przemowoAnalizator/trockizm/The_Party_and_the_Opposition.txt

J. V. StalinSource : Works, Vol. 10, 
August - December, 1927
Publisher : Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 
1954
Transcription/Markup : Salil Sen for MIA, 2009
Public Domain : Marxists Internet Archive (2009). You 
may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative 
and commercial works. Please credit "Marxists Internet Archive" as your source.Comrades, permit me briefly to sum up the struggle between the Party and the opposition, to sum up the discussion that has developed during the past three or four weeks within the Party and—it must be frankly stated—outside it.The following statistical results are available: up to the present, something over 572,000 comrades have declared for the Party, for its Central Committee; for the opposition—something over 3,000.The opposition is usually fond of flaunting figures, percentages, claiming that it has the support of 99 per cent, and so forth. Everybody sees now that over 99 per cent have declared against the opposition and for the Central Committee of the Party.Who is to "blame" for that? The opposition itself! Every now and again the opposition has tried to push us into a discussion. For two years a]ready, hardly a day passed without it making a new demand for a discussion. We resisted that pressure; we members of the Central Committee resisted that pressure, knowing that our Party is not a debating society, as Lenin quite rightly said, knowing that our Party is the militant party of the proletariat, surrounded by enemies, engaged in building socialism, faced with an enormous number of practical tasks of creative activity and, therefore, unable to concentrate all its attention ever so often on the disagreements within the Party.But time moved on towards a discussion, and a month, more than a month, before the Fifteenth Congress, the Party, in conformity with the Party Rules, said: Very well, you want a discussion, you want a fight—let's have it, then! And here is the result: over 99 per cent for the Party, for its Central Committee; less than one per cent for the opposition.The opposition's bluff has been called 100 per cent, so to speak.It may be said that this result is not decisive. It may be said that besides the Party there is also the working class and the masses of the labouring peasantry. It may be said that here, in this sphere, the results have not yet been summed up. That is not true, comrades! The results have been summed up in this sphere too.What were the November Seventh demonstrations in all the cities and villages throughout our vast country? Were they not all a tremendous demonstration of the working class, of the labouring sections of the peasantry, of the Red Army and the Red Navy, for our Party, for the government, and against the opposition, against Trotskyism?Is not the ignominy that the opposition called down upon its own head on the Tenth Anniversary of October, is not the unanimity with which the millions of working people greeted the Party and the government on that day, proof that not only the Party, but also the working class, not only the working class, but also the labouring sections of the peasantry, not only the labouring sections of the peasantry, but also the entire Army and the entire Navy, stand like a rock for the Party, for the government and against the opposition, against the disorganisers? (Prolonged applause.)What more results do you need?There you have, comrades, a brief summing up of the struggle between the Party and the opposition, between the Bolsheviks and the opposition, the struggle that developed within the Party and later, through the opposition's own fault, went beyond the borders of the Party.How is this ignominious defeat of the opposition to be explained? It is a fact that no other opposition in the history of our Party since the Bolsheviks took power has ever suffered such an ignominious defeat.We know about the opposition of the Trotskyists in the period of the Brest Peace. At that time it had the support of about a quarter of the Party.We know about the opposition of the Trotskyists in 1921, during the trade-union discussion. At that time it had the support of about one-eighth of the Party.We know about the so-called "New Opposition," the Zinoviev-Kamenev opposition, at the Fourteenth Congress. It then had the support of the entire Leningrad delegation.But now? Now the op
The question of the relations between the working class and the peasantry.Lenin said that the question of the relations between the working class and the peasantry in our country is a fundamental question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the fundamental question of our revolution. He said :"Ten or twenty years of correct relations with the peasantry, and victory on a world scale is assured (even if the proletarian revolutions, which are growing, are delayed)." 2What are correct relations with the peasantry? By correct relations with the peasantry Lenin meant the establishment of a "stable alliance" with the middle peasants, while relying on the poor peasants.But what is the opposition's view on this question? It not only attaches no value to the alliance between the working class and the peasantry, it not only fails to appreciate the immense importance of such an alliance for the development of our revolution, but it goes "further" and proposes a policy that would inevitably lead to the break-up of the alliance between the working class and the peasantry, to the rupture of the bond between the working class and the peasantry.Not to go far for proof of this, I could refer to Pre-obrazhensky, the opposition's chief economist, who regards the peasantry as a "colony" for our industry, as an object to be exploited to the utmost.I could also refer to a number of the opposition's documents in favour of raising the prices of manufactured goods, which would inevitably cause our industry to wilt, would strengthen the kulaks, ruin the middle peasants and force the poor peasants into bondage to the kulaks.All these and similar opposition documents are part and parcel of the opposition's policy calculated to cause a rupture with the peasantry, a rupture with the masses of the middle peasantry.Is anything said plainly and openly about this in the opposition's "platform" or in its counter-theses? No. In the opposition's "platform" and counter-theses all this is carefully hidden and veiled. On the contrary, in the opposition's "platform" and counter-theses you can find scores of compliments addressed to the middle peasants and to the poor peasants. They also contain thrusts at the Party's alleged kulak deviation. But they say nothing, absolutely nothing, plainly and openly about the opposition's fatal line, which leads and is bound to lead to a rupture between the working class and the peasantry.But what the leaders of the opposition are hiding so carefully from the workers and peasants I shall now try to bring into the light of day and lay on the table in order to teach the opposition not to deceive the Party in future. I have in mind the speech recently delivered by Ivan Nikitich Smirnov at the Rogozhsko-Simonovsky District Party Conference. Smirnov, one of the leaders of the opposition, proved to be one of the few honest men among them who had the courage to tell the truth about the opposition's line. Do you want to know what the opposition's real "platform" is on the question of the relations between the proletariat and the peasantry? Read Smirnov's speech and study it, for it is one of those rare opposition documents which tell the whole truth about the stand actually taken by our oppositionists.Here is what Smirnov said in his speech:"We say that our state budget must be revised in such a way that the greater part of this five thousand million budget should flow into industry, for it would be better for us to put up with discord with the middle peasants than to invite certain doom."That is the fundamental thing of all that the leaders of the opposition have been concealing in their "platform" and counter-theses, and what Smirnov, also a leader of the opposition, conscientiously dragged into the light of day.Hence, not a stable alliance with the middle peasants, but discord with the middle peasants—that, it appears, is the means of "saving" the revolution.Lenin said that "the supreme principle of the dictatorship is the maintenance of the alliance of the proletariat and the peasantry in order that the proletariat may reta
Volume 10 Index
Works by Decade |
J. V. Stalin Archive
Marxists Internet Archive
asdas 2020-01-06 14:46:37 +01:00			`J. V. StalinSource : Works, Vol. 10,`
			`August - December, 1927`
			`Publisher : Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow,`
			`1954`
			`Transcription/Markup : Salil Sen for MIA, 2009`
			`Public Domain : Marxists Internet Archive (2009). You`
			`may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative`
			and commercial works. Please credit "Marxists Internet Archive" as your source.Comrades, permit me briefly to sum up the struggle between the Party and the opposition, to sum up the discussion that has developed during the past three or four weeks within the Party and—it must be frankly stated—outside it.The following statistical results are available: up to the present, something over 572,000 comrades have declared for the Party, for its Central Committee; for the opposition—something over 3,000.The opposition is usually fond of flaunting figures, percentages, claiming that it has the support of 99 per cent, and so forth. Everybody sees now that over 99 per cent have declared against the opposition and for the Central Committee of the Party.Who is to "blame" for that? The opposition itself! Every now and again the opposition has tried to push us into a discussion. For two years a]ready, hardly a day passed without it making a new demand for a discussion. We resisted that pressure; we members of the Central Committee resisted that pressure, knowing that our Party is not a debating society, as Lenin quite rightly said, knowing that our Party is the militant party of the proletariat, surrounded by enemies, engaged in building socialism, faced with an enormous number of practical tasks of creative activity and, therefore, unable to concentrate all its attention ever so often on the disagreements within the Party.But time moved on towards a discussion, and a month, more than a month, before the Fifteenth Congress, the Party, in conformity with the Party Rules, said: Very well, you want a discussion, you want a fight—let's have it, then! And here is the result: over 99 per cent for the Party, for its Central Committee; less than one per cent for the opposition.The opposition's bluff has been called 100 per cent, so to speak.It may be said that this result is not decisive. It may be said that besides the Party there is also the working class and the masses of the labouring peasantry. It may be said that here, in this sphere, the results have not yet been summed up. That is not true, comrades! The results have been summed up in this sphere too.What were the November Seventh demonstrations in all the cities and villages throughout our vast country? Were they not all a tremendous demonstration of the working class, of the labouring sections of the peasantry, of the Red Army and the Red Navy, for our Party, for the government, and against the opposition, against Trotskyism?Is not the ignominy that the opposition called down upon its own head on the Tenth Anniversary of October, is not the unanimity with which the millions of working people greeted the Party and the government on that day, proof that not only the Party, but also the working class, not only the working class, but also the labouring sections of the peasantry, not only the labouring sections of the peasantry, but also the entire Army and the entire Navy, stand like a rock for the Party, for the government and against the opposition, against the disorganisers? (Prolonged applause.)What more results do you need?There you have, comrades, a brief summing up of the struggle between the Party and the opposition, between the Bolsheviks and the opposition, the struggle that developed within the Party and later, through the opposition's own fault, went beyond the borders of the Party.How is this ignominious defeat of the opposition to be explained? It is a fact that no other opposition in the history of our Party since the Bolsheviks took power has ever suffered such an ignominious defeat.We know about the opposition of the Trotskyists in the period of the Brest Peace. At that time it had the support of about a quarter of the Party.We know about the opposition of the Trotskyists in 1921, during the trade-union discussion. At that time it had the support of about one-eighth of the Party.We know about the so-called "New Opposition," the Zinoviev-Kamenev opposition, at the Fourteenth Congress. It then had the support of the entire Leningrad delegation.But now? Now the op
			The question of the relations between the working class and the peasantry.Lenin said that the question of the relations between the working class and the peasantry in our country is a fundamental question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the fundamental question of our revolution. He said :"Ten or twenty years of correct relations with the peasantry, and victory on a world scale is assured (even if the proletarian revolutions, which are growing, are delayed)." 2What are correct relations with the peasantry? By correct relations with the peasantry Lenin meant the establishment of a "stable alliance" with the middle peasants, while relying on the poor peasants.But what is the opposition's view on this question? It not only attaches no value to the alliance between the working class and the peasantry, it not only fails to appreciate the immense importance of such an alliance for the development of our revolution, but it goes "further" and proposes a policy that would inevitably lead to the break-up of the alliance between the working class and the peasantry, to the rupture of the bond between the working class and the peasantry.Not to go far for proof of this, I could refer to Pre-obrazhensky, the opposition's chief economist, who regards the peasantry as a "colony" for our industry, as an object to be exploited to the utmost.I could also refer to a number of the opposition's documents in favour of raising the prices of manufactured goods, which would inevitably cause our industry to wilt, would strengthen the kulaks, ruin the middle peasants and force the poor peasants into bondage to the kulaks.All these and similar opposition documents are part and parcel of the opposition's policy calculated to cause a rupture with the peasantry, a rupture with the masses of the middle peasantry.Is anything said plainly and openly about this in the opposition's "platform" or in its counter-theses? No. In the opposition's "platform" and counter-theses all this is carefully hidden and veiled. On the contrary, in the opposition's "platform" and counter-theses you can find scores of compliments addressed to the middle peasants and to the poor peasants. They also contain thrusts at the Party's alleged kulak deviation. But they say nothing, absolutely nothing, plainly and openly about the opposition's fatal line, which leads and is bound to lead to a rupture between the working class and the peasantry.But what the leaders of the opposition are hiding so carefully from the workers and peasants I shall now try to bring into the light of day and lay on the table in order to teach the opposition not to deceive the Party in future. I have in mind the speech recently delivered by Ivan Nikitich Smirnov at the Rogozhsko-Simonovsky District Party Conference. Smirnov, one of the leaders of the opposition, proved to be one of the few honest men among them who had the courage to tell the truth about the opposition's line. Do you want to know what the opposition's real "platform" is on the question of the relations between the proletariat and the peasantry? Read Smirnov's speech and study it, for it is one of those rare opposition documents which tell the whole truth about the stand actually taken by our oppositionists.Here is what Smirnov said in his speech:"We say that our state budget must be revised in such a way that the greater part of this five thousand million budget should flow into industry, for it would be better for us to put up with discord with the middle peasants than to invite certain doom."That is the fundamental thing of all that the leaders of the opposition have been concealing in their "platform" and counter-theses, and what Smirnov, also a leader of the opposition, conscientiously dragged into the light of day.Hence, not a stable alliance with the middle peasants, but discord with the middle peasants—that, it appears, is the means of "saving" the revolution.Lenin said that "the supreme principle of the dictatorship is the maintenance of the alliance of the proletariat and the peasantry in order that the proletariat may reta
			`Volume 10 Index`
			`Works by Decade \|`
			`J. V. Stalin Archive`
			`Marxists Internet Archive`