PDF-Version: 6th ECCI – Meeting of the Italian Delegation with Stalin, 22 February 1926

In the minutes some words are marked in square brackets which, in the original text ruined by time and humidity, were not clearly legible.

Present: Stalin, Bordiga, Emilia (Ligabue, Bice), Berti, Viola (Flecchia), Perotti, Bracco (Grieco), Cecco, Gennari, Anselmi (Azzario), Primo, Molino, Ambrogi, Kobilanskij, Ercoli (Togliatti). Ercoli, Anselmi secretary presides.

Ercoli: The delegation would like comrade Stalin to explain what the points of divergence were at the recent RCP congress in relation to economic problems.[1]

Stalin: It is better that I be asked questions about the particular issues.

Ercoli: Comrade Bordiga asks that comrade Stalin explain the value of the concessions that have been made to the middle peasants.

Stalin: There are two classes in Russia, the proletariat and the peasants. The bourgeoisie still exists, but it is weak. Nevertheless it must be taken into account. In no country can the ruling class hold the direction of public affairs alone. The wealthiest class so far has been the bourgeoisie, but it has always ruled with the help, albeit passive, of other classes. Today we have the proletarian class in power, but it keeps itself in power mainly at the expense of the peasants. The proletariat is in the minority and is not rich enough to hold and manage the state alone. The state is therefore forced to live for the most part at the expense of the countryside, of the peasants. There is also a new bourgeoisie, but it is very weak, even financially, and the taxes that affect it are not enough on their own to meet the needs of the state. Under these conditions, how can we talk about concessions to peasants? The situation is such that it must be said that it is at the expense of the peasantry that the state lives. It takes from them – who are the majority – everything possible in order to maintain the state and to create a reserve for industry. We do not have any capital, we do not even have loans, and we are just beginning today to talk about loans to industry. What other means can we have to feed industry than the taxes that peasants pay to the state?

It was necessary to allow freedom of trade internally. In this way a certain freedom was given to private capital, which can develop and strengthen itself. We are in such conditions that we must encourage the development of our industry at all costs, even at the cost of some development of private capital. What we can produce today is not even enough to meet half the needs of the peasant population. The disproportion in our budget between industry and agriculture is very serious. Faced with 11 billion roubles of agriculture we have only 5 billion of industry. We must also bear in mind that our agriculture has great potential for development, and this without the need for foreign contributions and aid. It would be enough to raise the agricultural crop of peasants – for example for clearing and selecting seeds – to achieve the 300 million increase in agricultural production. This is the potential of the countryside that we must take into account. In industry, however, we do not have similar possibilities. We must therefore give industry new technical means, new capital, for new plants. Hence the absolute need to improve and ensure the development of both socialist and private industry in order to provide at least 50% more for the growing needs of the peasantry.

It is therefore necessary to increase the import of machines, because those inherited from the old regime are not enough, but to import you need good currency, and to have them you need to export. Exporting much more than what we already export is not possible: domestic consumption has increased, due to the increased needs of workers and peasants. All this leads us to have a trade balance that is not always positive, and it leads to the danger of devaluation of the currency.

These serious budgetary problems are complicated by other internal problems. There are too many unemployed peasants in the villages. It is a kind of unemployment that does not exist elsewhere. And industry is not yet able to absorb this surplus manpower. Among the unemployed peasants collective work groups are formed to which tractors and means of work are provided, while among the peasants who are not unemployed savings are made to help the unemployed. In spite of this, we are forced to allow wage labour, even in the countryside, as has already been done for a long time in the town. In this way, some of the unemployed can find work.

If you take all this into account, you can see how our industry and our state live at the expense of the peasants, and this will continue to be the case for a long time to come. So I do not know how we can talk about concessions to the peasants in such circumstances.

Last year we had 250 million direct taxes from the peasants, this year 300 million. If you do not want to destroy the source of the state’s wealth, you have to make economic concessions to the peasantry, but these are concessions that do not go beyond the line of the NEP.

In the fight against private capital we have many means, nationalised credit, nationalised transport, nationalised land. As a state we are the largest grain trader. 80-85% of purchases are made through state bodies. As a state we are also suppliers of machines, textiles, etc. to the peasants. The share of private capital in this activity is small and although it is increasing in absolute figures, in relative figures it is decreasing more and more. The competition between state and private industry helps to improve the situation of our industry. Practice has now shown that it is difficult to help industry outside of this competition. The fight is very fierce. It is a matter of life or death. However, we have many good reasons to believe that we will be victorious in this fight, and that the peasants will follow us.

The peasants are divided into three groups.

1) Poor peasants: agricultural workers, smallholders who also perform wage labour, smallholders who do not perform wage labour;

2) Middle peasants: they stand economically between the poor and the kulaks and partly employ wage labour;

3) Rich peasants (kulaks) who live off the wage labour of others.

The proportion between these categories was previously established on the basis of the amount of land cultivated. The peasant with no more than 2 dessiatinas[2] of land was included in the first group; the one with 2 to 6 dessiatinas was included in the second group; the one with more than 6 dessiatinas was in the third group. But this method was wrong. In the Caucasus, for example, there were farmers with 10,000 head of cattle and only a single dessiatina of land assigned to the group of the poor, and farmers with 10 dessiatinas of land to cultivate but with poor harvests, many times no more than 200 rubles per year, considered in the category of the rich. The peasants with 3 dessiatinas cultivated with flax and cotton belonged to the middle class although they had very large income. The wealth of the different categories was calculated in a very wrong way.

It was therefore decided that in order to establish the group to which the peasant should be assigned, it was necessary to take into account not only the land cultivated, but also the type of crop, livestock, etc. in short, all his income.

Adopting the primitive method of calculation, the result was that rich peasants represented 14%. With the new method the rich peasants were reduced to 4%. It turns out today that in the countryside the majority of the peasants belong to the category of middle peasants, which are 55-60%, the rest are poor peasants. Before the revolution, the middle peasants could not constitute the majority because the development of agriculture was not possible. There was therefore a deeper differentiation in the population of the countryside. The agricultural development was such that it caused an increase in the number of the poor on the one hand, and a progressive enrichment and increase of the rich on the other. The middle peasants disappeared. This kind of development was facilitated by the state with its fiscal regime and the fact that the land was private property. Now things have changed. In the countryside instead of capitalist elements there are socialist elements in action, for example cooperatives linked to the state and state industry. The cooperatives have 13 million members and the land is no longer private property. Tax and trade policy is aimed at limiting and controlling the activity of the rich peasants.

We had in 1919-20 the dekulakisation period. The land taken from the rich was [given] to the poor peasants, but part of them came to strengthen the group of middle peasants, leading to a levelling process in the countryside that replaced the previous process of differentiation. Today there is a new process of differentiation, but it cannot be as profound as in the capitalist regime, since the rich peasants are only 4% and the middle ones are the majority. This explains Lenin’s watchword, that after having neutralised the middle peasants it is necessary to move to an alliance with them.

Socialism is the union of town and country workers based on the socialisation of the means of production. This means that the peasants must also be drawn into the work of achieving socialism. The majority of peasants are not socialists, they do not want socialism, and this is due to historical conditions rather than to their own will. In 1917, however, the peasants supported the workers in the struggle for power because they wanted to drive out the Tsar and the owners and in order to realise their aspirations they had no other way than to lean on the proletariat of the town. The peasants could not constitute an independent force. They represent a reserve like the petit-bourgeoisie or the workers or the capitalists. In Russia today they constitute a reserve for the proletariat. It was in their interest that the Tsar and the owners be driven out. This interest coincided with the interest of the proletariat. In a similar way today the peasants do not want socialism, they want to do good business, buy cheap goods and sell grain with as much profit as possible. They find these possibilities in cooperatives, whose finances are the finances of the state. In fact, credit for cooperatives is granted by the state, and the management of cooperatives is headed by the communists. Through cooperatives we can give the peasants the advantages they need, thereby linking the interests of the peasants to those of the workers and the state. Just as in October the peasant was linked to the worker with peace, today this link is made through economic advantages. Those in power can push the economy to develop along the path of socialism or capitalism. Power is exercised in the cities, and the countryside cannot help but follow the town, both for cultivation and economic reasons. The socialist economy is destined to have its sure victory in the end. The peasants thus represent a reserve for the revolution.

The alliance between workers and peasants does not exclude struggle: and this struggle takes place today as a price struggle. The peasants want to buy cheaply and would not want the state monopoly on foreign trade, while they want to sell their agricultural products at high and affordable prices. If our industry suffers the peasants do not cry, they simply want to import more. So in the [Soviet] Union there is a struggle. But the essential interests coincide: the development of the economy occurs and the peasants see it and they also see that cooperatives help this development. The union between workers and peasants therefore remains a real force. But the union is not a union of equals. Our party is the party of the proletariat: in the union one side directs: and it is the worker side; the other is directed and it is the peasant side.

The things I have said will make the comrades understand how complex are the problems that present themselves to the proletariat when it is in power. Being in opposition is a very comfortable thing. But one needs to fight against difficulties and win.

Gennari: We ask on which basis the measure of wealth [is made] for the assignment of the peasants to the three groups mentioned by Comrade Stalin.

Stalin: It’s a little difficult to answer because that measure changes according to the regions. There are no absolute and general figures. We have only one Marxist criterion that is general: the rich live on the work of the poor peasants, and they work for the rich. The middle peasant does not generally perform wage labour, but sometimes he is forced to do so. In this regard our statistics are not at all perfect.

Bordiga: Stalin set out the question of relations with the peasants from the general point of view. At the recent RCP congress there was talk, however, of some changes in those relations that could amount to concessions.

Stalin: These concessions were decided at the conference of April 1925. As a result of them there was an improvement [in] our situation in the countryside, there was confirmation that [we had] done well. The opposition itself did not in fact have the courage to ask openly that the decisions taken in the April conference be changed. Part of it only wanted to prevent the implementation of the policy decided in April, but the majority [opposed] and the decisions were respected.

What are these changes? The NEP of the town must be [brought] into the countryside. In addition to the administrative methods of fighting capitalism, economic methods (taxes, [illegible word], price policy, cooperatives, etc.) were also applied and waged labour and rent were introduced. The method followed in the town thus extended to the countryside, which favoured development and stimulated the life of the Soviets in the countryside. Until recently the communists in the villages prevented the peasants from criticising their activity. Many communists stole from the cooperatives, and when some peasants denounced them they had them arrested. They never took the Soviet elections in the countryside seriously. An attempt was made to remedy this. The meetings of the cells must be held in the open, publicly, because our party is legal. And that’s good because the masses without a party can participate in our activity and control it. Many cells did not want to adapt to this method. Why not? Not a few communists were afraid of the light and feared both control from above – that of the party CC – and from below, control by the masses.

To change everything that was really harmful, the watchword was given to intensify the life of the Soviets; with more flexible methods of vigilance, listening and taking into account the criticism of the peasants and those without party, etc. Numerous commissions were sent to the countryside in all regions, and it was found that there were even criminals at the head of the Soviets. More than 200 communists were arrested. These are inconveniences that happen to parties in power.

This change was defined as the introduction of Soviet democracy, but in reality the constitution was not changed, only rules of eligibility were introduced in the Soviets and cooperatives which are in accordance with the constitution. Today there is no more civil war. The methods of that time, of the civil war era, are not useful for periods of development of economic activity. In these times the methods of leadership must be more flexible if the union between workers and peasants is not to be destroyed and the fruits of reconstruction are not to be cancelled. All concessions consist in this re-establishment of good relations between the town and the countryside.

The criticism of the opposition has not been very clear on this matter. It was trying to discredit this policy which should have been applied long ago. The methods of violence are harmful today.

Bordiga: My question is whether the implementation of these measures has caused some unrest in the working class? And is this a useful factor or a negative and harmful one?

Stalin: This policy was also pushed by the industrial proletariat, which knows the peasants better than the central committee of the party. Industry develops, and more and more new peasants come from the country to the town and become workers. The workers spend the month of rest, which they are entitled to, in the countryside. There is therefore a constant connection between town and country. Even at the end of 1920 the workers pushed for the implementation of the NEP. At a conference of non-party metalworkers at the time, a worker, Chernov, criticised Lenin and said that the policy pursued so far was no longer good, that it was time to put an end to the methods of war communism etc. It was the first time that Lenin met with resistance in the working class and this was one of the points that made him think about the NEP. So there is no unrest among the workers about this today.

Bordiga: What then is the significance of Workers’ Opposition in Leningrad?[3]

Stalin: They are not workers, but a small group, similar to the one which, on the eve of the October Revolution, before the uprising, did not want to believe in success; it openly declared that it did not believe the uprising decided on by the CC was possible and opposed the decisions of the CC.

Bordiga: Weren’t you also against Lenin in 1917? And weren’t you also at odds with Lenin in 1919, on the question of peace?[4]

Stalin: No, I was not at odds with Lenin. We were all against the continuation of the war. No communist at that time could have defended a different thesis.[5]

Bordiga: Why, when you yourself use as a political argument the mistake made by a group of comrades in 1917, was there a campaign against comrade Trotsky [1924], when he too reminded of these facts?

Stalin: Trotsky was fought not because of this, but because he maintained his old conviction about the relationship between the proletariat and the peasants, according to which if the revolution failed to take place in the other countries of Europe, the Russian revolution would not be able to develop. That is a social-democratic view and that is why Trotsky was fought.

Bordiga: What is certain, however, is that Trotsky drew a comparison between the Russian October and the German October and criticised the weaknesses of those comrades who today form the “new opposition”. Today, however, the same accusations are made by the central committee against the “new opposition”.

Stalin: The difference lies in this: comrade Trotsky began with an analogy and constructed his entire critique on it. What was his goal? He wanted to change horses during the race[6] without taking into account of the essentials. But one cannot build on an analogy. If one begins with an analogy one must end with an analogy. And this means to engage in literature, but not in political work.[7]

Bordiga: Trotsky made use of the analogy to study the causes of the defeat we suffered in Germany in 1923. It wasn’t without historical significance to establish that the same men who had erred in Russia in 1917 were at the head of the International when the German revolution failed in 1923.

Stalin: But as far as 1923 is concerned Trotsky is not right. The more extreme position on that occasion was taken by Zinoviev: and Trotsky supported the Brandler group, which behaved uncertainly and changeably. In spite of this Trotsky and Radek supported them.

Bordiga: I don’t believe that the faith Trotsky placed in Brandler would have been better placed in Fischer.

Stalin: Brandler certainly merits more trust than Fischer. It often happens however that a worthy man takes an erroneous position and that vice versa an unworthy man is found in the correct position. In politics, you have to go by the positions, not the people.

Ercoli: I think that with this debate on the point of the question of Trotsky, we have moved away from the subject about which we, the Italian delegation, would like to be informed. May you, comrade Stalin, explain what significance the socialist elements present in Russian industry have?

Stalin: The party holds the view that our industry – as far as the social type of production is concerned – stands higher than the capitalist organisation. Our industry is capitalist in the administrative aspect, but viewed organisationally, it is socialist. In the capitalist regime two classes enter the production process, the purpose of which is profit. Only one class is represented in our industry – the proletariat – and the organisation of industry does not have the purpose of exploiting the workers for the benefit of the bourgeoisie, but on the contrary to strengthen the working class economically. Hence its socialist character. The majority of the leaders of our industry are workers, and if the workers don’t want them, they won’t be able to show up at the factory for even a single hour more. There were even strikes in this respect, while the old technicians taken over from the previous system remained at their posts. To change people, it takes time. It is not possible to immediately deploy an army of new technicians. Our industrial organisation – in which there is only one class – where the director acts according to the will of the workers, is not yet socialist, there are still many capitalist elements here. But socialism must be introduced nationwide, not just in the factories. Not industry, but the industrial type is socialised. Lenin said that the type of our industry is basically socialist. When industry is underdeveloped, the inner workings of the factory are underdeveloped, as are the departments and accounting. The education of the workers is poor. A lot is still being stolen here, whereas this is more difficult in the capitalist organisation of production. We understand all this very well. But there is a strong bond between the workers and the factory here, because they know that it is theirs. Therefore, one can speak here of increasing production and be sure to be understood by the workers. Never before have so many inventions been made by the workers as they are now here. If our industry could rely on a higher education of the workers and more perfect technology, much more work would be done in our workshops than under the capitalist regime and miracles would be accomplished.

With regard to concessions – of the maximum duration of 40 years – the state, the working class, sets conditions for them, and the private industrialist is not the master. After a certain period of time he is thrown out. In these undertakings there are, however, still two classes: the businessman and the worker. This is a type of capitalist organisation. The difference is that the businessman has a production programme, must pay a rent, realise a profit. There is capitalism here, but it is controlled and limited.

Ercoli: I’d like to ask whether the questions which have been discussed at the congress of the RCP involve perspectives concerning developments in the world situation.

Stalin: Our perspectives are those of the CI in general.

Bordiga: With the aim of clarifying the question of perspectives I would like to know whether comrade Stalin thinks that the development of the Russian situation and of the internal problems of the Russian party are linked to the development of the international proletarian movement.

Stalin: This question has never been put to me. I would never have believed that a communist could put it to me. May God forgive you for having done it.

Bordiga: I ask then that comrade Stalin say what will happen in Russia if the proletarian revolution does not take place in Europe within a certain period of time.

Stalin: If we are able to organise the Russian economy well, it is destined to develop, and with it the revolution will develop. The programme of our party says – on the other hand – that we have the duty to spread the revolution to the world by every means and we will do that. It cannot be ruled out that, if the bourgeoisie does not preempt us, we will be forced to attack it. Certainly, when we were weak, the bourgeoisie missed the right moment to attack. Today we are stronger. We have 2 million workers in big industry and 7 million in medium-sized enterprises, whose education and productive skills are constantly increasing. The march on Warsaw was a tactical mistake, not a mistake of principle.[8]

Bordiga: Do you consider cooperation with the other communist parties, the vanguard of the revolutionary proletariat, to be necessary in determining Russian party policy?

Stalin: Without doubt, this is necessary and desirable. To this end, our party congress passed the resolution according to which the major parties of the CI should be effectively integrated into the Comintern leadership.

Bordiga: This cooperation should have taken place before the recent discussion. The questions dealt with by the Russian congress therefore now need to be dealt with in the ECCI.

Stalin: It should be noted that these questions are essentially Russian. Besides, the Western parties are not yet prepared to discuss them. That’s why the central committee of the RCP has sent the parties of the CI a letter which requests that the recent Russian discussion not be carried on in the other parties. This resolution has also been approved by the opposition and has been affirmed by the presidium of the CI. We have also done this to avoid the repetition of what came about in the preceding discussions with Trotsky, which were carried on in some parties in an artificial and mechanical way.

Bordiga: I don’t think that these arguments have decisive importance. First of all, if the Russian issue is not to be discussed in the ECCI, a decision to this effect must be taken by the ECCI itself. Moreover, the issues raised in the Russian discussion cannot be considered as purely Russian. They concern the workers of all countries. And, finally, the approval of the opposition is of no significance.

Stalin: From a formal and procedural point of view it is certainly true that it is not entirely regular for the ECCI not to decide itself not to address the Russian issue. But one has to keep the core of things in mind. The position of the Russian communist party in the International is such that it is impossible to think that it is possible to solve by procedure the problems that affect the relations between the Russian party itself and the International and the other parties. Certainly the position of the Russian party in the International is a privileged position. We are aware of the existence of this privilege and we also feel the responsibility that comes with it. We know that when Russian comrades speak in the presidium it is difficult for the comrades of the other parties to oppose them and this does not please us. We also have other privileges, for example that the International resides in Moscow, that of having won the revolution. However, we are ready to transport the headquarters of the International to another country as soon as the revolution has been victorious elsewhere. As you can see, this is not a matter of procedure. Moreover, the procedural difficulty is a very small thing compared to the difficulties we would face if we reopened the Russian debate in the ECCI. That would indeed mean reopening it in the Russian party. Not only that, but it would mean putting the opposition in the International in a minority, that is, taking Comrade Zinoviev out of the leadership of the International. Now there’s no one who wants this.[9] And we do not believe that the parties of the CI have any interest in reopening the conflict in the Russian party.

The session was closed after comrade Stalin asked comrade Ercoli for some explanations about the Italian party’s tactics in the unions and in the agitation committees.

Source: “VI Esecutivo Allergato dell’IC – Riunione della delegazione italiana con Stalin”: From the “Archivio Tasca”, published in the “Annali Feltrinelli 1966”.

[1] As at the fifth ECCI meeting, two important issues were discussed at the sixth ECCI extended plenary session in February/March 1926 – the so-called Bolshevisation of the communist parties and the struggle against “Trotskyism” respectively the Russian opposition. If the Italian delegation was represented in 1925 by Gramsci, who had shown himself to be very cautious and “anxious” in the face of “internal Russian questions”, Togliatti did the same in 1926.

Giuseppe Berti (delegate of the Communist Youth, declared opponent of the Sinistra, Stalinist) reported in 1966 that the meeting between the Italians and Stalin took place on the eve of the beginning of the sessions:

On 21st February the Italian delegates would have gathered and presented the draft political theses of Zinoviev, which were to be presented at the ECCI meeting, to Togliatti for discussion. Bordiga would have explained that since the draft would say nothing or almost nothing about the direction in which Russia would be heading, nor about the character that the development of the Russian economy would take, he would have nothing to say about it. Berti further reported that Bordiga then would have got up and left. Togliatti, concerned about Bordiga’s behaviour, would have suggested that the central committee of the RCP be informed about the situation and the questions raised. That same evening, it was learned that Stalin would visit the Italian delegation the following day to “answer all questions”.

We reproduce the dialogue like an incomplete transcript, in part falsified (according to Angelo Tasca by the Italian party centre under Togliatti), has handed it down.

[2] A Russian measure of land, roughly 1.1 hectares.

[3] In the course of 1925, the Stalin-Zinoviev-Kamenev troika broke up. The “new opposition” was basing itself primarily on the very strong Leningrad proletarian party organisation led by Zinoviev. At the 14th party congress (December 1925), however, the opposition remained in the minority; in February 1926, the party leadership of Stalin-Bukharin succeeded in removing the opposition from the Leningrad leadership: Zinoviev was replaced by Kirov.

[4] When Stalin and Kamenev returned from exile in March 1917, they replaced the old party leadership, took over the Pravda editorial office and changed course. On March 15, Kamenev wrote an editorial calling for the continuation of the war, which was contrary to the Bolsheviks’ attitude towards the imperialist war. Stalin advocated conditional support for the Provisional Government and proposed a merger of Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.

Lenin opposed a merger and advocated a radical break with the government and the parties that continued to support the war; he also criticised the conciliatory tone of Pravda: “We hope completely to straighten out the line of Pravda, which has wobbled towards ‘Kautskyism’.” (V.I. Lenin, Letter to J.S. Hanecki and Karl Radek, 12.4.1917)

[5] In the 50s of the last century Bordiga reproduces Stalin’s actual answer:

“(…) in a meeting on the Russian question (at that time the opposition Trotsky-Zinoviev-Kamenev was just emerging), whose discussion was prevented from being brought before the plenary assembly on the grounds that even the opposition had not demanded this, although it was no longer so violently chatiée, a delegate of the left wing of the Italian party asked Stalin whether it was true that in the April 1917 meeting on the policy to be pursued in relation to the war, Lenin included him, Stalin, among those whom he had insulted with ‘Russian chauvinists’, ‘Cossack nationalists’ and similar words. When the young translator abashedly remained silent, Stalin harshly instructed her to translate the question to him; he then raised his head and clearly said ‘da’ – yes, that’s right”. (“Struttura economica e sociale della russia d’oggi”, p. 117 f., Milano, 1976).

The aforementioned Stalinist Berti confirmed that the transcript is wrong and incomplete here. For 1919, however, Stalin would have denied to have had a different position than Lenin, according to Berti.

[6] According to Berti, this is a typical formulation of Stalin to say that Trotsky’s actual goal is to change the direction of the party.

[7] The debate about the “lessons of October” has also been called a “literary debate”, that is, an “academic question”.

[8] In May 1920 a Polish army under Marshal Piłsudski advanced into Ukraine. The Red Army’s counteroffensive was so successful that the opportunity arose to capture Poland and advance to the German border. This was advocated by Lenin, Zinoviev and Kamenev. Stalin was at first, with Trotsky, against it, later he changed his mind.

[9] Stalin said and did the opposite: Zinoviev was replaced as ECCI chairman at the end of 1926.