Leon Trotsky: Speech to the Fifteenth Conference

November 1, 1926

[Leon Trotsky, The Challenge of the Left Opposition (1926-1927), New York 1980, p. 132-164]

Comrades! The resolution accuses the Opposition, including me, of a Social Democratic deviation. I have thought over all the points of contention which have divided us, the minority of the CC, from the majority during the period just past, that is, the period in which the designation “Opposition bloc” has been in use. I must place on record that the points of contention, and our standpoint with respect to the points of contention, offer no basis for the accusation of a “Social Democratic deviation.”

The question upon which we have disagreed most, comrades, is that which asks which danger threatens us during the present epoch: the danger that our state industry is lagging behind, or' that it rushes too hastily forward? The Opposition — in which I am included — has argued that the real danger threatening us is that our state industry is lagging behind the development of the national economy as a whole. We have pointed out that the policy being pursued in the distribution of national income involves the further growth of the disproportion. For some reason or other this has been termed pessimism. Comrades, arithmetic knows neither pessimism nor optimism, neither lack of faith nor capitulation. Figures are figures. If you examine the control figures of Gosplan, you will find that these figures show the disproportion — or, more exactly expressed, the shortage of industrial goods — to have reached the amount of 380 million rubles last year, while this year the figure will be 500 million, that is, the initial Gosplan figures show the disproportion to have increased by 25 percent. Comrade Rykov states in his theses that we might hope (merely hope) that the disproportion will not increase this year. What was the basis for this “hope”? The fact that the harvest is not so favorable as we all expected. Were I to follow in the false tracks of our critics, I might say that Comrade Rykov’s theses welcome the fact that the unfavorable conditions prevailing at harvest time reduced the otherwise respectable yield; and he welcomes this because, had the harvest been greater, the result would have been a greater disproportion. [Comrade Rykov: “I am of a different opinion."] The figures speak for themselves. [A voice: “Why didn’t you speak in the discussion on Comrade Rykov’s report?"] Comrade Kamenev has here told you why we did not. Because I could not have added anything to this special economic report, in the form of amendments or arguments, that we had not brought forward at the April plenum. The amendments and other proposals submitted by me and other comrades to the April plenum remain in full force today. But the economic experience gained since April is obviously too small to give us room for hope that at the present stage the comrades present at this conference will be convinced. To bring up these points of contention again, before the actual course of economic life has tested them, would create unnecessary tensions. These questions will inevitably be more acceptable to the party when they can be answered by the statistics based on the latest experience; for objective economic experience does not decide whether figures are optimistic or pessimistic, but solely whether they are right or wrong. I believe our standpoint on the disproportion has been right.

We have disagreed on the rate of our industrialization, and I have been among those comrades who have pointed out that the present rate is insufficient, and that precisely this insufficient speed in industrialization imparts the greatest importance to the differentiation process going on in the villages. To be sure, there is not as yet anything disastrous in the fact that the kulak has raised his head or — this is the other side of the same coin — that the relative weight of the poor peasant in the village has declined. These are some of the serious problems that accompany the period of transition. They are unhealthy signs. There is no reason to “panic” of course. But they are phenomena which must be correctly assessed. And I have been among those comrades who have maintained that the process of differentiation in the village may assume a dangerous form if industry lags behind, that is, if the disproportion increases. The Opposition maintains that it is our duty to lessen the disproportion year by year. I see nothing Social Democratic in this.

We have insisted that the differentiation in the village demands a more elastic taxation policy with respect to the various strata of the peasantry, a reduction of taxation for the poorer middle strata of the peasantry, increased taxation for the well-to-do middle strata, and energetic pressure upon the kulak, especially in his relations to trading capital. We have proposed that 40 percent of the poor peasantry should be freed from taxation altogether. Are we right or not? I believe that we are right; you believe we are wrong. But what is “Social Democratic” about this is a mystery to me. [Laughter.]

We have asserted that the increasing differentiation among the peasantry, taking place under the conditions imposed by the backwardness of our industry, brings with it the necessity for double safeguards in the field of politics, that is, we cannot take a tolerant attitude toward the extension of the franchise with respect to the kulak, the employer, and the exploiter, even if they operate only on a small scale. We raised the alarm when the famous electoral instructions extended the voting rights of the petty bourgeoisie. Were we right or not? You consider that our alarm was “exaggerated.” Well, even assuming that it was, there is nothing Social Democratic about it.

We demanded and proposed that the course being taken by the agricultural cooperatives toward the “highly productive middle peasant,” under which name we generally find the kulak, should be severely condemned. We proposed that the “slight shift” (this term was used in the report to the Politburo) of the credit cooperatives toward the well-to-do peasantry should be condemned. I cannot comprehend, comrades, what you find “Social Democratic” in this.

There have been differences of opinion on the question of wages. In substance, these differences consist of our being of the opinion that at the present stage of development of our industry and economy, and at our present economic level, the wage question must not be settled on the assumption that the workers must first increase the productivity of labor, which will then raise the wages, but that the contrary must be the rule, that is, a rise in wages, however modest, must be the prerequisite for an increased productivity of labor. [A voice: “Where will we get the meows?”] This may be right or it may not, but it is not “Social Democratic.”

We have pointed out the connection between various well-known aspects of our inner-party life and the growth of bureaucratism. I believe there is nothing “Social Democratic” about this either.

We have further opposed an overestimation of the economic elements of the capitalist stabilization and the underestimation of its political elements. If we inquire, for instance: What does the economic stabilization consist of in England at the present time? then it appears that England is going to ruin, that its trade balance is adverse, that its foreign trade is shrinking, that its production is declining. This is file “economic stabilization” of England. But to whom is bourgeois England clinging? Not to Baldwin, not to Thomas, but to Purcell. Purcellism is the pseudonym of the present “stabilization” in England. We are therefore of the opinion that it is fundamentally wrong, in consideration of the working masses who carried out the general strike, to combine either directly or indirectly with Purcell. This is the reason that we have demanded the dissolution of the Anglo-Russian Committee. I see nothing “Social Democratic” in this.

We have insisted upon a fresh revision of our trade union statutes, upon which subject I reported to the CC: a revision of those statutes from which the word “Profintern” was struck out last year and replaced by the words “international alliance of trade unions,” which cannot mean anything other than “Amsterdam.” I am glad to say that this revision of last year’s revision has been accomplished, and the word “Profintern” has been reinserted in our trade union statutes. But why was our uneasiness on the subject "Social Democratic?” That, comrades, is something which I entirely fail to understand. [Laughter.]

I should like, as briefly as possible, to enumerate the main points of difference which have arisen of late. Our standpoint on the questions concerned has been that we have observed the dangers likely to threaten the class line of the party and of the workers’ state under the conditions imposed by a long continuance of the NEP, and our encirclement by international capitalism. But these differences, and the standpoint adopted by us in the defense of our opinions, cannot be construed into a “Social Democratic deviation” by the most complicated logical or even scholastic methods.

That is why it was found necessary to leave these actual and serious differences, engendered by the present epoch of our economic and political development, and to go back into the past in order to construe differences in the conception of the “character of our revolution” in general — not in the present period of our revolution, not with regard to the present concrete tasks, but with regard to the character of the revolution in general, or as expressed in the theses, the revolution “in itself,” the revolution “in its substance.” When a German speaks of a thing “in itself,” he is using a metaphysical term placing the revolution outside of all connection with the real world around it; it is abstracted from yesterday and tomorrow, and regarded as an “essence” from which everything proceeds. Now, then, in regard to this “essence,” I have been found guilty, in the ninth year of our revolution, of having denied the socialist character of our revolution! No more and no less! I discovered this for the first time in this resolution itself. If the comrades find it necessary for some reason to construct a resolution on quotations from my writings — and the main portion of the resolution, pushing into the foreground the theory of original sin (“Trotskyism”), is built upon quotations from my writings between 1917 and 1922 — then it would at least be advisable to select the essential from everything I have written on the character of our revolution.

You will excuse me, comrades, but it is no pleasure to have to set aside the actual subject and to retail where and when I wrote this or that. But this resolution, in trying to support the accusation of a “Social Democratic” deviation, refers to passages from my writings, and I am obliged to give the information. In 19221 was commissioned by the party to write the book Terrorism and Communism against Kautsky, against the characterization of our revolution by Kautsky as a non-proletarian and non-socialist revolution. A large number of editions of this book were distributed both at home and abroad by the Comintern. The book met with no hostile reception from the comrades most closely involved, including Vladimir Ilyich. This book is not quoted in the resolution.

In 19221 was commissioned by the Political Bureau to write the book entitled Between Imperialism and Revolution [published in English as Between Red and White]. In this book I utilized the special experience gained in Georgia, in the form of a refutation of the standpoint of those international Social Democrats who were using the Georgian uprising as material against us, for the purpose of subjecting to a fresh examination the main questions of the proletarian revolution, which has a right to tear down not only petty-bourgeois prejudices but also petty-bourgeois institutions. Again, this book is not quoted.

At the Third Congress of the Comintern I gave a report, on behalf of the CC, declaring in substance that we had entered an era of unstable balance. I polemicized against Comrade Bukharin, who at that time was of the opinion that we were going to go through an uninterrupted series of revolutions and crises until the victory of socialism throughout the world, and that there would not and could not be any “stabilization.” At the time Comrade Bukharin accused me of a right deviation (perhaps Social Democratic too?). In full agreement with Lenin at the Third Congress I defended the theses which I had formulated. The import of the theses was that we, despite the slower speed of the revolution, would pass successfully through this period by developing the socialist elements in our economy.

At the Fourth World Congress in 1922 I was commissioned by the CC to follow Lenin with a report on the NEP. What was my theme? I argued that the NEP merely signifies a change in the forms and methods of socialist development And now, instead of taking these works of mine, which may have been good or bad, but were at least fundamental, and in which, on behalf of the party, I defined the character of our revolution in the years between 1920 and 1923, you seize upon a few little passages, each only two or three lines, out of a preface and a postscript written at the same period.

I repeat that none of the passages quoted is from a fundamental work. These four little quotations (1917 to 1922) form the sole foundation for the accusation that I deny the socialist character of our revolution. The structure of the accusation thus being completed, every imaginable original sin is added to it, even the sin of the Opposition of 1925. The demand for a more rapid industrialization and the proposal to increase the taxation of the kulaks all arise from these four passages. [A voice: "Don’t form factions!”]

Comrades, I regret having to take your time, but I must quote a few more passages — I could cite hundreds — to refute everything that the resolution ascribes to me. First of all I must draw your attention to the fact that the four quotations upon which the theory of my original sin is based have all been taken from writings of mine between 1917 and 1922. Everything that I have said since appears to have been swept away by the wind. Nobody knows whether I subsequently regarded our revolution as socialist or not. Today, at the end of 1926, the present standpoint of the so-called Opposition on the main questions of economics and politics is sought in passages from my personal writings between 1917 and 1922, and not even in passages from my chief works, but in works written for some quite chance occasion. I shall return to these quotations and respond on every one of them. But first permit me to cite some quotations of a more essential character, written at the same period.

For instance, the following is an excerpt from my speech at the conference of the Moscow Trade Union Council on October 28, 1921, after the introduction of the NEP: “We have reorganized our economic policy in anticipation of a slower development of our economy. We reckon with the possibility that the revolution in Europe, though developing and growing, is developing more slowly than we expected. The bourgeoisie has proved more tenacious. Even in our own country we are obliged to reckon with a slower transition to socialism, for we are surrounded by capitalist countries. We must concentrate our forces on the largest and best equipped undertakings. At the same time, we must not forget that the taxation in kind among the peasantry, and the increase of leased undertakings, form a basis for the development of commodity production, for the accumulation of capital, and for the rise of a new bourgeoisie. At the same time, the socialist economy will be built up on the narrower but firmer basis of big industry.”

At a membership meeting of our party on November 10 of the same year, in the Moscow district of Sokolniki, I stated: “What do we have now? We now have the process of socialist revolution, in the first place within a single state and in the second place in a state which is very backward, both economically and culturally, and surrounded on all sides by capitalist countries.”

What conclusion did I draw from this? Did I propose capitulation? I proposed the following:

“It is our task to make socialism prove its advantages. … The peasant will be the judge who pronounces on the advantages or drawbacks of the socialist state. We are competing with capitalism in the peasant market …

“What is the present basis for our conviction that we shall be victorious? There are many reasons justifying our belief. These lie both in the international situation and in the development of the Communist Party; in the fact that we retain full power in our hands, and in the fact that we permit free trade solely within the limits which we deem necessary.”

This, comrades, was said in 1921, and not in 1926!

In my report at the Fourth World Congress (directed against Otto Bauer, to whom my relationship has now been discovered) I spoke as follows: “Our most important weapon in the economic struggle occurring on the basis of the market is — state power. Reformist simpletons are the only ones who are incapable of grasping the significance of this weapon. The bourgeoisie understands it excellently. The whole history of the bourgeoisie proves it.

“Another weapon of the proletariat is that the country’s most important productive forces are in its hands: the entire railway system, the entire mining industry, the overwhelming majority of enterprises servicing industry are under the direct economic management of the working class.

“The workers’ state likewise owns the land, and the peasants annually contribute in return for using it hundreds of millions of poods [one pood equals 36 lbs.] in taxes in kind.

“The workers’ power holds the state frontiers: foreign commodities, and foreign capital generally, can gain access to our country only within limits which are deemed desirable and legitimate by the workers’ state.

“Such are the weapons and means of socialist construction”.

In a booklet published by me in 1923 under the title Problems of Everyday Life, you may read on this subject: “Now, what has the working class actually gained and secured for itself as a result of the revolution?

“1. The dictatorship of the proletariat (represented by the workers’ and peasants’ government under the leadership of the Communist Party).

“2. The Red Army — a firm support of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

“3. The nationalization of the chief means of production, without which the dictatorship of the proletariat would have become a form void of substance.

“4. The monopoly of foreign trade, which is the necessary condition of socialist state structure in a capitalist environment.

“These four things, definitely won, form the steel frame of all our work; and every success we achieve in economics or culture — provided it is a real achievement and not a sham — becomes in this framework a necessary part of the socialist structure” [emphasis added by Trotsky],

This same booklet contains another and even more definite formulation: “The easier it was (comparatively, of course) for the Russian proletariat to pass through the revolutionary crisis, the harder its work of socialist construction now becomes. But, on the other hand, the framework of our new social structure, marked by the four characteristics mentioned above, gives an objectively socialist content to all conscientious and rationally directed efforts in the domain of economics and culture. Under the bourgeois regime the workman, with no desire or intention on his part, was continually enriching the bourgeoisie, and did it all the more, the better his work was. In the Soviet state a conscientious and good worker, whether he cares to do it or not (in case he is not in the party and keeps away from politics) achieves socialist results and increases the wealth of the working class. This is the doing of the October Revolution, and the NEP has not changed anything in this respect” [emphasis added by Trotsky].

I could prolong this chain of quotations indefinitely, for I never did and never could characterize our revolution differently. I shall confine myself, however, to one more passage, from a book quoted by Comrade Stalin (Toward Capitalism or Socialism?). This book was published for the first time in 1925 and was printed originally as a series in Pravda. The editors of our central paper have never drawn my attention to any heresies in this book with respect to the character of our revolution. This year the second edition of the book was issued. It has been translated into different languages by the Comintern and this is the first time I've heard that it gives a false idea of our economic development Comrade Stalin has read you a few lines, picked out arbitrarily in order to show that this is “unclearly formulated.” I am thus obliged to read a somewhat longer passage, in order to prove that the idea in question is quite clearly formulated. The following is stated in the introduction, devoted to a criticism of our bourgeois and Social Democratic critics, above all, Kautsky and Otto Bauer. Here you may read: “These judgments” — formed by the enemies of our economic methods — “are of two kinds. In the first place, we are told that we are ruining the country by our work of socialist construction; in the second place, we are told that our development of the productive forces is in reality carrying us toward capitalism.

“Criticism of the first type is characteristic of the mode of thought of the bourgeoisie. The second style of criticism is rather that of social democracy, i.e., bourgeois thought in a socialist disguise. It would be hard to draw a sharp line between the two styles of criticism, and frequently the two exchange their arsenal of arguments in a neighborly manner, without noticing it themselves, intoxicated as they are with the sacred war against communist barbarism.

“The present book, I hope, will prove to the unprejudiced reader that both camps are lying, not only the outright big bourgeoisie, but also the petty bourgeoisie who pretend to be socialist. They lie when they say that the Bolsheviks have ruined Russia. Indisputable facts prove that in Russia — disorganized by imperialist and civil wars — the productive forces in industry and agriculture are approaching the prewar level, which will be reached during the coming year. It is a falsehood to state that the evolution of the productive forces is proceeding in the direction of capitalism. In industry, transportation, communications, commerce, finance, and credit operations, the part played by the nationalized economy is not lessened with the growth of the productive forces; on the contrary, this role is assuming increasing importance in the total economy of the country. Facts and figures prove this beyond dispute.

“The matter is much more complicated in the field of agriculture. No Marxist will be surprised by this; the transition from scattered single peasant establishments to a socialist system of land cultivation is inconceivable except after passing through a number of stages in technology, economics, and culture. The fundamental condition for this transition is the retention of power in the hands of the class whose object is to lead society to socialism (and which is becoming ever more able to influence the peasant population by means of state industry and by raising agricultural technology to a higher level and thus creating the prerequisites for a collectivization of agriculture)”.

The draft of the resolution on the Opposition states that Trotsky’s standpoint closely approaches that of Otto Bauer, who has said, “In Russia, where the proletariat represents only a small minority of the nation, the proletariat can only maintain its rule temporarily, and is bound to lose it again as soon as the peasant majority of the nation has become culturally mature enough to take over the rule itself.”

In the first place, comrades, who could entertain the idea that so absurd a formulation could occur to any one of us? Whatever is to be understood by “as soon as the peasant majority of the nation has become culturally mature enough”? What does this mean? What are we to understand by “culture”? Under capitalist conditions the peasantry has no independent culture. As far as culture is concerned, the peasantry may mature under the influence of the proletariat or of the bourgeoisie. These are the only two possibilities existing for the cultural advance of the peasantry. To a Marxist, the idea that the “culturally matured” peasantry, having overthrown the proletariat, could take over power on its own account, is a wildly prejudiced absurdity. The experience of two revolutions has taught us that the peasantry, should it come into conflict with the proletariat and overthrow the proletarian power, simply forms a bridge — through Bonapartism — for the bourgeoisie. An independent peasant state founded on neither proletarian nor bourgeois culture is impossible. This whole construction of Otto Bauer’s collapses into a lamentable petty-bourgeois absurdity.

We are told that we have no faith in the establishment of socialism. And at the same time we are accused of wanting to “rob” the peasantry (not the kulaks, but the peasantry!).

I think, comrades, that these are not words out of our dictionary at all. The Communists cannot propose that the workers’ state “rob” the peasantry, and it is precisely with the peasantry that we are concerned. A proposal to free 40 percent of the poor peasantry from all taxation, and to lay these taxes upon the kulak, may be right or it may be wrong, but it can never be interpreted as a proposal to “rob” the peasantry.

I ask you: If we have no faith in the establishment of socialism in our country, or if (as is said of me) we propose that the European revolution be passively awaited, then why do we propose to “rob” the peasantry? To what end? That is incomprehensible. We are of the opinion that industrialization — the basis of socialism — is proceeding too slowly, and that this negatively affects the peasantry. If, let us say, the quantity of agricultural products put upon the market this year is 20 percent more than last — I take these figures with a reservation — and at the same time the grain price has sunk by 8 percent and the prices of various industrial products have risen by 16 percent, as has been the case, then the peasant gains less than when his crops are poorer and the retail prices for industrial products lower. The acceleration of industrialization, especially through increased taxation of the kulak, will result in the production of a larger quantity of goods, reducing the retail prices, to the advantage of the workers and of the greater part of the peasantry.

It is possible that you do not agree with this. But nobody can deny that it is a system of views on the development of our economy. How can you claim that we have no faith in the possibility of socialist development, and yet at the same time assert that we demand the robbing of the peasant? With what object? For what purpose? Nobody can explain this. I contend that it cannot be explained. There are things that are impossible to explain. For example, I have often asked myself why the dissolution of the Anglo-Russian Committee can be supposed to imply a call to leave the trade unions? And why does the non-entry into the Amsterdam International not constitute an appeal to the workers not to join the Amsterdam trade unions? [A voice: "That will be explained to you!"] I have never received an answer to this question, and never will. [A voice: "You will get your answer.”] Neither shall I receive a reply to the question of how we contrive to disbelieve in the realization of socialism and yet endeavor to “rob” the peasantry.

The book of mine from which I last quoted speaks in detail of the importance of the correct distribution of our national income, since our economic development is proceeding amidst the struggle of two tendencies: the socialist and the capitalist ones. “… The outcome of the struggle depends on the speed of development of each of these tendencies. In other words: if state industry develops more slowly than agriculture; if the latter should proceed to produce with increasing speed the two extreme poles mentioned above (capitalist farmers above, proletarians below); this process would, of course, lead to a restoration of capitalism.

“But just let our enemies try to prove the inevitability of this prospect. Even if they approach this task more intelligently than poor Kautsky (or MacDonald), they will bum their fingers. On the other hand, is such a possibility entirely precluded? Theoretically, it is not. If the dominant party were guilty of one mistake after another, in politics as well as in economics; if it were thus to retard the growth of industry, which is now developing so promisingly; if it were to relinquish its control over the political and economic processes in the village; then, of course, the cause of socialism would be lost in our country. But we are not at all obliged to make any such assumptions in our prognosis.

“How power is lost, how the achievements of the proletariat may be surrendered, how one may work for capitalism — all this has been brilliantly demonstrated to the international proletariat by Kautsky and his friends, after November 9, 1918. Nothing needs to be added to this lesson.

“Our tasks, our goals, our methods, are different. We want to show how power, once achieved, may be retained and consolidated, and how the form of the proletarian state may be filled with the economic content of socialism” [emphasis added by Trotsky].

The whole content of this book [A voice: ‘‘There is nothing about the cooperatives in it!”] — I shall come to the cooperatives — the whole content of this book is devoted to the subject of how the proletarian form of state is to be given the economic content of socialism. It may be said (insinuations have already been made in this direction): Yes, you believed that we were moving toward socialism so long as the process of reconstruction was going on, and so long as industry developed at a speed of 45 or 35 percent per year, but now that we have arrived at a crisis in regard to fixed capital and you see the difficulties of expanding our fixed capital, you have been seized with a so-called “panic.”

I cannot quote the whole of the chapter on “Material Limits and Possibilities of the Rate of Development.” It points out the four elements characterizing the advantages of our system over capitalism and draws the following conclusion: “Considered together, these four advantages, if rightly utilized, will enable us in the next few years to increase the coefficient of our industrial expansion not only to twice the figure of 6 percent attained in the prewar period, but to three times that figure, and perhaps to even more”.

If I am not mistaken, the coefficient of our industrial growth will amount, according to the plans, to 18 percent. In this there are, of course, still reconstruction elements. But in any case the extremely rough statistical prognosis which I made as an example eighteen months ago coincides fairly well with our actual speed this year.

You ask: What is the explanation of those frightful passages quoted in the resolution? I shall have to answer this question. I must first, however, repeat that not a single word has been quoted from the fundamental works which I wrote on the character of the revolution between 1917 and 1922, and complete silence is preserved on everything that I have written since 1922, even on that written last year and this year. Four passages are quoted. Comrade Stalin has dealt with them in detail, and they are referred to in the resolution, so you will permit me to devote some words to them as well.

“4. The working-class movement achieves victory in the democratic revolution. …

“5. The … bourgeoisie becomes … counterrevolutionary.

… Among the peasantry, the whole of the well-to-do section, and a fairly large part of the middle peasantry, also grow ‘wiser,’ quieten down and turn to the side of the counterrevolution in order to wrest power from the proletariat and the rural poor. …

“6. … This struggle would have been almost hopeless for the Russian proletariat alone and its defeat would have been … inevitable … had the European socialist proletariat not come to the assistance of the Russian proletariat”.

I am afraid, comrades, that if anyone told you that these lines represented a malicious product of Trotskyism, many comrades would believe it. But this passage is Lenin’s. The fifth volume of the Lenin Miscellany contains a draft of a pamphlet which Lenin intended to write at the end of 1905. Here this possible situation is described: The workers are victorious in the democratic revolution, the well-to-do section of the peasantry goes over to counterrevolution. I should say that this passage is quoted in the latest issue of Bolshevik, on page 68, but unfortunately with a grave misrepresentation, although the excerpt is given in quotation marks: the words referring to the considerable section of the middle peasantry are simply left out. I call upon you to compare the fifth Lenin Miscellany, page 451, with the latest issue of Bolshevik, page 68.

I could quote dozens of such passages from Lenin’s works: vol. 9, pp. 135-36; vol. 10, p. 191; vol. 12, pp. 106-07. (I don’t have the time to read them, but anyone may look up the references for himself.) I shall quote only one passage, from vol. 10, p. 280: “The Russian revolution” — he is referring to the democratic revolution — “can achieve victory by its own efforts, but it cannot possibly hold and consolidate its gains by its own strength. It cannot do this unless there is a socialist revolution in the West. Without this condition restoration is inevitable, whether we have municipalization, or nationalization, or division of the land: for under each and every form of property or ownership the small proprietor will always be a bulwark of restoration. After the complete victory of the democratic revolution the small proprietor will inevitably turn against the proletariat.”

[A voice: “We have introduced the NEP.”]

True, I shall refer to that presently.

Let us now turn to that passage which I wrote in 1922, in order that we may see how my standpoint on the revolution in the epoch of 1904-05 had developed.

I have no intention, comrades, of raising the question of the theory of permanent revolution. This theory — in respect both to what has been right in it and to what has been incomplete and wrong — has nothing whatever to do with our present contentions. In any case, this theory of permanent revolution, to which so much attention has been devoted recently, is not the responsibility in the slightest degree of either the Opposition of 1925 or the Opposition of 1923, and even I myself regard it as a question which has long been consigned to the archives.

But let us return to the passage quoted in the resolution. (This I wrote in 1922, but from the standpoint of 1905-06.) “The proletariat, once having power in its hands, … would enter into hostile conflict, not only with all those bourgeois groups which had supported it during the first stages of its revolutionary struggle, but also with the broad masses of the peasantry, with whose collaboration it — the proletariat — had come into power”.

Although this was written in 1922, it was put in the future tense — the proletariat would come into conflict with the bourgeoisie, etc. — because pre-revolutionary views were being described. I ask you: Has Lenin's prognosis of 1905/6, that the middle peasants would go over to counterrevolution to a great extent, proved true? I maintained that it has proved true in part. [Voices: “In part? When?” Disturbance.] Yes, under the leadership of the party and above all under I Lenin’s leadership, the division between us and the peasantry was bridged over by the New Economic Policy. This is indisputable. [Disturbance.] If any of you imagine, comrades, that in 1926 I do not grasp the meaning of the New Economic Policy, you are mistaken. I grasp the meaning of the New Economic Policy in 1926, perhaps not so well as other comrades, but still I grasp it. But you must remember that at that time, before there was any New Economic Policy, before there had been a revolution of 1917, and we were sketching the first outlines of possible developments, utilizing the experience won in previous revolutions — the Great French Revolution and the revolution of 1848 — at that time all Marxists, not omitting Lenin (I have given quotations), were of the opinion that after the democratic revolution was completed and the land given to the peasantry, the proletariat would encounter opposition not only from the big peasants, but from a considerable section of the middle peasants, who would represent a hostile and even counterrevolutionary force.

Have there been signs among us of the truth of this prognosis? Yes, there have been signs, and fairly distinct ones. For instance, when the Makhno movement in the Ukraine helped the White Guards to sweep away the Soviet power this was one proof of the correctness of Lenin’s prognosis. The Antonov rising, the rising in Siberia, the rising on the Volga, the rising in the Urals, the Kronstadt revolt, when the “middle peasants” conversed with Soviet power in the language of twelve-inch naval guns — doesn’t all this prove that Lenin’s forecast was correct at a certain stage of development in the revolution? [Comrade Moiseyenko: “And what did you propose?”] Is it not perfectly clear that the passage written by me in 1922 on the division between us and the peasantry was simply a statement of these facts?

We bridged over the schism between us and the peasantry by means of the NEP. And were there differences between us during the transition to the NEP? There were no differences during the transition to the NEP. [Disturbance.] There were differences over the trade union question before the transition to the NEP, when the party was still seeking a way out of the blind alley. These differences were of serious importance. But on the question of the NEP, when Lenin submitted the NEP resolution to the Tenth Party Congress, we all voted unanimously for it. And when a new trade union resolution arose as a result of the New Economic Policy — a few months after the Tenth Party Congress — we again voted unanimously for this resolution in the CC. But during the period of transition — and the change wrought by it was no small one — the peasants, including the middle peasants, declared: “We are for the Bolsheviks, but against the Communists.” What does this mean? It means a peculiarly Russian form of desertion from the proletarian revolution on the part of the middle peasantry at a given stage.

I am reproached with having said that it is “hopeless to think that revolutionary Russia would be able to maintain itself in the face of conservative Europe”. This I wrote in May 1917, and I believe that it was perfectly right. Have we maintained ourselves against a conservative Europe? Let us consider the facts. At the moment when Germany was discussing a peace treaty with the Entente, the danger was especially great Had the German revolution not broken out at this point — that German revolution which remained uncompleted, suffocated by the Social Democrats, yet still sufficing to overthrow the old regime and to demoralize the Hohenzollern army — I repeat had the German revolution, such as it was, not broken out then we should have been overthrown. It is not by accident that the passage contains the phrase “in opposition to a conservative Europe,” and not “in opposition to a capitalist Europe,” Against a conservative Europe, maintaining its whole apparatus, and in particular its armies. I ask you: Could we maintain ourselves under these circumstances, or could We not? [A voice: “Are you talking to children?"] That we still continue to exist is due to the fact that Europe has not remained what it was. Lenin wrote as follows on this subject: “We are living not merely in a State, but in a system of states, and it is inconceivable for the Soviet Republic to exist alongside of the imperialist states for any length of time. One or the other must triumph in the end”

When did Lenin say this? On March 18,1919, that is two years after the October Revolution. My words of 1917 signified that if our revolution did not shake Europe, did not move it, then we were lost. Is this not in substance the same? I ask all the older comrades, who were politically conscious before and during 1917: What was your conception of the revolution and its consequences?

When I try to recollect this, I can find no other formulation than approximately the following:

“We thought: either the international revolution comes to our assistance, and in that case our victory will be fully assured, or we shall do our modest revolutionary work in the conviction that even in the event of defeat we shall have served the cause of the revolution and that our experience will benefit other revolutions. It was dear to us that without the support of the international world revolution the victory of the proletarian revolution was impossible. Before the revolution, and even after it, we thought: either revolution breaks out in other countries, in the capitalistically more developed countries, immediately, or at least very quickly, or we must perish”.

This was our conception of the fate of the revolution. Who said this? [Comrade Moiseyenko: “Lenin!" A voice: “And what did he say later on?”]

Lenin said this in 1921, while the passage quoted from me dates from 1917. I have thus a right to refer to what Lenin said in 1921. [A voice: “And what did Lenin say later on?”] Later on I too said something different. [Laughter.] Both before the revolution, and after it, we believed that: “Either revolution breaks out in the other countries, in the capitalistically more developed countries, immediately, or at least very quickly, or we must perish.” But: “In spite of this conviction, we did all we possibly could to preserve the Soviet system under all circumstances, come what may, because we knew that we were not only working for ourselves, but also for the international revolution. We knew this, we repeatedly expressed this conviction before the October Revolution, immediately after it, and at the time we signed the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty. And, generally speaking, this was correct”.

This passage goes on to Bay that our path has become more intricate and winding, but that in all essentials our prognosis was correct. As I have already said, we went over to the NEP unanimously, without any differences whatever. [Comrade Moiseyenko: "To save us from utter ruin!”]

True, just for that reason, to save us from utter ruin.

Comrades, I beg you to extend the time allotted for my speech. I should like to speak on the theory of socialism in one country. I ask for another half hour. [Disturbance.]

Comrades, on the question of the relations between the proletariat and the peasantry …

Chairman: Please wait till we have decided. I submit three proposals; firstly, to adhere to the original time allotted to Comrade Trotsky; secondly, an extension of half an hour; thirdly, an extension of a quarter of an hour. [On a vote being taken there is a majority for the half-hour extension.]

Trotsky: The next passage quoted from my writings has brought me the reproach that whereas Lenin said “ten to twenty years of correct relations with the peasantry, and our victory is assured on an international scale,” Trotskyism, on the contrary, assumes that the proletariat cannot enter into any correct relations with the peasantry until the world revolution has been accomplished. First of all I must ask the actual meaning of the passage quoted. Lenin speaks of ten to twenty years of correct relations with the peasantry. This means that Lenin did not expect socialism to be established within ten to twenty years. Why? Because under socialism we must understand a state of society in which there is neither proletariat nor peasantry, nor any classes whatever. Socialism abolishes the opposition between town and country. Thus the term of twenty years is set before us, in the course of which we must pursue a political line leading to correct relations between the proletariat and the peasantry. That is the first point.

Further on, however, it is said that Trotskyism is of the opinion that there can be no correct relations between the proletariat and the peasantry until the world revolution has been accomplished. I am thus alleged to have laid down a law according to which incorrect relations must be maintained with the peasantry as far as possible, until the international revolution has been victorious. [Laughter.] Apparently it was not intended to express this idea here, as there is no sense in it whatever.

What was the NEP? The NEP has been a process of shunting onto a new track, precisely for the establishment of correct relations between the proletariat and the peasantry. Were there differences between us on this subject? No, there were none. What we are arguing about now is the taxation of the kulak, and the forms and methods to be adopted in allying the proletariat with the village poor. What is the actual matter at hand? The best method of establishing correct relations between the peasantry and the proletariat. You have the right to disagree with individual proposals of ours, but you must recognize that the whole ideological struggle revolves around the question of what relations are correct at the present stage of development.

Were there differences between us in 1917 on the peasant question? No. The peasant decree, the “Social Revolutionary” peasant decree, was adopted unanimously by us as our basis. The land decree, drawn up by Lenin, was accepted by us unanimously and gave rise to no differences in our circles. Did the policy of “de-kulakization” afford any cause for differences? No, there were no differences on this. [A voice: “And Brest?”] Did the struggle commenced by Lenin, for winning over the middle peasantry, give rise to differences? No, it gave rise to none. I do not assert that there were no differences whatever, but I definitely maintain that however great the differences of opinion may have been in various and even important questions, there were no differences of opinion in the matter of the main line of policy to be pursued with regard to the peasantry.

In 1919 there were rumors abroad of differences on this question. And what did Lenin write on the subject? Let us look back. I was asked at that time by the peasant Gulov: “What are the differences of opinion between you and Ilyich?” and I replied to this question both in Pravda and in Izvestia. Lenin wrote as follows on the matter, both in Pravda and in Izvestia, in February 1919:

“Izvestia of February 2 carried a letter from a peasant, G. Gulov, who asks a question about the attitude of our workers’ and peasants’ government to the middle peasantry, and tells of rumors that Lenin and Trotsky are not getting on together, and that there are big differences between them on this very question of the middle peasant.

“Comrade Trotsky has already replied to that in his “Letter to the Middle Peasants," which appeared in Izvestia of February 7. In this letter Comrade Trotsky says that the rumors of differences between him and myself are the most monstrous and shameless lie, spread by the landowners and capitalists, or by their witting and unwitting accomplices. For my part, I entirely confirm Comrade Trotsky’s statement. There are no differences between us, and as regards the middle peasants there are no differences either between Trotsky and myself, or in general in the Communist Party, of which we are both members.

“In his letter Comrade Trotsky has explained clearly and in detail why the Communist Party and present workers’ and peasants’ government, elected by the soviets and composed of members of that party, do not consider the middle peasants to be their enemies. I fully subscribe to what Comrade Trotsky has said”.

This was before the NEP. Then came the transition to the NEP. I repeat once more that the transition to the NEP gave rise to no differences. On the NEP question I gave a report before the Fourth World Congress, in the course of which I polemicized against Otto Bauer. Later I wrote as follows: “The NEP is regarded by the bourgeoisie and the Mensheviks as a necessary (but of course ‘insufficient’) step toward freeing the productive forces from ‘enslavement.’ The Menshevik theoreticians of both the Kautsky and the Otto Bauer variety have welcomed the NEP as the dawn of capitalist restoration in Russia. They add: Either the NEP will destroy the Bolshevik dictatorship (favorable result) or the Bolshevik dictatorship will destroy the NEP (regrettable result).”

The whole of my report at the Fourth World Congress went to prove that the NEP will not destroy the Bolshevik dictatorship, but that the Bolshevik dictatorship, under the conditions given by the NEP, will secure the supremacy of the socialist elements in the economy over the capitalist ones.

Another passage from my works has been brought up against me — and here I come to the question of the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country — which reads as follows: “The contradictions between a workers’ government and an overwhelming majority of peasants in a backward country could be resolved only on an international scale, in the arena of a world proletarian revolution”

This was said in 1922. The accusing resolution makes the following statement: “The conference places on record that such views as these on the part of Comrade Trotsky and his followers, on the fundamental question of the character and prospects of our revolution, have nothing in common with the views of our party, with Leninism.”

They might have said this was a shade off from the party’s position — although I do not find it so even today — or that these views had not yet been precisely formulated (I do not find this to be so either). But it is stated quite flatly: These views “have nothing in common with the views of our party, with Leninism,”

Here I must quote a few lines closely related to Leninism “The complete victory of the socialist revolution in one country alone is inconceivable and demands the most active cooperation of at least several advanced countries, which do not include Russia”.

It was not I who said this, but one greater than I. Lenin said this on November 8,1918. Not before the October Revolution, but on November 8, 1918, one year after we had seized power. If he had said nothing else but this, we could easily infer what we liked from it by tearing one sentence or the other out of context. [A voice: “He was speaking of the final victory!"] No, pardon me, he said: “demands the most active cooperation.” Here it is impossible to sidetrack from the main question to the question of “intervention,” for it is plainly stated that the victory of socialism demands — not merely protection against intervention — but the cooperation of “at least several advanced countries, which do not include Russia." [Voices: "And what follows from that?”] This is not the only passage in which we see (hat not merely intervention is meant. And thus the conclusion to be drawn is the fact that the standpoint which I have defended, to the effect that the internal contradictions arising out of the backwardness of our country must be solved by international revolution, is not my exclusive property, but that Lenin defended these same views, only incomparably more sharply and categorically.

We are told that this applied to the epoch in which the law of the uneven development of the capitalist countries is supposed to have been still unknown, that is, the epoch before imperialism. I cannot go thoroughly into this. But I must unfortunately place on record that Comrade Stalin commits a great theoretical and historical error here. The law of uneven development of capitalism is older than imperialism. Capitalism is developing very unevenly today in the various countries. But in the nineteenth century this unevenness was greater than in the twentieth. At that time England was lord of the world, while Japan on the other hand was a feudal state closely confined within its own limits. At the time when serfdom was abolished among us, Japan began to adapt itself to capitalist civilization. China was, however, still wrapped in the deepest slumber. And so forth. At that time the unevenness of capitalist development was greater than now. Those unevennesses were as well known to Marx and Engels as they are to us. Imperialism has developed a more “leveling tendency” than pre-imperialist capitalism, for the reason that finance capital is the most elastic form of capital. It is, however, indisputable that today, too, there are great unevennesses in development. But if it is maintained that in the nineteenth century, before imperialism, capitalism developed less unevenly, and the theory of the possibility of socialism in one country was therefore wrong at that time, while today, now that imperialism has increased the heterogeneity of development, the theory of socialism in one country has become correct, then this assertion contradicts all historical experience, and completely reverses fact. No, this will not do; other and more serious arguments must be sought.

Comrade Stalin has written [in Problems of Leninism (New York: International Publishers, 1934), p. 71] that those who deny the possibility of establishing socialism in one country must deny at the same time the justifiability of the October Revolution.

But in 1918 we heard from Lenin that the establishment of socialism requires the direct cooperation of at least several advanced countries, “which do not include Russia.” Yet Lenin did not deny the justifiability of the October Revolution. And he wrote as follows regarding this in 1918: “I know that there are, of course, wiseacres with a high opinion of themselves and even calling themselves socialists” — this was written against the adherents of Kautsky and Sukhanov — "who assert that power should not have been taken until the revolution broke out in all countries. They do not realize that in saying this they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the working classes carry out a revolution on an international scale means that everyone will remain frozen in a state of anticipation. This is senseless.” … — I am sorry, but it goes on as follows — “This is senseless. Everyone knows the difficulties of a revolution. … Final victory is only possible on a world scale, and only by the joint efforts of the workers of all countries”

Despite this, Lenin did not deny the “justifiability” of the October Revolution.

And further. In 1921 — not in 1914, but in 1921 — Lenin wrote: “Highly developed capitalist countries have a class of agricultural wage-workers that has taken shape over many decades. … Only in countries where this class is sufficiently developed is it possible to pass directly from capitalism to socialism. …” — here it is not a question of intervention but of the level of economic development and of the development of the class relations of the country — “We have stressed in a good many written works, in all our public utterances, and all our statements in the press, that this is not the case in Russia, for here industrial workers are a minority and small peasants are the vast majority. In such a country, the socialist revolution can triumph only on two conditions. First, if it is given timely support by a socialist revolution in one or several advanced countries. …

“The second condition is agreement between the proletariat, which is exercising its dictatorship, that is, holds state power, and the majority of the peasant population. …

“We know that so long as there is no revolution in other countries, only agreement with the peasantry can save the socialist revolution in Russia. And that is how it must be stated, frankly, at all meetings and in the entire press”.

Lenin did not state that the understanding with the peasantry sufficed, enabling us to build up socialism independent of the fate of the international proletariat. No, this understanding is only one of the conditions. The other condition is the support to be given the revolution by other countries. He combines these two conditions with each other, emphasizing their special necessity for us as we live in a backward country.

And finally, it is brought up against me that I have stated that “a real advance of socialist economics in Russia is possible only after the victory of the proletariat in the most important countries of Europe,” It is probable, comrades, that we have become inaccurate in the use of various terms. What do we mean by “socialist economics” in the strict sense of the term? We have great successes to record, and are naturally proud of these. I have endeavored to describe them in my booklet Toward Socialism or Capitalism? for the benefit of foreign comrades. But we must make a sober survey of the extent of these successes. Comrade Rykov’s theses state that we are approaching the prewar level. But this is not quite accurate. Is our population the same as before the war? No, it is larger. And the average per capita consumption of industrial goods is considerably less than in 1913. The Supreme Council of the National Economy calculates that in this respect we shall not regain the prewar level until 1930, And then, what was the level of 1913? It was the level of misery, of backwardness, of barbarism. If we speak of socialist economics, and of a real advance in socialist economics, we mean: no antagonism between town and country, general content, prosperity, culture. This is what we mean by the real advance of socialist economics. And we are still far indeed from this goal. We have destitute children, we have unemployed, from the villages there come three million superfluous workers every year, half a million of whom seek work in the cities, where the industries cannot absorb more than 100,000 yearly. We have a right to be proud of what we have achieved, but we must not distort the historical perspective. What we have accomplished is not yet a real advance of socialist economics, but only the first serious steps on that long bridge leading from capitalism to socialism. Is this the same thing? By no means. The passage quoted against me stated the truth.

In 1922 Lenin wrote: “But we have not finished building even the foundations of socialist economy and the hostile powers of moribund capitalism can still deprive us of that. We must clearly appreciate this and frankly admit it; for there is nothing more dangerous than illusions (and vertigo, particularly at high altitudes). And there is absolutely nothing terrible, nothing that should give legitimate grounds for the slightest despondency, in admitting this bitter truth; for we have always urged and reiterated the elementary truth of Marxism — that the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism”.

The question here is therefore not of intervention, but of the joint efforts of several advanced countries for the establishment of socialism. Or was this written by Lenin before the epoch of imperialism, before the law of unequal development was known? No, he wrote this in 1922.

There is, however, another passage, in the article on cooperatives, one single passage, which is set up against everything else that Lenin wrote, or rather the attempt is made so to oppose it. [A voice: “Accidentally!”] Not by any means accidentally. I am in full agreement with the sentence. It must be understood properly. The passage is as follows: “Indeed, the power of the state over all large-scale means of production, political power in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of this proletariat with file many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured proletarian leadership of the peasantry, etc. — is that not all that is necessary to build a complete socialist society out of cooperatives, out of cooperatives alone, which we formerly ridiculed as huckstering and which from a certain aspect we have the right to treat as such now, under NEP? Is this not all that is necessary to build a complete socialist society? It is still not the building of socialist society, but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for it”.

[A voice: “You read much too quickly.” Laughter.] Then you must give me a few minutes more, comrades. [Laughter. A voice: “Right!”] Right? I am agreed. [A voice: "That is just what we want!]

What is the question here? What elements are here enumerated? In the first place, the possession of the means of production; in the second, the power of the proletariat; thirdly, the bond between the proletariat and the peasantry; fourthly, the proletarian leadership of the peasantry; and fifthly, the cooperatives. I ask you: does any one of you believe that socialism can be established in one single isolated country? Could perchance the proletariat in Bulgaria alone, if it had the peasantry behind it, seize power, build up the cooperatives and establish socialism? No, that would be impossible. Consequently further elements are required in addition to the above: the geographical situation, natural wealth, technology, culture. Lenin enumerates here the conditions of state power, property relations, and the organizational forms of the cooperatives. Nothing more. And he says that we, in order to establish socialism, need not proletarianize the peasantry, nor do we need any fresh revolutions, but that we are able, with power in our hands, in alliance with the peasantry, and with the aid of the cooperatives, to carry our task to completion through the agency of these state and social forms and methods.

But, comrades, we know another definition which Lenin gave of socialism. According to this definition, socialism is equal to Soviet power plus electrification. Is electrification canceled in the passage just quoted? No, it is not canceled. Everything which Lenin otherwise said about the establishment of socialism — and I have cited clear formulations above — is supplemented by this quotation, but not canceled. For electrification is not something to be carried out in a vacuum, but under certain conditions, under the conditions imposed by the world market and the world economy, which are very tangible facts. The world economy is not a mere theoretical generalization, but a definite and powerful reality, whose laws encompass us; a fact of which every year of our development convinces us.

Before dealing with this in detail, I should like to remind you of the following: Some of our comrades, before they created an entirely new theory, and in my opinion an entirely wrong one, based on a one-sided interpretation of Lenin’s article on the cooperatives, held quite a different standpoint. In 1924 Comrade Stalin did not say the same as he does today. This was pointed out at the Fourteenth Party Congress, but the passage quoted did not disappear on that account, but remains fully even in 1926.

Let us read: “Can this task be fulfilled, can the final victory of socialism be attained in a single country without the joint efforts of the proletariat in several advanced countries? No, it cannot. In order to overthrow the bourgeoisie, the efforts of a single country are sufficient; this is proved by the history of our revolution. For the final victory of socialism, for the organization of socialist production, the efforts of a single country, and particularly of such a peasant country as Russia, are inadequate; for that, the efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries are required" [from the first edition of Foundations of Leninism, quoted by Stalin in Problems of Leninism, p. 61; emphasis added by Trotsky].

This was written by Stalin in 1924, but the resolution quotes me only up to 1922. [Laughter.] Yes, this is what was said in 1924: For the organization of socialist production — not for protection against intervention, not as a guarantee against the restoration of the capitalist order, no, no — but for “the organization of socialist production,” the efforts of one single country, especially such an agrarian country as Russia, do not suffice. Comrade Stalin has given up this standpoint. He has of course a right to do so.

In his book, Problems of Leninism, he says:

“What is the defect in this formulation?

“The defect is that it links up two different questions. First there is the question of the possibility of completely constructing socialism by the efforts of a single country, which must be answered in the affirmative. Then there is the question: can a country, in which the dictatorship of the proletariat has been established, consider itself fully guaranteed against foreign intervention, and consequently against the restoration of the old order, without the victory of the revolution in a number of other countries, a question which must be answered in the negative” [Problems of Leninism, p. 62].

But if you will allow me to say so, we do not find these two questions confused with one another in the first passage quoted, dating from 1924. Here it is not a question of intervention, but solely of the impossibility of the complete organization of completely socialized production by the unaided efforts of such a peasant country as Russia.

And truly, comrades, can the whole question be reduced to one of intervention? Can we simply imagine that we are establishing socialism here in this house, while the enemies outside in the street are throwing stones through the window panes? The matter is not so simple. Intervention is war, and war is a continuation of politics, but with other weapons. But politics are applied economics. Hence the whole question is one of the economic relations between the Soviet Union and the capitalist countries. These relations are not exhausted in that one form known as intervention. They possess a much more continuous and profound character. Comrade Bukharin has stated in so many words that the sole danger of intervention consists of the fact that in the event that no intervention comes, “we can work toward socialism even on this wretched technical basis;” — we can work toward it, that is true — “this growth of socialism will be much slower, and we shall move forward at a snail’s pace; but all the same we shall work toward socialism, and we shall realize it” [at the Fourteenth Party Congress].

That we are working toward socialism is true. That we shall realize it hand in hand with the world proletariat is incontestable. [Laughter.] In my opinion it is out of place at a Communist conference to laugh when the realization of socialism hand in hand with the international proletariat is spoken of. [Laughter. Voices: "No demagogy!” “You cannot catch us with that!”] But I tell you that we shall never realize socialism at a snail’s pace, for the world’s markets keep too sharp a control over us. [A voice: "You are quite alarmed!"] How does Comrade Bukharin imagine this realization? In his last article in Bolshevik, which I must say is the most scholastic work which has ever issued from Bukharin’s pen [Laughter.], he says: “The question is whether we can work toward socialism, and establish it, if we abstract this from the international factors” [“On the Nature of Our Revolution and the Possibility of Successful Socialist Construction in the USSR,” Bolshevik, no. 19-20, 1926],

Just listen to this: “Whether we can work toward socialism, and establish it, if we abstract this question from the international factors.” If we accomplish this “abstraction,” then of course the rest is easy. But we cannot. That is the whole point. [Laughter.]

It is possible to walk naked in the streets of Moscow in January, if we can abstract ourselves from the weather and the police. [Laughter.] But I am afraid that this abstraction would fail, both with respect to weather and to police, were we to make the attempt. [Laughter.]

“We repeat once more: it is a question of internal forces and not of the dangers connected with the outside world. It is therefore a question of the character of the revolution” [Bukharin, in Bolshevik, no. 19-20, p. 54].

The character of our revolution, independent of international relations! Since when has this self-sufficing character of our revolution existed? I maintain that our revolution, as we know it, would not exist at all but for two international prerequisites: firstly, the factor of finance capital, which, in its greed, has fertilized our economic development; and secondly, Marxism, the theoretical quintessence of the international labor movement, which has fertilized our proletarian struggle. This means that the revolution was being prepared, before 1917, at those crossroads where the great forces of the world encounter one another. Out of this clash of forces arose the Great War, and out of this the October Revolution. And now we are told to abstract ourselves from the international situation and to construct our socialism at home for ourselves. That is a metaphysical method of thought. There is no possibility of abstraction from the world economy.

What is export? A domestic or an international affair? The goods to be exported must be produced at home, thus it is a domestic matter. But they must be exported abroad, hence it is an international transaction. And what is import? Import is international! The goods have to be purchased abroad. But they have to be brought into the country, so it is a domestic matter after all. [Laughter.] This example of import and export alone suffices to cause the collapse of Comrade Bukharin’s whole theory, which proposes an “abstraction” from the international situation. The success of socialist construction depends on the speed of economic development, and this speed is now being determined directly and more sharply than ever by the imports of raw materials and machinery. To be sure, we can “abstract ourselves” from our shortage of foreign currency, and order more cotton and machines. But we can only do that once. A second time we shall not be able to accomplish this abstraction. [Laughter.] The whole of our constructive work is determined by international conditions.

If I am asked whether our state is proletarian, I can only reply that the question is out of place. If you do not wish to form your judgment on two or three words picked at random from an uncorrected stenographic report, but on what I have said and written in dozens of speeches and articles — and this is the only way in which we should form a judgment on one another’s views — if we do not wish to trip one another up with an uncorrected sentence, but seek to understand one another’s real opinions, then you must admit without hesitation that I join with you in regarding our state as a proletarian state. I have already replied by several quotations to the question of whether this state is building socialism. If you ask whether there are in this country sufficient forces and means to carry out completely the establishment of socialism within thirty or fifty years, quite independent of what is going on in the world outside, then I must answer that the question is put in an entirely wrong form. We have at our disposal adequate forces for the furtherance of the work of socialization, and thereby also to aid the international revolutionary proletariat, which has no less prospect of gaining power in ten, twenty, or thirty years than we have of establishing socialism; in no way less prospect, but much greater prospect.

I ask you, comrades — and this is the axis upon which the whole question turns — what will be going on in Europe while we are working at our socialization? You reply: We shall establish socialism in our country, independent of what is going on all over the world. Good.

How much time shall we require for the establishment of socialism? Lenin was of the opinion that we shall not have established socialism in twenty years, since our agrarian country is so backward. And in thirty years we shall not have established it either. Let us take thirty to fifty years as a minimum. What will be happening in Europe during all this time? I cannot make a prognosis for our country without including a prognosis for Europe. There may be some variations. If you say that the European proletariat will certainly have come to power within the next thirty to fifty years, then there is no longer any question in the matter. For if the European proletariat captures power in the next ten, twenty, or thirty years, then the position of socialism is secured, both in our country and internationally. But you are probably of the opinion that we must assume a future in which the European proletariat does not come to power. Otherwise why your whole prognosis? Therefore, I ask what you suppose will be happening in Europe in this time? From the purely theoretical standpoint, three variations are possible. Europe will either vacillate around about the prewar level, as at present, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie balancing to and fro and just maintaining an equilibrium. We must however designate this “equilibrium” as unstable, for it is extremely so. This situation cannot last for twenty, thirty, or forty years. It must be decided one way or the other.

Do you believe that capitalism will find a renewed dynamic equilibrium? Do you believe that capitalism can secure a fresh period of ascendancy, a new and extended reproduction of that process which took place before the imperialist war? If you believe that this is possible (I myself do not believe that capitalism has any such prospect before it), if you permit it even theoretically for one moment, this would mean that capitalism has not yet fulfilled its historic mission in Europe and the rest of the world, and that present-day capitalism is not an imperialist and decaying capitalism, but a capitalism still on the upgrade, creating economic and cultural progress. And this would mean that we have appeared too early on the scene.

Chairman: Comrade Trotsky has more than exceeded the time allotted him. He has been speaking for more than one and a half hours. He asks for a further five minutes. I shall take your vote. Who is in favor? Who is against? Does anybody demand that a fresh vote be taken?

Comrade Trotsky: I ask for a fresh vote.

Chairman: Who is in favor of Comrade Trotsky’s being given five minutes more? Who is against? The majority is against.

Comrade Trotsky: I wished to utilize these five minutes for a brief summary of conclusions.

Chairman: I shall take the vote again. Who is in favor of Comrade Trotsky’s time being extended by five minutes? Those in favor hold up their delegate’s tickets. Who is against? The majority is in favor. It is better to extend the time than to count votes for five minutes. Comrade Trotsky will continue.

Comrade Trotsky. If it is assumed that during the next thirty to fifty years which we require for the establishment of socialism, European capitalism will be developing upward, then we must come to the conclusion that we shall certainly be strangled or crushed, for ascending capitalism will certainly possess, besides everything else, correspondingly improved military technology. We are, moreover, aware that a capitalism with a rapidly rising prosperity is well able to draw the masses into war, aided by the labor aristocracy which it is able to create. These gloomy prospects are, in my opinion, impossible of fulfillment; the international economic situation offers no basis. In any case we have no need to base the future of socialism in our country on this supposition.

There remains the second possibility of a declining and decaying capitalism. And this is precisely the basis upon which the European proletariat is learning, slowly but surely, the art of making revolution.

Is it possible to imagine that European capitalism will continue a process of decay for thirty to fifty years, and the proletariat will meanwhile remain incapable of accomplishing revolution? I ask why I should accept this assumption, which can only be designated as the assumption of an unfounded and most profound pessimism with respect to the European proletariat, and at the same time of an uncritical optimism with respect to the establishment of socialism by the unaided forces of our country? In what way can it be the theoretical or political duty of a Communist to accept the premise that the European proletariat will not have seized power within the next forty to fifty years? (Should it seize power, then the point of dispute vanishes.) I maintain that I see no theoretical or political reason why it is easier to believe that we shall build socialism with the cooperation of the peasantry than that the proletariat of Europe will seize power.

No. The European proletariat has the greater chances. And if this is the case, then I ask you: Why are these two elements opposed to one another, instead of being combined like the “two conditions” of Lenin? Why is the theoretical recognition of the establishment of socialism in one country demanded? What gave rise to this standpoint? Why was this question never brought forward by anyone before 1925? [A voice: “It was!”] That is not the case, it was never brought forward. Even Comrade Stalin wrote in 1924 that the efforts of an agrarian country were insufficient for the establishment of socialism. I am today still firm in my belief that the victory of socialism in our country is only possible in conjunction with the victorious revolution of the European proletariat. This does not mean that we are not working toward the socialist state of society, or that we should not continue this work with all possible energy. Just as the German worker is preparing to seize power, we are preparing the socialism of the future, and every success which we can record facilitates the struggle of the German proletariat, just as its struggle facilitates our socialist progress. This is the sole true international view to be taken of our work for the realization of the socialist state of society.

In conclusion I repeat the words which I spoke at the plenum of the CC: If we did not believe that our state is a proletarian state, though with bureaucratic deformations, that is, a state which should be brought into much closer contact with the working class, despite many wrong bureaucratic opinions to the contrary; if we did not believe that our development is socialist; if we did not believe that our country possesses adequate means for the furtherance of socialist economics; if we were not convinced of our complete and final victory; then, it need not be said, our place would not be in the ranks of a Communist Party.

The Opposition can and must be assessed by these two criteria: it can have either one line or the other. Those who believe that our state is not a proletarian state, and that our development is not socialist, must lead the proletariat against such a state and must found another party.

But those who believe that our state is a proletarian state, but with bureaucratic deformations formed under the pressure of the petty-bourgeois elements and the capitalist encirclement; who believe that our development is socialist, but that our economic policy does not sufficiently secure the necessary redistribution of national income; these must use party methods and party means to combat that which they hold to be wrong, mistaken, or dangerous, but must share at the same time the full responsibility for the whole policy of the party and of the workers’ state. [The chairman rings.] I am almost finished. A minute and a half more.

It is incontestable that the inner-party disputes have been characterized of late by extreme sharpness of form, and by a factional attitude. It is incontestable that this factional aggravation of the dispute on the part of the Opposition — no matter by what premises it was called forth — could be taken, and has been taken by a wide section of the party members, to mean that the differences had reached a point rendering joint work impossible, that is, that they could lead to a split. This means an obvious discrepancy between the means and the aims, that is, between those aims for which the Opposition has been anxious to fight, and the means which it has employed for one reason or another. It is for that reason we have recognized these means — the faction — as being faulty, and not for any reason arising out of momentary considerations. [A voice: “Your forces were inadequate; you have been defeated!”] We recognize this in consideration of the whole inner-party situation. The aim and object of the declaration of October 16 was to defend the views which we hold, but to do this under the observance of the confines set by our joint work and our joint responsibility for the whole policy of the party.

Comrades, what is the objective danger involved in the resolution on the Social Democratic deviation? The danger lies in the fact that it attributes to us views which would necessarily lead, not merely to a factional policy, but to a policy of two parties.

This resolution has the objective tendency of transforming both the declaration of October 16 and the communique of the CC into fragments of paper that … [A voice: “Is that a threat?”] No, comrades, that is no threat. It is my last thought to utter any threat. [A voice: “Why raise that again?"] You will hear in a moment. Only a few words more.

In our opinion the acceptance of this resolution will be detrimental, but insofar as I can judge of the attitude of the so-called Opposition, especially of the leading comrades, the acceptance of this resolution will not cause us to depart from the line of the declaration of October 16. We do not accept the views forced upon us. We have no intention of artificially enlarging the differences, or of aggravating them and of thus preparing for a relapse into the factional struggle. On the contrary, each one of us, without seeking to minimize the existing differences, will exert every effort to keep these differences within the confines of our continued work and our joint responsibility for the policy of the party.