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

page 258

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?

page 259

    Is not the ignominy that the opposition called down upon its own head on the Tenth Anniversary of Qctober, 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

page 260

Congress. It then had the support of the entire Leningrad delegation.

    But now? Now the opposition is more isolated than ever before. It is doubtful now whether it will have even one delegate at the Fifteenth Congress. (Prolonged applause.)

    The failure of the opposition is due to its being completely divorced from the Party, from the working class, from the revolution. The opposition has turned out to be a handful of intellectuals divorced from life, divorced from the revolution. Therein lies the root of the opposition's ignominious failure.

    Let us, by way of a test, take two or three of the questions which separate the opposition from the Party.

    The question of the relations between the working class and the peasantry.

    The question of the Party.

    Lenin says that the unity and iron discipline of the Party are the basis of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The opposition in actual fact holds the opposite view. It thinks that for the proletarian dictatorship we need not the unity and iron discipline of the Party, but the destruction of the Party's unity and discipline, the splitting of the Party and the formation of a second party. True, the opposition talks and writes, writes and talks, and not so much talks as howls about Party unity. But the opposition's talk about Party unity is hypocritical chatter calculated to deceive the Party. (Applause.)

    For, while talking and shouting about unity, the opposition is building a new, anti-Leninist party. And it is not only engaged in building it, it has already built it, as is shown by authentic documents, such as the speeches of Kuzovnikov, Zof and Reno, former oppositionists.

    We are now in possession of exhaustive documentary evidence that for over a year already the opposition has had its own anti-Leninist party, with its Central Committee, regional bureaux, gubernia bureaux, and so forth. What can the opposition oppose to these facts except hypocritical chatter about unity?

    The opposition is shouting that the Central Committee of the Party will not succeed in pushing it into the position of a second party. Strange! Has the Cen-

page 267

tral Committee ever tried to push the opposition into such a position? Is it not a fact that the Central Committee has all along been restraining the opposition from slipping into the line of organising a second party?

    The entire history of our disagreements during the past two years is a history of the efforts of the Central Committee of our Party to restrain the opposition from taking steps towards a split and to keep the opposition people within the Party.

    Take the case of the opposition's well-known "declaration " of October 16, 1926. Was that not an attempt of the Central Committee to keep the opposition within the ranks of the Party?

    Take the opposition's second "declaration" of August 8, 1927. What does that show if not that the Central Committee of the Party has been anxious all along to keep the opposition within the ranks of a single party?

    But what happened? The opposition made declarations about unity, made promises to maintain unity, gave assurances that it would abandon factionalism; but actually it continued to build a second party.

    What does all that show? It shows that we cannot take the opposition at its word; that the opposition must be tested not by its "platforms" and counter-theses, but by its deeds.

    Lenin said: learn to test groups, trends and parties not by their promises and "platforms," but by their deeds. We regard it as our duty to follow in Lenin's footsteps and to test the opposition not by the papers and "platforms" it concocts, but by its deeds.

page 268

    When the opposition writes "platforms" and counter-theses and raises a howl about Party unity, it is deceiving the Party, it is hypocrisy, mere words. But when the opposition builds a new party, sets up its own central committee, organises regional bureaux, and so forth, thereby disrupting the unity and proletarian discipline of our Party, those are the opposition's deeds, its nefarious deeds.

    That does not mean, of course, that the opposition has already succeeded in creating anything like a real party. No. It has not succeeded in that, and it never will. It will not succeed, because the working class is against the opposition. In trying to create a new party, a second party, the opposition is in reality engaged in a childish game, playing at being a party, a central committee, regional bureaux, and so forth. Routed and disgraced, they find consolation in amusing themselves by playing at being a party, a central committee, regional bureaux, and so forth. (Laughter. Applause.)

    But, comrades, there are games and games. When the opposition plays at being a party it can only arouse laughter, because, for the Party, that playing is nothing more than an amusing fancy.

    We have, however, not only the Party to consider. We still have classes, we still have anti-Soviet elements in our country. And those anti-Soviet elements are watching the opposition's game, learning from it how to fight the Party, how to fight the Soviet regime, how to fight our revolution. For those elements, the opposition's game of being a party, the opposition's thrusts at the Party, the opposition's anti-Soviet sorties, serve as a sort of school, a sort of preparatory school for

page 269

learning how to fight the Soviet regime, how to unleash the forces of counter-revolution.

    It is not surprising that all sorts of anti-Soviet elements flock around the opposition. Herein lies the danger of the opposition's game of being a party. And precisely because a grave danger lurks here, the Party can not look on indifferently at the opposition's anti-Soviet exercises; precisely for this reason it must put a stop to them altogether.

    As for the working class, it cannot fail to see how dangerous is the anti-Party game the opposition is playing. For the opposition, the Party is a chess-board. In fighting the Party, it makes various chess moves. One day it submits a declaration promising to end factionalism. Next day it repudiates its own declaration. A day later it submits a new declaration, only to repudiate its own declaration again a few days after. These are chess moves for the opposition. They are players and nothing more.

    But that is not the way the working class looks upon its Party. For the working class the Party is not a chess-board, but the instrument of its emancipation. For the working class the Party is not a chess-board, but a vital means of overcoming its enemies, of organising new victories, of achieving the final victory of socialism. Hence the working class can only despise those who turn its Party, its holy of holies, into a chess-board for the dishonest games of the oppositionist players. For the working class cannot but know that the opposition's efforts to disrupt our Party's iron discipline, its efforts to split our Party, are, in essence, efforts to disrupt the dictatorship of the proletariat in our country.

page 270

    The opposition's "platform" is a platform for wrecking our Party, a platform for disarming the working class, a platform for unleashing the anti-Soviet forces, a platform for disrupting the dictatorship of the proletariat .

    Let us pass to the third question, the question of the prospects of our revolution.

    The characteristic feature of the whole line of the opposition is disbelief in the strength of our revolution, disbelief in the proletariat's strength and capacity to lead the peasantry, disbelief in the strength and capacity of the working class to build socialism.

    I have already quoted the passage from Smirnov's speech about the inevitable "doom" of our revolution if we do not establish discord with the middle peasantry. This is not the first time that we have heard the songs of the opposition about the "doom" of the revolution. This is not the first time that in the opposition's declarations we have encountered continual whining and consternation in face of difficulties, predictions of the twilight and collapse of our revolution. From the time that the opposition's factional policy began to suffer defeat after defeat the opposition has not ceased shouting about the "doom" of our revolution, making out the doom of its own group to be the "doom" of the revolution. The opposition has only to find itself in the minority, to get a drubbing from the Party, for it to rush into the street and start shouting about the "doom" of the revo-

page 271

lution and to utilise all possible difficulties against the Party.

    As early as in the period of the Brest Peace, in 1918, when the revolution was experiencing certain difficulties, Trotsky, after being defeated by the Party at the Seventh Congress, began to shout about the "doom" of our revolution. But the revolution did not perish, and Trotsky's prophecies remained empty prophecies.

    In 1921, in the period of the trade-union discussion, when we were faced with new difficulties arising from the abolition of the surplus appropriation system, and Trotsky suffered another defeat, at the Tenth Party Congress, he again began to shout about the "doom" of the revolution. I well remember Trotsky asserting at a meeting of the Political Bureau, in Lenin's presence, that the Soviet regime had "sung its swan-song," that its days and hours were numbered. (Laughter.) But the revolution did not perish, the difficulties were overcome, and the hysterical fuss about the "doom" of the revolution remained mere fuss.

    I don't know whether the days and hours were numbered at that time or not; but if they were, all I can say is, they were numbered incorrectly. (Applause, laughter.)

    In 1923, in a period of new difficulties, this time arising out of NEP, in the period of the market crisis, Trotsky again began a swan-song about the "doom" of the revolution, making out the defeat of his own group at the Thirteenth Conference of our Party to be the defeat of the revolution. The revolution, however, ignored this swan-song and overcame the difficulties facing it at that time.

page 272

    In 1925-26, in a period of new difficulties arising from the progress of our industry, Trotsky, this time in chorus with Kamenev and Zinoviev, again began a swan-song about the "doom" of the revolution, making out the defeat of his own group at the Fourteenth Congress and after the Fourteenth Congress to be the defeat of the revolution. The revolution, however, had no intention of dying, the self-styled prophets were pushed into the background and the difficulties were overcome, as always, as in the past, for Bolsheviks look upon difficulties not as something to wail and whine over, but as something to overcome. (Loud applause.)

    Now, at the end of 1927, owing to the new difficulties in the period of the reconstruction of our whole economy on a new technical basis, they have again begun a swan-song about the "doom" of the revolution, trying, in this way, to cover up the actual doom of their own group. But, comrades, you all see that the revolution is alive and thriving, while it is others who are perishing.

    And so they sang and sang their swan-song until at last they found themselves in a hopeless position. (Laughter.)

    The opposition's "platform" is a platform for the "doom" of our revolution.

    Such is the opposition 's actual platform on the three principal questions on which we disagree: the question of the working class and the peasantry, the question of the Party and the dictatorship of the proletariat,

page 273

and finally, the question of the prospects of our revolution.

    You see that this queer platform testifies to the opposition's complete divorce from the Party, from the working class, from our revolution. It is the platform of intellectuals who have broken with Leninism and are divorced from life.

    Is it surprising, after all this, that the Party and the working class have completely turned away from the opposition?

    That is why the opposition suffered ignominious defeat in its struggle against the Party during the last discussion.

    What next? -- we are asked.