (April 1929-June 1930) . . . . 400


15/431

PREFACE

The twelfth volume of J. V. Stalins Works contains

writings and speeches of the period from April 1929 toJune 1930.

This was a time when the Bolshevik Party was devel-oping a general offensive of socialism along the wholefront, mobilising the working class and the labouringmasses of the peasantry for the fight to reconstruct theentire national economy on a socialist basis, and to

fulfil the first five-year plan. The Bolshevik Party waseffecting a decisive turn in policythe transition fromthe policy of restricting the exploiting tendencies of thekulaks to the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a classon the basis of complete collectivisation. The Partywas accomplishing a historic task of the proletarianrevolutionthe most difficult since the conquest of pow-erthe switching of millions of individual peasantfarms to the path of collective farming, the path of so-cialism.

In his speech at the plenum of the C.C. and C.C.C.,C.P.S.U.(B.) in April 1929 on The Right Deviationin the C.P.S.U.(B), published in full for the firsttime in this volume, J. V. Stalin analyses the classchanges which had taken place in the U.S.S.R. and in

the capitalist countries, and points to the increasing


16/431

PREFACEXII

socialist offensive in our country against the capitalistelements of town and country and the consequent sharp-

ening of the class struggle. J. V. Stalin shows thatthe partial stabilisation of capitalism was being shat-tered and that the elements of a revolutionary upsurgein the capitalist countries were accumulating, and he sub-stantiates the need for intensifying the struggle againstthe Right elements in the Communist Parties.

J. V. Stalin denounces the anti-Party factional ac-

tivities of Bukharins group, their double-dealing andtheir secret negotiations with the Trotskyists for theorganisation of a bloc against the Party.

J. V. Stalin stresses that the Right deviation andconciliation towards it were the chief danger at that

period, exposes the Right capitulators as enemies ofLeninism and agents of the kulaks, and lays bare the

bourgeois-liberal, anti-revolutionary nature of the Right-opportunist theory that the kulaks would grow peacefully into socialism. In the struggle against theBukharin opposition, J. V. Stalin develops Lenins thesisthat the exploiting classes must be eliminated by meansof a fierce class struggle of the proletariat. He showsthat the Right capitulators opportunist line on ques-tions of class struggle was linked with Bukharins anti-Leninist errors concerning the theory of the state.

In the struggle against the Right opportunists,J. V. Stalin upholds and develops the Marxist-Leninisttheory of the state and of the dictatorship of the prole-tariat.

In the article Emulation and Labour Enthusiasmof the Masses, J. V. Stalin defines socialist emulation

as the communist method of building socialism, as the


17/431

PREFACE XIII

lever with which the working people are destined totransform the entire economic and cultural life of the

country on the basis of socialism.In A Year of Great Change, J. V. Stalin assesses

the year 1929 as one of great achievements on all frontsof socialist construction: in the sphere of labour produc-tivity, and in the development of industry and agricul-ture. Noting the success of the collective-farm move-ment, he shows that the main mass of the peasantry

the middle peasantswere joining the collectivefarms, and that, as a result of the individual peasantfarming taking the path of socialism, the last sourcesfor the restoration of capitalism in the country were

being eliminated.Proceeding from V. I. Lenins co-operative plan,

J. V. Stalin elaborates the theory of collectivisation

of agriculture and indicates the practical ways and meansof putting it into practice.In his speech Concerning Questions of Agrarian

Policy in the U.S.S.R., J. V. Stalin exposes the bour-geois and Right-opportunist theories of equilibrium,of spontaneity in socialist construction, and of thestability of small-peasant farming, and demon-strates the advantages of large-scale collective economyin agriculture. He defines the nature of collective farmingas a socialist form of economy, and substantiates thechange from the policy of restricting and ousting thecapitalist elements in the countryside to the policy ofeliminating the kulaks as a class on the basis of com-

plete collectivisationIn Dizzy With Success, Reply to Collective-Farm

Comrades and other works, J. V. Stalin denounces


18/431

PREFACEXIV

Leftist distortions of the Party line in the develop-ment of collective farms, indicates the ways and means

of correcting these distortions, and shows that the chiefand basic link in the collective-farm movement at thegiven stage was the agricultural artel.

This volume, contains the Political Report of theCentral Committee to the Sixteenth Congress of theC.P.S.U.(B.), in which J. V. Stalin gives a profoundanalysis of the crisis of world capitalism and reveals

the sharpening of the contradictions of the capitalistsystem. Describing the relations between the U.S.S.R.and the capitalist states, he defines the foreign policyof the Soviet state as a consistent policy of peace. Heshows the growing economic progress of the U.S.S.R.and the superiority of the socialist economic system overthe capitalist system, and defines the nature and tasks

of the sweeping socialist offensive along the whole front.Mobilising the Party to combat deviations in the na-tional question he shows that the period of the dicta-torship of the proletariat and the building of socialismin the U.S.S.R. is one of the development of nationalcultures, socialist in content and national in form.

The volume contains hitherto unpublished letters ofJ. V. Stalin to Felix Kon, A. M. Gorky and ComradesBezymensky and Rafail.

Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute

of the C.C., C.P.S.U.(B.)


19/431

APRIL !(@(_JUNE !(#)


20/431


21/431

THE RIGHT DEVIATION

IN THE C.P.S.U.(B.)* Speech Delivered at the Plenum of

the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission

of the C.P.S.U.(B.) in April 19291

(Verbatim Report)

Comrades, I shall not touch on the personal factor,although it played a rather conspicuous part in thespeeches of some of the comrades of Bukharins group. Ishall not touch on it because it is a trivial matter, andit is not worth while dwelling on trivial matters.Bukharin spoke of his private correspondence with me. Heread some letters and it can be seen from them that al-though we were still on terms of personal friendshipquite recently, now we differ politically. The same notecould be detected in the speeches of Uglanov and Tom-sky. How does it happen, they say, we are old Bolshe-viks, and suddenly we are at odds and unable to respectone another.

I think that all these moans and lamentations are notworth a brass farthing. Our organisation is not a familycircle, nor an association of personal friends; it is the

political party of the working class. We cannot allowinterests of personal friendship to be placed above theinterests of our cause.

* The present text of this speech contains over 30 pageswhich were not published in the press at the time.Ed.


22/431

J. V. S T A L I N2

Things have come to a sorry pass, comrades, if theonly reason why we are called old Bolsheviks is that we

are old. Old Bolsheviks are respected not because theyare old, but because they are at the same time eternal-ly fresh, never-aging revolutionaries. If an old Bolshe-vik swerves from the path of the revolution, or degen-erates and fails politically, then, even if he is a hun-dred years old, he has no right to call himself an oldBolshevik; he has no right to demand that the Party

should respect him.Further, questions of personal friendship cannot be

put on a par with political questions, for, as the sayinggoes, friendship is all very well, but duty comes first.We all serve the working class, and if the interests of

personal friendship clash with the interests of the rev-olution, then personal friendship must come second. As

Bolsheviks we cannot have any other attitude.I shall not touch either on the insinuations andveiled accusations of a personal nature that were containedin the speeches of comrades of the Bukharin opposi-tion. Evidently these comrades are attempting to coverup the underlying political basis of our disagreementswith insinuations and equivocations. They want to sub-stitute petty political scheming for politics. Tomskysspeech is especially noteworthy in this respect. His wasthe typical speech of a trade-unionist politician whoattempts to subst i tute pet ty pol i t ical scheming for

poli t ics. However, that tr ick of theirs wont work.Let us get down to business.


23/431

THE RIGHT DEVIATION IN THE C.P.S.U.(B.) 3

I

ONE LINE OR TWO LINES?Have we a single, common, general line or have we

two lines? That, comrades, is the basic question.In his speech here, Rykov said that we have a sin-

gle general line and that if we do have some insignif-icant disagreements, it is because there are shades ofdifference in the interpretation of the general line.

Is that correct? Unfortunately, it is not. And it isnot merely incorrect, but it is absolutely contrary tothe truth. If we really have only one line, and there areonly shades of difference between us, then why didBukharin run off to yesterdays Trotskyites led by Ka-menev, in an effort to set up with them a factional blocdirected against the Central Committee and its Politi-

cal Bureau? Is it not a fact that Bukharin spoke thereof a fatal line of the Central Committee, of Bukharins,Tomskys and Rykovs disagreements in principle withthe Central Committee of the Party, of the need for adrastic change in the composition of the Political Bu-reau of the Central Committee?

If there is only one line, why did Bukharin con-spire with yesterdays Trotskyites against the CentralCommittee, and why did Rykov and Tomsky aid himin this undertaking?

If there is only one general line, how can one partof the Political Bureau, which supports the single, com-mon, general line, be allowed to undermine the other

part, which supports the same general line?Can a policy of such shifts be allowed if we have

a single, common, general line?


24/431

J. V. S T A L I N4

If there is only one line, how are we to account forBukharins declaration of January 30, which was wholly

and solely aimed against the Central Committee and itsgeneral line?

If there is only one line, how are we to account forthe declaration of the trio (Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky)of February 9, in which, in a brazen and grossly slan-derous manner, they accuse the Party: a) of a policyof military-feudal exploitation of the peasantry, b) of

a policy of fostering bureaucracy, and c) of a policy of dis-integrating the Comintern?

Perhaps these declarations are just ancient history?Perhaps it is now considered that these declarationswere a mistake? Perhaps Rykov, Bukharin and Tom-sky are prepared to take back these undoubtedly mistakenand anti-Party declarations? If that is the case, let them

say so frankly and honestly. Then everyone will under-stand that we have only one line and that there are onlyshades of difference between us. But, as is evident fromthe speeches of Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky, theywould not do that. And not only would they not dothat, but they have no intention of repudiating thesedeclarations of theirs in the future, and they state thatthey adhere to their views as set forth in the declara-tions.

Where then is the single, common, general line?If there is only one l ine, and, in the opinion of

Bukharins group, the Party line consists in pursuing a policy of military-feudal exploitation of the peasantry,then do Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky really wish to

join us in pursuing this fatal policy, instead of combat-

ing it? That is indeed absurd.


25/431


If there is only one line, and, in the opinion of theBukharin opposition, the Party line consists in foster-

ing bureaucracy, then do Rykov, Bukharin and Tomskyreally wish to join us in fostering bureaucracy withinthe Party, instead of combating it? That is indeed non-sense.

If there is only one line, and, in the opinion of theBukharin opposition, the Party line consists in disin-tegrating the Comintern, then do Rykov, Bukharin and

Tomsky really wish to join us in disintegrating theComintern, instead of combating this policy? How arewe to believe such nonsense?

No, comrades, there must be something wrong withRykovs assertion that we have a single, common line.Whichever way you look at it, if we bear in mind thefacts just set forth regard ing the declarations and con-

duct of Bukharins group, there is something amiss withthe business of one, common line.If there is only one line, then how are we to account

for the policy of resigning adopted by Bukharin, Rykovand Tomsky? Is it conceivable that where there is acommon general line, one part of the Political Bureauwould systematically refuse to implement the repeateddecisions of the Central Committee of the Party andcontinue to sabotage Party work for six months? Ifwe really have a single, common, general line, how arewe to account for this disruptive policy of resigningthat is being methodically pursued by one part of thePolitical Bureau?

From the history of our Party we know of examplesof the policy of resigning. We know, for instance, that

on the day after the October Revolution some comrades,


26/431

J. V. S T A L I N6

led by Kamenev and Zinoviev, refused the posts assignedto them and demanded that the policy of the Party should

be changed. We know that at that time they sought to justify the policy of resigning by demanding the crea-tion of a coalition government that would include the Men-sheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, in opposition tothe Central Committee of our Party whose policy was toform a purely Bolshevik government. But at that timethere was some sense in the policy of resigning, because

it was based on the existence of two different lines, oneof which was for forming a purely Bolshevik govern-ment, and the other for forming a coalition government

jointly with the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolution-aries. That was clear and comprehensible. But we seeno logic, no logic whatsoever, when the Bukharin oppo-sit ion, on the one hand, proclaims the unity of the

general line, and, on the other hand, pursues a policyof resigning, adopted from that of Zinoviev and Kame-nev in the period of the October Revolution.

One thing or the othereither there is only oneline, in which case Bukharin and his friends policy ofresigning is incomprehensible and inexplicable; or wehave two lines, in which case the policy of resigning is

perfectly comprehensible and explicable.If there is only one line, how are we to explain the

fact tha t the t r io of the Pol i t ica l BureauRykov,Bukharin and Tomskydeemed it possible, during thevoting in the Political Bureau, to abstain when themain theses on the five-year plan and on the peasantquestion were being adopted? Does it ever happen thatthere is a single general line but that one section of the

comrades abstains from voting on the main questions


27/431


of our economic policy? No, comrades, such wonders donot occur.

Finally, if there is only one line, and there are onlyshades of difference between us, why did the comradesof the Bukharin opposi t ionBukharin, Rykov andTomskyreject the compromise proposed by a commis-sion of the Political Bureau on February 7 of this year?Is it not a fact that this compromise gave Bukharinsgroup a perfectly acceptable way out of the impasse

in which it had landed itself?Here is the text of this compromise proposed by

the majority of the Central Committee on February 7of this year:

After an exchange of views in the commission it was ascer-tained that:

1) Bukharin admits that h is negot iat ions wit h Kamenev

were a political error;2) Bukharin admits th at the asser t ions c ontained in his

declaration of January 30, 1929, alleging that the Central Com-mittee is in fact pursuing a policy of military-feudal exploita-tion of the peasantry, that the Central Committee is disinte-grating the Comintern and is fostering bureaucracy within thePartythat all these assertions were made in the heat of themoment, during passionate polemics, that he does not maintainthese asser t ions any longer , and considers that there are no

differences between him and the Central Committee on thesequestions;

3) Bukharin recognises, therefore, that harmonious workin the Political Bureau is possible and necessary;

4) Bukhar in wi thdraw s h is res ignat i on both as re gardsPravda and as regards the Comintern;

5) consequently, Bukharin withdraws his declaration of Jan-uary 30.

On the bas is of the above, the commission considers i t possible not to submit its draft resolution containing a political


28/431

J. V. S T A L I N8

appraisal of Bukharins errors to the joint meeting of the Politi-cal Bureau and the Presidium of the Central Control Commission,

and suggests that the joint meeting of the Political Bureau and thePresidium of the Central Control Commission withdraw fromcirculation all existing documents (verbatim reports of speeches,etc.).

The commission requests the Political Bureau and the Pre-sidium of the C.C.C. to provide Bukharin with all the condi-tions necessary for his normal work as editor-in-chief ofPravdaand Secretary of the Executive Committee of the Comintern.

Why did Bukharin and his friends reject this com-promise if we really have only one line, and if there areonly shades of difference between us? Is it not perfectlyobvious that Bukharin and his friends should have beenextremely eager to accept the compromise proposed bythe Political Bureau, so as to put an end to the tensionexisting within the Party and create an atmosphere

conducive to unanimity and harmony in the work ofthe Political Bureau?There is talk of the unity of the Party, of collective

work in the Political Bureau. But is it not obviousthat anyone who wants genuine unity and values thecollective principle in work should have accepted thecompromise? Why then did Bukharin and his friendsreject this compromise?

Is it not obvious that if we had only one line, thenthere would never have been either the trios declarationof February 9 or Bukharin and his friends refusal toaccept the compromise proposed by the Political Bureauof the Central Committee?

No, comrades, if we bear in mind the facts set forthabove, there must be something amiss with the busi-

ness of your one, common line.


29/431


It turns out that in reality we have not one line, but two lines; one of them being the line of the Cen-

tral Committee and the other the line of Bukharinsgroup.

In his speech, Rykov did not tell the truth when hedeclared that we have only one general line. He soughtthereby to disguise his own line, which differs from theParty line, for the purpose of stealthily underminingthe Party line. The policy of opportunism consists pre-

cisely in attempting to slur over disagreements, togloss over the actual situation within the Party, to dis-guise ones own position and to make it impossible forthe Party to attain complete clarity.

Why does opportunism need such a policy? Becauseit enables opportunists to carry out in effect their ownline, which differs from the Party line, behind a smoke

screen of talk about the unity of the line. In his speechat the present plenum of the Central Committee andCentral Control Commission Rykov adopted this opportu-nist standpoint.

Would you care to hear a characterisation of theopportunist in general, as given by Comrade Lenin inone of his articles? This characterisation is importantfor us not only because of its general significance, butalso because it fits Rykov perfectly.

Here is what Lenin says about the specific featuresof opportunism and of opportunists:

When we speak of f ighting opportunism, we must neverforget the feature characteristic of the whole of present-day op-

portunism in every sphere, namely, its indefiniteness, diffuseness,elusiveness. An opportunist, by his very nature, always evadesformulating an issue definitely and decisively, he seeks a


30/431

J. V. S T A L I N10

middle course, he wriggles like a snake between two mutuallyexclusive points of view, trying to agree with both and to re-

duce his differences of opinion to petty amendments, doubts,r ighteous and innocent suggestions, and so on and so forth(Vol. VI, p. 320).

There you have a portrait of the opportunist, whodreads clearness and definiteness and who strives togloss over the actual state of affairs, to slur over theactual disagreements in the Party.

Yes, comrades, one must be able to face the factsno matter how unpleasant they may be. God forbidthat we should become infected with the disease of fearof the truth. Bolsheviks, incidentally, are differentfrom all other parties because they do not fear the truthand are not afraid of facing the truth no matter how

bitter it may be. And in the present case the truth is

that in fact we have not got a single, common line.There is one line, the Party line, the revolutionary,Leninist line. But side by side with it there is anotherline, the line of Bukharins group, which is combat-ing the Party line by means of anti-Party declarations,

by means of resignations, by means of slander andcamouflaged undermining activities against the Party,

by means of backstairs negotiations with yesterdaysTrotskyites for the purpose of setting up an anti-Partybloc. This second line is the opportunist line.

There you have a fact that no amount of diplomaticverbiage or artful statements about the existence of asingle line, etc., etc., can disguise.


31/431


II

CLASS CHANGES AND OUR DISAGREEMENTSWhat are our disagreements? What are they con-

nected with?They are connected, first of all, with the class changes

that have been taking place recently in our country andin capitalist countries. Some comrades think that thedisagreements in our Party are of an accidental nature.

That is wrong, comrades. That is quite wrong. The dis-agreements in our Party have their roots in the classchanges, in the intensification of the class strugglewhich has been taking place lately and which marksa turning point in development.

The chief mistake of Bukharins group is that itfails to see these changes and this turning point; i t

does not see them, and does not want to notice them.That, in fact, explains the failure to understand thenew tasks of the Party and of the Comintern, whichis the characteristic feature of the Bukharin opposi-tion.

Have you noticed, comrades, that the leaders ofthe Bukharin opposition, in their speeches at the ple-num of the Central Committee and the Central ControlCommission, completely evaded the question of theclass changes in our country, that they did not say asingle word about the intensification of the class strug-gle and did not even remotely hint at the fact that ourdisagreements are connected with this very intensifi-cation of the class struggle? They talked about every-thing, about philosophy and about theory, but they

did not say a single word about the class changes which


32/431

J. V. S T A L I N12

determine the orientation and the practical activity ofour Party at the present moment.

How is this strange fact to be explained? Is it for-getfulness, perhaps? Of course not! Political leaderscannot forget the chief thing. The explanation is thatthey neither see nor understand the new revolutionary

processes now going on both here, in our country, andin the capi tal is t countr ies . The explanat ion is thatthey have overlooked the chief thing, they have over-

looked those class changes, which a political leader hasno right to overlook. This is the real explanation forthe confusion and unpreparedness displayed by theBukharin opposition in face of the new tasks of our Party.

Recall the recent events in our Party. Recall theslogans our Party has issued lately in connection withthe new class changes in our country. I refer to such

slogans as the slogan ofself-criticism, the slogan of in-tensifying the fight against bureaucracy and of purgingthe Soviet apparatus , the slogan of training new eco-nomic cadres and Red experts, the slogan of strength-ening the collective-farm and state-farm movement, theslogan of an offensive against the kulaks, the slogan ofreducing production costs and radically improving themethods of trade-union work, the slogan of purging the

Party, etc. To some comrades these slogans seemed stag-gering and dizzying. Yet it is obvious that these slogansare the most necessary and urgent slogans of the Partyat the present moment.

The whole thing began when, as a result of the Shakhtyaffair,2 we raised in a new way the question of neweconomic cadres, of training Red experts from the ranks

of the working class to take the place of the old experts.


33/431


What did the Shakhty affair reveal? I t revealedthat the bourgeoisie was still far from being crushed;

that it was organising and would continue to organisewrecking activities to hamper our work of economicconstruction; that our economic, trade-union and, toa cer tain extent , Party organisat ions had fai led tonotice the undermining operations of our class enemies,and that it was therefore necessary to exert all effortsand employ all resources to reinforce and improve our or-

ganisations, to develop and heighten their class vigilance.In this connection the slogan ofself-criticism be-

came sharply stressed. Why? Because we cannot improve our economic, trade-union and Party organisa-tions, we cannot advance the cause of building socialismand of curbing the wrecking activities of the bourgeoi-sie, unless we develop criticism and self-criticism to

the utmost, unless we place the work of our organisa-tions under the control of the masses. It is indeed afact that wrecking has been and is going on not only inthe coal-fields, but also in the metallurgical industries,in the war industries, in the Peoples Commissariat ofTransport, in the gold and platinum industries, etc.,etc. Hence the slogan of self-criticism.

Further, in connection with the grain-procurementdifficulties, in connection with the opposition of thekulaks to the Soviet price policy, we stressed the ques-tion of developing collective farms and state farms tothe utmost, of launching an offensive against the kulaks,of organising grain procurements by means of pressureon the kulak and well-to-do elements.

What did the grain-procurement difficulties reveal?

They revealed that the kulak was not asleep, that the


34/431

J. V. S T A L I N14

kulak was growing, that he was busy undermining the pol icy of the Soviet government , while our Party,

Soviet and co-operative organisationsat all events, someof themeither failed to see the enemy, or adaptedthemselves to him instead of fighting him.

Hence the new stress laid on the slogan of self-crit-icism, on the slogan of checking and improving ourParty, co-operative and procurement organisations gen-erally.

Further, in connection with the new tasks of recon-structing industry and agriculture on the basis of so-cialism, there arose the slogan of systematically reducing

production costs, of strengthening labour discipline, ofdeveloping socialist emulation, etc. These tasks calledfor a revision of the entire activities of the trade unionsand Soviet apparatus, for radical measures to put new

life into these organisations and for purging them ofbureaucratic elements.Hence the s tress la id on the s logan of f ight ing

bureaucracy in the trade unions and in the Soviet ap-paratus.

Finally, the slogan of purging the Party. It would be ridiculous to think that it is possible to strengthenour Soviet, economic, trade-union and co-operative or-ganisations, that it is possible to purge them of thedross of bureaucracy, without giving a sharp edge tothe Party itself. There can be no doubt that bureaucrat-ic elements exist not only in the economic and co-operative, trade-union and Soviet organisations, but inthe organisations of the Party itself. Since the Partyis the guiding force of all these organisations, it is ob-

vious that purging the Party is the essential condition


35/431


for thoroughly revitalising and improving all the otherorganisations of the working class. Hence the slogan of

purging the Party.Are these slogans a matter of accident? No, they

are not. You see yourselves that they are not accidental.They are necessary links in the single continuous chainwhich is called the offensive of socialism against the ele-ments of capitalism.

They are connected, primarily, with the period of

the reconstruction of our industry and agriculture onthe basis of socialism. And what is the reconstructionof the national economy on the basis of socialism? Itis the offensive of socialism against the capitalist ele-ments of the national economy along the whole front.It is a most important advance of the working class ofour country towards the complete building of social-

ism. But in order to carry out this reconstruction wemust first of all improve and strengthen the cadres ofsocialist constructionthe economic, Soviet and trade-union cadres and also Party and co-operative cadres;we must give a sharp edge to all our organisations, purgethem of dross; we must stimulate the activity of thevast masses of the working class and peasantry.

Further, these slogans are connected with the factof the resistance of the capitalist elements of the nation-al economy to the offensive of socialism. The so-calledShakhty affair cannot be regarded as something acci-dental. Shakhtyists are at present entrenched in every

branch of our industry. Many of them have beencaught, but by no means all of them. The wrecking ac-tivities of the bourgeois intelligentsia are one of the most

dangerous forms of resistance to developing socialism.


36/431

J. V. S T A L I N16

The wrecking activities are all the more dangerous because they are connected with international capital.

Bourgeois wrecking is undoubtedly an indication of thefact that the capitalist elements have by no means laiddown their arms, that they are gathering strength forfresh attacks on the Soviet regime.

As for the capitalist elements in the countryside, thereis still less reason to regard as accidental the oppositionof the kulaks to the Soviet price policy, which has

been going on for over a year already. Many peopleare still unable to understand why it is that until 1927the kulak gave his grain of his own accord, whereassince 1927 he has ceased to do so. But there is nothing sur-

prising in it. Formerly the kulak was still relativelyweak; he was unable to organise his farming properly;he lacked sufficient capital to improve his farm and so

he was obliged to bring all, or nearly all, his surplusgrain to the market. Now, however, after a number ofgood harvests, since he has been able to build up hisfarm, since he has succeeded in accumulating the nec-essary capital, he is in a position to manoeuvre on themarket, he is able to set aside grain, this currency ofcurrencies, as a reserve for himself, and prefers to bringto the market meat, oats, barley and other secondarycrops. It would be ridiculous now to hope that the ku-lak can be made to part with his grain voluntarily.

There you have the root of the resistance which thekulak is now offering to the policy of the Soviet re-gime.

And what does the resistance offered by the capital-ist elements of town and country to the socialist offensive

represent? It represents a regrouping of the forces of


37/431


the class enemies of the proletariat for the purpose ofdefending the old against the new. It is not difficult to

understand that these circumstances cannot but lead toan intensification of the class struggle. But if we areto break the resistance of the class enemies and clear theway for the advance of socialism, we must, besides every-thing else, give a sharp edge to all our organisations,

purge them of bureaucracy, improve their cadres andmobilise the vast masses of the working class and la-

bouring strata of the countryside against the capitalistelements of town and country.

It was on the basis of these class changes that ourPartys present slogans arose.

The same must be said about the class changes incapitalist countries. It would be ridiculous to think thatthe stabilisation of capitalism has remained unchanged.

Still more ridiculous would it be to assert that the stabi-lisation is gaining in strength, that it is becoming se-cure. As a matter of fact , capitalist stabil isation is

being undermined and shaken month by month andday by day. The intensification of the struggle for foreignmarkets and raw materials, the growth of armaments, thegrowing antagonism between America and Bri ta in,the growth of socialism in the U.S.S.R., the swing to theLeft of the working class in the capitalist countries,the wave of strikes and class conflicts in the Europeancountr ies , the growing revolut ionary movement inthe colonies, including India, the growth of communismin all countries of the worldall these are facts whichindicate beyond a doubt that the elements of a newrevolutionary upsurge are accumulating in the capital-

ist countries.


38/431

J. V. S T A L I N18

Hence the task of intensifying the fight againstSocial-Democracy, and, above all, against its Left wing,

as being the social buttress of capitalism.Hence the task of intensifying the fight in the Com-

munist Parties against the Right elements, as being theagents of Social-Democratic influence.

Hence the task of intensifying the fight against con-ciliation towards the Right deviation, as being the refugeof opportunism in the Communist Parties.

Hence the slogan of purging the Communist Partiesof Social-Democratic traditions.

Hence the so-called new tactics of communism inthe trade unions.

Some comrades do not understand the significance andimportance of these slogans. But a Marxist will alwaysunderstand that, unless these slogans are put into effect,

the preparation of the proletarian masses for new class battles is unthinkable, victory over Social-Democracyis unthinkable, and the selection of real leaders of thecommunist movement, capable of leading the workingclass into the fight against capitalism, is impossible.

Such, comrades, are the class changes in our countryand in the capitalist countries, on the basis of whichthe present slogans of our Party both in its internal

policy and in relation to the Comintern have arisen.Our Party sees these class changes. It understands

the significance of the new tasks and it mobilises forcesfor their fulfilment. That is why it is facing events fullyarmed. That is why it does not fear the difficulties con-fronting it, for it is prepared to overcome them.

The misfortune of Bukharins group is that it does

not see these class changes and does not understand the


39/431


new tasks of the Party. And it is precisely because itdoes not understand them that it is in a state of complete

bewilderment, is ready to flee from difficulties, to re-treat in the face of difficulties, to surrender the po-sitions.

Have you ever seen fishermen when a storm is brewingon a big riversuch as the Yenisei? I have seen themmany a time. In the face of a storm one group of fisher-men will muster all their forces, encourage their fellows

and boldly guide the boat to meet the storm: Cheer up,lads, keep a tight hold of the tiller, cut the waves, wellwin through!

But there is another type of fishermenthose who, onsensing a storm, lose heart, begin to snivel and demoral-ise their own ranks: Its terrible, a storm is brewing:lie down, lads, in the bottom of the boat, shut your eyes,

lets hope shell make the shore somehow. (Generallaughter.)Does it still need proof that the line and conduct

of Bukharins group exactly resembles the line and con-duct of the second group of fishermen, who retreat in

panic in the face of difficulties?We say that in Europe the conditions are maturing for

a new revolutionary upsurge, that this circumstancedictates to us new tasks along the line of intensifyingthe fight against the Right deviation in the CommunistParties and of driving the Right deviators out of theParty, of intensifying the fight against conciliation,which screens the Right deviation, of intensifying thefight against Social-Democratic traditions in the Com-munist Parties, etc., etc. But Bukharin answers us that

all this is nonsense, that no such new tasks confront us,


40/431

J. V. S T A L I N

FROM MARX

TO MAO

NOT FOR

COMMERCIAL

DISTRIBUTION

20

that the whole fact of the matter is that the majorityin the Central Committee wants to haul him, i.e.,

Bukharin, over the coals.We say that the class changes in our country dictate

to us new tasks which call for a systematic reduction ofcosts of production and improvement of labour disciplinein industry, that these tasks cannot be carried out with-out radical change in the practices of work of the tradeunions. But Tomsky answers us that all this is nonsense,

that no such new tasks confront us, that the whole factof the matter is that the majority in the Central Com-mittee wants to haul him, i.e., Tomsky, over thecoals.

We say that the reconstruction of the national econ-omy dictates to us new tasks along the line of intensify-ing the fight against bureaucracy in the Soviet and eco-

nomic apparatus, of purging this apparatus of rottenand alien elements, wreckers, etc. , etc. But Rykovanswers us that all this is nonsense, that no such newtasks confront us, that the whole fact of the matter isthat the majority in the Central Committee wants tohaul him, i.e., Rykov, over the coals.

Now, is this not ridiculous, comrades? Is it not ob-vious that Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky see nothing

but their own navels?The misfortune of Bukharins group is that it does

not see the new class changes and does not understandthe new tasks of the Party. And it is precisely because itdoes not understand them that it is compelled to drag inthe wake of events and to yield to difficulties.

There you have the root of our disagreements.


41/431


III

DISAGREEMENTS IN REGARDTO THE COMINTERN

I have already said that Bukharin does not see anddoes not understand the new tasks of the Cominternalong the line of driving the Rights out of the CommunistParties, of curbing conciliation, and of purging theCommunist Parties of Social Democratic traditions

tasks which are dictated by the maturing conditions fora new revolutionary upsurge. This thesis is fully con-firmed by our disagreements on Comintern questions.

How did the disagreements in this sphere begin?They began with Bukharins theses at the Sixth Con-

gress3 on the international situation. As a rule, thesesare first examined by the delegation of the C.P.S.U.(B.).

In this case, however, that condition was not observed.What happened was that the theses, signed by Bukharin,were sent to the delegation of the C.P.S.U.(B.) at thesame time as they were distributed to the foreign dele-gations at the Sixth Congress. But the theses proved to

be unsatisfactory on a number of points. The delegationof the C.P.S.U.(B.) was obliged to introduce abouttwenty amendments into the theses.

This created a rather awkward situation for Bukha-rin. But who was to blame for that? Why was it necessaryfor Bukharin to distribute the theses to the foreigndelegations before they had been examined by the dele-gation of the C.P.S.U.(B.)? Could the delegation of theC.P.S.U.(B.) refrain from introducing amendments ifthe theses proved to be unsatisfactory? And so it came

about that the delegation of the C.P.S.U.(B.) issued


42/431

J. V. S T A L I N22

what were practically new theses on the internationalsituation, which the foreign delegations began to coun-

terpose to the old theses signed by Bukharin. Obviously,this awkward situation would not have arisen if Bukha-rin had not been in a hurry to distribute his theses to theforeign delegations.

I should like to draw attention to four principalamendments which the delegation of the C.P.S.U.(B.) in-troduced into Bukharins theses. I should like to draw

attention to these principal amendments in order to il-lustrate more clearly the character of the disagreementson Comintern questions.

The first question is that of the character of thestabilisation of capitalism. According to Bukharins-theses it appeared that nothing new is taking place at

the present time to shake capitalist stabilisation, but

that, on the contrary, capitalism is reconstructing itselfand that, on the whole, it is maintaining itself more orlesssecurely. Obviously, the delegation of the C.P.S.U.(B.)could not agree with such a characterisation of what iscalled the third period, i.e., the period through which weare now passing. The delegation could not agree with it

because to retain such a characterisation of the thirdperiod might give our critics grounds for saying that wehave adopted the point of view of so-called capitalistrecovery, i.e., the point of view of Hilferding, a point ofview which we Communists cannot adopt. Owing to this,the delegation of the C.P.S.U.(B.) introduced an amend-ment which makes it evident that capitalist stabilisationis not and cannot be secure, that it is being shakenand will continue to be shaken by the march of events,

owing to the aggravation of the crisis of world capitalism.


43/431


This question, comrades, is of decisive importancefor the Sections of the Comintern. Is capitalist stabi-

lisation being shaken or is it becoming more secure? Itis on this that the whole line of the Communist Partiesin their day-to-day political work depends. Are we pass-ing through a period of decline of the revolutionary move-ment, a period of the mere gathering of forces, or arewe passing through a period when the conditions arematuring for a new revolutionary upsurge, a period of

preparation of the working class for future class battles?It is on this that the tactical line of the Communist Par-ties depends. The amendment of the delegation of theC.P.S.U.(B.), subsequently adopted by the congress, isa good one for the very reason that it gives a clear line

based on the latter prospect, the prospect of maturingconditions for a new revolutionary upsurge.

The second question is that of the fight againstSocial-Democracy. In Bukharins theses it was stated thatthe fight against Social-Democracy is one of the funda-mental tasks of the Sections of the Comintern. That, ofcourse, is true. But it is not enough. In order that thefight against Social-Democracy may be waged success-fully, stress must be laid on the fight against the so-called Left wing of Social-Democracy, that Leftwing which, by playing with Left phrases and thusadroitly deceiving the workers, is retarding their massdefection from Social-Democracy. It is obvious that un-less the Left Social-Democrats are routed it will beimpossible to overcome Social-Democracy in general.Yet in Bukharins theses the question of Left Social-Democracy was entirely ignored. That, of course, was

a great defect. The delegation of the C.P.S.U.(B.) was


44/431

J. V. S T A L I N24

therefore obliged to introduce into Bukharins thesesan appropriate amendment, which was subsequently

adopted by the congress.The third question is that of the conciliatory ten-

dency in the Sections of the Comintern. Bukharinstheses spoke of the necessity of fighting the Right devia-tion, but not a word was said there about fighting con-ciliation towards the Right deviation. That, of course,was a great defect. The point is that when war is declared

on the Right deviation, the Right deviators usually dis-guise themselves as conciliators and place the Party inan awkward position. To forestall this manoeuvre ofthe Right deviators we must insist on a determined fightagainst conciliation. That is why the delegation of theC.P.S.U.(B.) considered it necessary to introduce intoBukharins theses an appropriate amendment, which was

subsequently adopted by the congress.The fourth question is that of Party discipline. InBukharins theses no mention was made of the necessityof maintaining iron discipline in the Communist Parties.That also was a defect of no little importance. Why?Because in a period when the fight against the Right de-viation is being intensified, in a period when the sloganof purging the Communist Parties of opportunist ele-ments is being put into effect, the Right deviators usu-ally organise themselves as a faction, set up their ownfactional discipline and disrupt and destroy the discip-line of the Party. To protect the Party from the factionalsorties of the Right deviators we must insist on iron dis-cipline in the Party and on the unconditional subordi-nation of Party members to this discipline. Without that

there can be no question of waging a serious fight against


45/431


the Right deviation. That is why the delegation of theC.P.S.U.(B.) introduced into Bukharins theses an ap-

propriate amendment, which was subsequently adoptedby the Sixth Congress.

Could we refrain from introducing these amendmentsinto Bukharins theses? Of course not. In olden times itwas said about the philosopher Plato: We love Plato, butwe love truth even more. The same must be said aboutBukharin: We love Bukharin, but we love truth, the Party

and the Comintern even more. That is why the delegationof the C.P.S.U.(B.) found itself obliged to introduce theseamendments into Bukharins theses.

That, so to speak, was the first stage of our disagree-ments on Comintern questions.

The second stage of our disagreements is connectedwith what is known as the Wittorf and Thlmann case.

Wittorf was formerly secretary of the Hamburg organi-sation, and was accused of embezzling Party funds. Forthis he was expelled from the Party. The conciliators inthe Central Committee of the German Communist Party,taking advantage of the fact that Wittorf had been closeto Comrade Thlmann, although Comrade Thlmannwas in no way implicated in Wittorfs crime, convertedthe Wittorf case into a Thlmann case, and set out tooverthrow the leadership of the German CommunistParty. No doubt you know from the press that at thatt ime the concil iators Ewert and Gerhart succeededtemporarily in winning over a majority of the CentralCommittee of the German Communist Party against Com-rade Thlmann. And what followed? They removed Thl-mann from the leadership, began to accuse him of cor-

ruption and published a corresponding resolution


46/431

J. V. S T A L I N26

without the knowledge and sanction of the ExecutiveCommittee of the Comintern.

Thus, instead of the directive of the Sixth Congressof the Comintern about fighting conciliation being car-ried out, instead of a fight against the Right deviationand against conciliation, there was, in fact, a most grossviolation of this directive, there was a fight againstthe revolutionary leadership of the German CommunistParty, a f ight against Comrade Thlmann, with the

object ofcovering up the Right deviation and ofconsoli-dating the conciliatory tendency in the ranks of the Ger-man Communists.

And so, instead of swinging the tiller over and cor-recting the situation, instead of restoring the validityof the violated directive of the Sixth Congress and callingthe conciliators to order, Bukharin proposed in his well-

known letter to sanction the conciliators coup, to handover the German Communist Party to the conciliators,and to revile Comrade Thlmann in the press again byissuing another statement declaring him to be guilty.And this is supposed to be a leader of the Comintern!Can there really be such leaders?

The Central Committee discussed Bukharins pro- posal and rejected it. Bukharin, of course, did not likethat. But who is to blame? The decisions of the SixthCongress were adopted not in order that they should beviolated but in order that they should be carried out. Ifthe Sixth Congress decided to declare war on the Right de-viation and conciliation towards it, keeping the leadershipin the hands of the main core of the German CommunistParty, headed by Comrade Thlmann, and if it occurred

to the concil iators Ewert and Gerhart to upset that


47/431


decision, it was Bukharins duty to call the conciliators toorder and not to leave in their hands the leadership of the

German Communist Party. It is Bukharin, who forgotthe decisions of the Sixth Congress, who is to blame.

The third stage of our disagreements is connected withthe question of the fight against the Rights in the Ger-man Communist Party, with the question of routing theBrandler and Thalheimer faction, and of expelling theleaders of that faction from the German Communist

Party. The position taken up by Bukharin and hisfriends on that cardinal question was that they persistent-ly avoided taking part in settling it. At bottom, it wasthe fate of the German Communist Party that was beingdecided. Yet Bukharin and his friends, knowing this,nevertheless continually hindered matters by systemat-ically keeping away from the meetings of the bodies which

had the question under consideration. For the sake ofwhat? Presumably, for the sake of remaining cleanin the eyes of both the Comintern and the Rights in theGerman Communist Party. For the sake of being ablesubsequently to say: It was not we, the Bukharinites,who carried out the expulsion of Brandler and Thalheimerfrom the Communist Party, but they, the majori tyin the Central Committee. And that is what is calledfighting the Right danger!

Finally, the fourth stage of our disagreements. It isconnected with Bukharins demand prior to the Novem-

ber plenum of the Central Committee4 that Neumann be recalled from Germany and that Comrade Thlmann,who, it was alleged, had criticised in one of his speechesBukharins report at the Sixth Congress, be called to

order. We, of course, could not agree with Bukharin,


48/431

J. V. S T A L I N28

since there was not a single document in our possessionsupporting his demand. Bukharin promised to submit

documents against Neumann and Thlmann but neversubmitted a single one. Instead of documents, hedistributed to the members of the delegation of theC.P.S.U.(B.) copies of the speech delivered by Hum-

bert-Droz at the Political Secretariat of the E.C.C.I.,the very speech which was subsequently qualified by thePresidium of the E.C.C.I. as an opportunist speech. By

distributing Humbert-Drozs speech to the members ofthe delegation of the C.P.S.U.(B.), and by recommendingit as material against Thlmann, Bukharin wanted to

prove the justice of his demand for the recall of Neu-mann and for calling Comrade Thlmann to order. Infact, however, he thereby showed that he identified him-self with the position taken up by Humbert-Droz, a po-

sition which the E.C.C.I. regards as opportunist.Those, comrades, are the main points of our disagree-ments on Comintern questions.

Bukharin thinks that by conducting a struggleagainst the Right deviation and conciliation towards itin the Sections of the Comintern, by purging the Germanand Czechoslovak Communist Parties of Social-Demo-cratic elements and traditions, and by expelling theBrandlers and the Thalheimers from the CommunistParties, we are disintegrating the Comintern, ruin-ing the Comintern. We, on the contrary, think that bycarrying out such a policy and by laying stress on thefight against the Right deviation and conciliation to-wards it, we are strengthening the Comintern, purgingit of opportunists, bolshevising its Sections and helping

the Communist Parties to prepare the working class for


49/431


the fu ture revolut ionary bat t les , for the Par ty i sstrengthened by purging itself of dross.

You see that these are not merely shades of differencein the ranks of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U.(B.),

but quite serious disagreements on fundamental ques-tions of Comintern policy.

IV

DISAGREEMENTS IN REGARD

TO INTERNAL POLICY

I have spoken above on the class changes and the classstruggle in our country. I said that Bukharins group isafflicted with blindness and does not see these changes,does not understand the new tasks of the Party. I saidthat this has caused bewilderment among the Bukharin

opposi t ion, has made i t fearful of diff icul t ies andready to yield to them.It cannot be said that these mistakes of the Bukharin-

ites are purely accidental. On the contrary, they areconnected with the stage of development we have already

passed through and which is known as the period ofresto-ration of the national economy, a period during whichconstruction proceeded peace fully, automatically, so tospeak; during which the class changes now taking placedid not yet exist; and during which the intensification ofthe class struggle that we now observe was not yet inevidence.

But we are now at a new stage of development, dis-tinct from the old period, from the period of restoration.We are now in a new period of construction, the period

of the reconstruction of the whole national economy on the


50/431

J. V. S T A L I N30

basis of socialism. This new period is giving rise to newclass changes, to an intensification of the class struggle.

It demands new methods of struggle, the regrouping ofour forces, the improvement and strengthening of all ourorganisations.

The misfortune of Bukharins group is that itis living in the past, that it fails to see the specificfeatures of this new period and does not understand theneed for new methods of struggle. Hence its blindness,

its bewilderment, its panic in the face of difficulties.

a) THE CLASS STRUGGLE

What is the theoretical basis of this blindness andbewilderment of Bukharins group?

I think that the theoretical basis of this blindness

and bewilderment is Bukharins incorrect, non-Marxistapproach to the question of the class struggle in our coun-try. I have in mind Bukharins non-Marxist theory ofthe kulaks growing into socialism, his failure to under-stand the mechanics of the class struggle under the dic-tatorship of the proletariat.

The passage from Bukharins book, The Path toSocialism, on the kulaks growing into socialism has

been quoted several times here. But it has been quotedhere with some omissions. Permit me to quote it in full.This is necessary, comrades, in order to demonstratethe full extent of Bukharins departure from the Marxisttheory of the class struggle.

Listen:

The main network of our co-operative peasant organisa-tions will consist of co-operative units, not of a kulak, but of a


51/431


toiler type, units that grow into the system of our general stateorgans and thus become links in the single chain of socialist economy.

On the other hand, the kulak co-operative nests will, similarly,through the banks, etc., grow into the same system; but they will

be to a certain extent an alien body, similar, for instance, to theconcession enterprises.*

In quoting this passage from Bukharins pamphlet,some comrades, for some reason or other, omitted thelast phrase about the concessionaires. Rosit, apparently

desiring to help Bukharin, took advantage of this andshouted here from his seat that Bukharin was beingmisquoted. And yet, the crux of this whole passage lies

precisely in the last phrase about the concessionaires. Forif concessionaires are put on a par with the kulaks, andthe kulaks are growing into socialismwhat followsfrom that? The only thing that follows is that the con-

cessionaires are also growing into socialism; that notonly the kulaks, but the concessionaires, too, are grow-ing into socialism. (General laughter.)

That is what follows.Rosit. Bukharin says, an alien body.Stalin. Bukharin says not an alien body, but to a

certain extent an alien body. Consequently, the kulaksand concessionaires are to a certain extent an alien

body in the system of socialism. But Bukharins mistakeis precisely that, according to him, kulaks and conces-sionaires, while being to a certain extent an alien

body, nevertheless grow into socialism.Such is the nonsense to which Bukharins theory

leads.

* My italics.J. St.


52/431

J. V. S T A L I N32

Capitalists in town and country, kulaks and conces-sionaires, growing into socialismsuch is the absurdity

Bukharin has arrived at. No, comrades, that is not the kind of socialism

we want. Let Bukharin keep it for himself.Until now, we Marxist-Leninists were of the opinion

that between the capitalists of town and country, on theone hand, and the working class, on the other hand,there is an irreconcilable antagonism of interests. That is

what the Marxist theory of the class struggle rests on.But now, according to Bukharins theory of the capitalists

peaceful growth into socialism, all this is turned upsidedown, the irreconcilable antagonism of class interests

between the exploiters and the exploited disappears,the exploiters grow into socialism.

Rosit. That is not true, the dictatorship of the pro-

letariat is presumed.Stalin. But the dictatorship of the proletariat is-the sharpest form of the class struggle.

Rosit. Yes, that is the whole point.Stalin. But, according to Bukharin, the capitalists

grow into this very dictatorship of the proletariat. Howis it that you cannot understand this, Rosit? Againstwhom must we fight, against whom must we wage thesharpest form of the class struggle, if the capitalists oftown and country grow into the system of the dictator-ship of the proletariat?

The dictatorship of the proletariat is needed for thepurpose of waging a relentless struggle against the capi-talist elements, for the purpose of suppressing the bour-geoisie and of uprooting capitalism. But if the capital-

ists of town and country, if the kulak and the concession-


53/431


aire are growing into socialism, is the dictatorshipof the proletariat needed at all? If it is, then for the

suppression of what class is it needed?Rosit. The whole point is that, according to Bukharin,

the growing into presumes the class struggle.Stalin. I see that Rosit has sworn to be of service

to Bukharin. But his service is really like that of the bearin the fable; for in his eagerness to save Bukharin he isactually hugging him to death. It is not without reason

that it is said, An obliging fool is more dangerous thanan enemy. (General laughter.)

One thing or the other: either there is an irreconcilable antagonism of interests between the capitalist classand the class of the workers who have come to powerand have organised their dictatorship, or there is no suchantagonism of interests, in which case only one thing

remainsnamely, to proclaim the harmony of classinterests.One thing or the other:either Marxs theory of the class struggle, or the

theory of the capitalists growing into socialism;eitheran irreconcilable antagonism of class interests,

or the theory of harmony of class interests.We can understand socialists of the type of Bren-

tano or Sydney Webb preaching about socialism growinginto capitalism and capitalism into socialism, for thesesocialists are really anti-socialists, bourgeois liberals.But one cannot understand a man who wishes to be aMarxist, and who at the same time preaches the theoryof the capitalist class growing into socialism.

In his speech Bukharin tried to reinforce the theory

of the kulaks growing into socialism by referring to a


54/431

J. V. S T A L I N34

well-known passage from Lenin. He asserted that Leninsays the same thingas Bukharin.

That is not true, comrades. It is a gross and unpar-donable slander against Lenin.

Here is the text of this passage from Lenin:

Of course, in our Soviet Republic the social order is basedon the collaboration of two classes: the workers and peasants, inwhich the Nepmen, i.e., the bourgeoisie, are now permitted to

participate on certain conditions (Vol. XXVII, p. 405).

You see that there is not a word here about the capi-talist class growing into socialism. All that is said isthat we have permitted the Nepmen, i.e., the bour-geoisie, on certain conditions to participate in thecollaboration between the workers and the peasants.

What does that mean? Does it mean that we have

thereby admitted the possibility of the Nepmen growinginto socialism? Of course not. Only people who have lostall sense of shame can interpret the quotation from Leninin that way. All that it means is that at present we donot destroy the bourgeoisie, that at present we do notconfiscate their property, but permit them to exist oncertain conditions, i.e., provided they unconditionally

submit to the laws of the dictatorship of the proletariat,which lead to increasingly restricting the capitalistsand gradually ousting them from national-economiclife.

Can the capitalists be ousted and the roots of capi-talism destroyed without a fierce class struggle? No,they cannot.

Can classes be abolished if the theory and practice

of the capitalists growing into socialism prevails? No,


55/431


they cannot. Such theory and practice can only cultivateand perpetuate classes, for this theory contradicts the

Marxist theory of the class struggle.But the passage from Lenin is wholly and entirely

based on the Marxist theory of the class struggle underthe dictatorship of the proletariat.

What can there be in common between Bukharinstheory of the kulaks growing into socialism and Leninstheory of the dictatorship as a fierce class struggle?

Obviously, there is not, and cannot be, anything incommon between them.

Bukharin thinks that under the dictatorship of the proletariat the class struggle must die down and cometo an endso that the abolition of classes may be broughtabout. Lenin, on the contrary, teaches us that classescan be abolished only by means of a stubborn class strug-

gle, which under the dictatorship of the proletariatbecomes even fiercer than it was before the dictatorshipof the proletariat.

The abolition of classes, says Lenin, requires a long, dif-ficult and stubborn class struggle, which, after the overthrow ofthe power of capital, after the destruction of the bourgeois state,after the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat ,

d o e s n o t d i s a p p e a r (as the vulgar representatives ofthe old socialism and the old Social-Democracy imagine), butmerely changes its forms and in many respects becomes evenfiercer (Vol. XXIV, p. 315).

That i s what Lenin says about the abol i t ion of classes.

The abolition of classes by means of the fierce class

struggle of the proletariatsuch is Lenins formula.


56/431

J. V. S T A L I N36

The abolition of classes by means of the extinction ofthe class struggle and by the capitalists growing into social-

ismsuch is Bukharins formula.What can there be in common between these two

formulas?Bukharins theory of the kulaks growing into social-

ism is therefore a departure from the Marxist-Leninisttheory of the class struggle. It comes close to the theory

propounded by Katheder-Socialism.5

That is the basis of al l the errors committed byBukharin and his friends.

It may be said that it is not worth while dwellingat length on Bukharins theory of the kulaks growinginto socialism, since it itself speaks, and not only speaks,

but cries out, against Bukharin. That is wrong, com-rades! As long as that theory was kept hidden it was

possible not to pay attention to itthere are plenty ofsuch stupid things in what various comrades write!Such has been our attitude until quite lately. But re-cently the situation has changed. The petty-bourgeoiselemental forces, which have been breaking out in recentyears, have begun to encourage this anti-Marxist the-ory and made it topical. Now it cannot be said thatit is being kept hidden. Now this strange theory ofBukharins is aspiring to become the banner of the Rightdeviation in our Party, the banner of opportunism. Thatis why we cannot now ignore this theory. That is whywe must demolish it as a wrong and harmful theory,so as to help our Party comrades to fight the Right de-viation.


57/431


b) THE INTENSIFICATION OF THE CLASS STRUGGLE

Bukharins second mistake, which follows from hisfirst one, consists in a wrong, non-Marxist approachto the question of the intensification of the class strug-gle, of the increasing resistance of the capitalist elementsto the socialist policy of the Soviet government.

What is the point at issue here? Is it that the capi-talist elements are growing faster than the socialist sec-

tor of our economy, and that, because of this, they areincreasing their resistance, undermining socialist con-struction? No, that is not the point. Moreover, i t isnot true that the capitalist elements are growing fasterthan the socialist sector. If that were true, socialistconstruction would already be on the verge of col-lapse.

The point is that socialism is successfully attackingthe capitalist elements, socialism is growing faster thanthe capitalist elements; as a result the relative impor-tance of the capitalist elements is declining, and for thevery reason that the relative importance of the capi-talist elements is declining the capitalist elements re-alise that they are in mortal danger and are increasingtheir resistance.

And they are still able to increase their resistancenot only because world capitalism is supporting them,

but also because, in spite of the decline in their relativeimportance, in spite of the decline in their relative growthas compared with the growth of socialism, there is stilltaking place an absolute growth of the capitalist elements,and this, to a certain extent, enables them to accumulate

forces to resist the growth of socialism.


58/431

J. V. S T A L I N38

It is on this basis that, at the present stage of devel-opment and under the present conditions of the relation

of forces, the intensification of the class struggle andthe increase in the resistance of the capitalist elementsof town and country are taking place.

The mistake of Bukharin and his friends lies in fail-ing to understand this simple and obvious truth. Theirmistake lies in approaching the matter not in a Marxist,

but in a philistine way, and trying to explain the inten-

sification of the class struggle by all kinds of accidentalcauses: the incompetence of the Soviet apparatus, theimprudent policy of local comrades, the absence offlexibility, excesses, etc., etc.

Here, for instance, is a quotation from Bukharinspamphlet, The Path to Socialism, which demonstrates anabsolutely non-Marxist approach to the question of the

intensification of the class struggle:

Here and there the class struggle in the countryside breaks outin its former manifestations, and, as a rule, this intensification is

provoked by the kulak elements. When, for instance, kulaks,or people who are growing rich at the expense of others and havewormed their way into the organs of Soviet power, begin to shootvillage correspondents, that is a manifestation of the class strug-gle in its most acute form. (This is not true, for the most acute form

of the struggle is rebellion. J. Stalin) However, such incidents,as a rule, occur in those places where the local Soviet appara-tus is weak. As this apparatus improves, as all the lower unitsof Soviet power become stronger, as the local, vil lage, Partyand Young Communist League organisations improve and

become stronger, such phenomena, it is perfectly obvious, will become more and more rare and will finally disappear withouta trace.*

* My italics.J. St.


59/431


It follows, therefore, that the intensification of theclass struggle is to be explained by causes connected

with the character of the apparatus, the competence orincompetence, the strength or weakness of our lowerorganisations.

It follows, for instance, that the wrecking activitiesof the bourgeois intellectuals in Shakhty, which are a formof resistance of the bourgeois elements to the Sovietgovernment and a form of intensification of the class

struggle, are to be explained, not by the relation of classforces, not by the growth of socialism, but by the in-competence of our apparatus.

It follows that before the wholesale wrecking oc-curred in the Shakhty area, our apparatus was a good one,

but that later, the moment wholesale wrecking occurred,the apparatus, for some unspecified reason, suddenly

became utterly incompetent.It follows that until last year, when grain procure-ments proceeded automatically and there was no partic-ular intensification of the class struggle, our local or-ganisations were good, even ideal; but that from lastyear, when the resistance of the kulaks assumed par-ticularly acute forms, our organisations have suddenly

become bad and utterly incompetent.That is not an explanation, but a mockery of an ex-

planation. That is not science, but quackery.What then is the actual reason for this intensifica-

tion of the class struggle?There are two reasons.Firstly, our advance, our offensive, the growth of

socialist forms of economy both in industry and in

agriculture, a growth which is accompanied by a


60/431

J. V. S T A L I N40

corresponding ousting of certain sections of capitalists intown and country. The fact is that we are living accord-

ing to Lenins formula: Who will beat whom? Will weoverpower them, the capitalistsengage them, as Lenin

put it, in the last and decisive fightor will they over-power us?

Secondly, the fact that the capitalist elements haveno desire to depart from the scene voluntarily; theyare resisting, and will continue to resist socialism, for

they realise that their last days are approaching. Andthey are still able to resist because, in spite of the de-cline of their relative importance, they are neverthelessgrowing in absolute numbers; the petty bourgeoisie intown and country, as Lenin said, dai ly and hourly

produces from its midst capitalists, big and small, andthese capitalist elements go to all lengths to preserve their

existence.There have been no cases in history where dyingclasses have voluntarily departed from the scene. Therehave been no cases in history where the dying bourgeoi-sie has not exerted all its remaining strength to pre-serve its existence. Whether our lower Soviet appara-tus is good or bad, our advance, our offensive will dimin-ish the capitalist elements and oust them, and they, thedying classes, will carry on their resistance at all costs.

That is the basis for the intensification of the classstruggle in our country.

The mistake of Bukharin and his fr iends is thatthey identify the growing resistance of the capitalistswith the growth of the latters relative importance.But there are absolutely no grounds for this identifi-

cation. There are no grounds because the fact that the


61/431


capitalists are resisting by no means implies that theyhave become stronger than we are. The very opposite

is the case. The dying classes are resisting, not becausethey have become stronger than we are, but becausesocialism is growing faster than they are, and they are

becoming weaker than we are. And precisely becausethey are becoming weaker, they feel that their last daysare approaching and are compelled to resist with allthe forces and all the means in their power.

Such is the mechanics of the intensification of theclass struggle and of the resistance of the capitalistsat the present moment of history.

What should be the policy of the Party in view ofthis state of affairs?

The policy should be to arouse the working classand the exploited masses of the countryside, to increase

their fighting capacity and develop their mobilised preparedness for the fight against the capitalist elementsin town and country, for the fight against the resistingclass enemies.

The Marxist-Leninist theory of the class struggleis valuable, among other reasons, because it facili-tates the mobilisation of the working class against theenemies of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Wherein lies the harm of the Bukharin theory of thecapitalists growing into socialism and of the Bukharinconception of the intensification of the class struggle?

It lies in the fact that it lulls the working class tosleep, undermines the mobilised preparedness of the rev-olutionary forces of our country, demobilises the work-ing class and facilitates the attack of the capitalist

elements against the Soviet regime.


62/431

J. V. S T A L I N42

c) THE PEASANTRY

Bukharins third mistake is on the question of the peasantry. As you know, this question is one of themost important questions of our policy. In the condi-tions prevailing in our country, the peasantry consistsof various social groups, namely, the poor peasants,the middle peasants and the kulaks. It is obvious thatour attitude to these various groups cannot be the same.

The poor peasant as the support of the working class,the middle peasant as the ally, the kulak as the classenemy such is our attitude to these social groups. Allthis is clear and generally known.

Bukharin, however, regards the matter somewhatdifferently. In his description of the peasantry this dif-ferentiation is omitted, the existence of social groups

disappears, and there remains but a single drab patch,called the countryside. According to him, the kulak isnot a kulak, and the middle peasant is not a middle

peasant, but there is a sort of uniform poverty in thecountryside. That is what he said in his speech here:Can our kulak really be called a kulak? he said. Why,he is a pauper! And our middle peasant, is he reallylike a middle peasant? Why, he is a pauper, living onthe verge of starvation. Obviously, such a view of the

peasantry is a radically wrong view, incompatible withLeninism.

Lenin sa id tha t the individual peasantry i s thelast capitalist class. Is that thesis correct? Yes, it isabsolutely correct. Why is the individual peasantrydefined as the last capitalist class? Because, of the two

main classes of which our society is composed, the peas-


63/431


antry is the class whose economy is based on private property and small commodity production. Because the

peasantry, as long as it remains an individual peasantrycarrying on small commodity production, produces capi-talists from its midst, and cannot help producing them,constantly and continuously.

This fact is of decisive importance for us in the ques-tion of our Marxist attitude to the problem of the al-liance between the working class and the peasantry. This

means that we need, not just any kindof alliance withthe peasantry, but only such an alliance as is based onthe struggle against the capitalist elements of the peas-antry.

As you see, Lenins thesis about the peasantry beingthe last capitalist class not only does not contradictthe idea of an alliance between the working class and the

peasantry, but, on the contrary, supplies the basis forthis alliance as an alliance between the working classand the majority of the peasantry directed against thecapitalist elements in general and against the capitalistelements of the peasantry in the countryside in par-ticular.

Lenin advanced this thesis in order to show thatthe alliance between the working class and the peas-antry can be stable only if it is based on the struggleagainst those capitalist elements which the peasantry

produces from its midst.Bukharins mistake is that he does not understand

and does not accept this simple thing, he forgets aboutthe social groups in the countryside, he loses sight of thekulaks and the poor peasants, and all that remains is

one uniform mass of middle peasants.


64/431

J. V. S T A L I N44

This is undoubtedly a deviation to the Right onthe part of Bukharin, in contradistinction to the Left,

Trotskyite, deviation, which sees no other social groupsin the countryside than the poor peasants and the ku-laks, and which loses sight of the middle peasants.

Wherein lies the difference between Trotskyism andBukharins group on the question of the alliance withthe peasantry? It l ies in the fact that Trotskyism isopposed to the policy of a stable all iance with the

middle-peasant masses, while Bukharins group is

works of stalin vol 12

Documents