The Right Deviation in the C.P.S.U. (Bolshevik)

Stalin’s speech delivered at the Joint Plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission of the C.P.S.U.(B) in April 1929. The full text is about 68,000 words. It was included in Vol. 12 of the Complete Works of Stalin.

In December 1925, the 14th National Congress of the C.P.S.U. (B) put forward the socialist industrialization policy, which promoted the rapid development of the Soviet industry, however, the contradiction between the rapid development of Soviet industry and the backward agriculture became increasingly prominent. At that time, Soviet agriculture was dominated by small-scale peasant economy, with low productivity and low commodity rate, which could not meet the needs of industrial development. At the end of 1927 and the beginning of 1928, there was a “grain-procurement crisis”. This has seriously hindered the whole economy, especially the process of industrialization. In order to solve the contradiction of the imbalance of industrial and agricultural economy, the 15th National Congress of the C.P.S.U. (B) passed a resolution on agricultural collectivization in December 1927. However, due to the different understanding of Lenin’s New Economic Policy in the Party, and the serious divergence on how to overcome the grain-procurement crisis, how to accelerate the industrialization and agricultural collectivization, there was a dispute between Stalin and Bukharin in the core leadership.

Stalin argued that due to the intensification of the rural class struggle, the hidden destruction of the rich peasants, and the slow development of the collective farms, which resulted in the decline of grain-procurement, the Party should make the struggle with the kulaks the focus of rural work and take “emergency measures” beyond the framework of the New Economic Policy, such as sending grain collection teams to the main grain producing areas throughout the country, and refusing to deliver voluntarily the necessary quantity of grain at the prices fixed by the Soviet government to the “kulaks and speculators”, and confiscated all the surplus grain according to the law. At the same time, Stalin called for the agricultural collectivization movement to overcome the grain-procurement crisis and accelerate the industrialization of the country.

Bukharin and others opposed Stalin’s views and measures. They advocated that, according to Lenin’s New Economic Policy, the contradiction and problem can be solved by raising the price of grain-procurement and developing light industry faster. They stressed that Lenin’s New Economic Policy, as the basic basis of the Party’s economic policy, had not yet fully played its role, and Stalin’s above-mentioned views and measures were deviated from the New Economic Policy, resulting in excessive behavior. For them, by criticizing this kind of overzealous behavior, we should give up the unusual measures and administrative means, and use economic means, that is, through competition to exclude the capitalist elements in urban and rural areas and overcome economic difficulties. On the issue of industrialization, Bukharin and others are in favor of rapid industrialization, but they think it is necessary to develop agriculture at the same time, otherwise the industrialization plan would fail. They criticized Stalin’s policy of accumulating funds by collecting “additional taxes” to realize industrialization at a high speed, and they alleged that it was a strange theory that Stalin used administrative means to solve economic problems on the basis of the increasingly sharp point of view of class struggle in the transitional period, and destroyed the policy of “combination of industry and agriculture” advocated by Lenin.

At the meeting marking the fifth anniversary of Lenin’s death in January 29, Bukharin stressed in his report entitled “Lenin’s Political Testament” that Lenin’s thoughts that the focus of socialism has shifted from political struggle to peaceful cultural organization, and pointed out the special form of class struggle in the transitional period. Bukharin argued that although there may be a period of sharpening of class struggle in practice, Lenin’s conclusion on the nature of social development is very correct and cannot be violated. These views were intended to criticize Stalin’s deviation from Lenin’s ideological and theoretical principles.

In April 1929, Stalin publicly criticized Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky at the Plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission of the C.P.S.U.(B), declaring them to be Right opportunist groups within the party. The plenary session adopted the resolution “On Inner-Party Affairs” and decided to remove Bukharin’s leadership positions in the Pravda and the Comintern. In his speech, Stalin first pointed out that the differences within the party were the differences of lines, and that there were two lines in the party at that time: the correct line of the Party Central Committee, the revolutionary and Leninist line, and the right opportunist line of the Bukharin group. Stalin then pointed out that the emergence of these two lines was not accidental, but related to the new class changes in the capitalist countries and was a manifestation of the intensification of class struggle. This led to the task of the Soviet Union to intensify its struggle against the opportunist policy of the Right deviators, however, the Bukharin group failed to see the class changes in capitalist countries and did not understand the new tasks of the party, thus it evaded difficulties, compromised and gave up its position.

Stalin pointed out that Bukharin argued that the struggle against the right deviation within the Comintern was to “disintegrate” and “ruin” the Comintern, but on the contrary, the anti-rightist policy was to strengthen the Comintern, cleanse it from opportunists, Bolshevise its branches in many countries of the world, and help the world’s communist parties to prepare the working class for the future revolutionary battles.

When talking about disagreements in regard to internal policy, Stalin pointed out that “the misfortune of Bukharin’s group was that it was living in the past, that it failed to see the specific features of the new period and class changes in the society and did not understand the need for new methods of struggle, hence Bukharin’s group is afflicted with blindness and does not see these changes, this has caused bewilderment among them, has made them fearful of difficulties and ready to yield to them.

At the same time, the speech pointed out five mistakes of Bukharin:

The first one was that Bukharin’s theory of the capitalism peacefully growing into socialism which was divorced from Marxist-Leninist theory of class struggle. Stalin said that this theory was similar to the theory of Katheder-Socialism (a school of bourgeois thought, which came into being in Germany in the second half of the 19th century and which advocated bourgeois reformism under the guise of socialism whose growing base was in the university chairs).

The second mistake “consists in a mistaken, non-Marxist approach to the question of the intensification of the class struggle, of the increasing resistance of the capitalist elements to the socialist policies of the Soviet government.” Stalin asserted that Bukharin’s theory of “the extinction of class struggle” would lead the working class to lose vigilance, undermines the mobilized preparedness of the revolutionary forces of our country, demotes the enthusiasm of the working class and facilitates the attack of the capitalist elements against the Soviet regime.

The third mistake was on the question of the peasantry. In Bukharin’s description of the peasantry the differentiation of classes in the countryside is omitted, the existence of social groups disappears, and there remains but a single drab patch, called the countryside. According to him, the kulak is not a kulak, and the middle peasant is not a middle peasant, but there is a sort of uniform poverty and uniform mass in the countryside.

The fourth mistake was that he failed to see the two-fold character of NEP, he sees only one aspect of NEP, that NEP implies a certain freedom for private trade, but ignores the second aspect. Stalin said: NEP by no means implies complete freedom for private trade, the free play of prices in the market. NEP is freedom for private trade within certain limits, within certain boundaries, with the proviso that the role of the state as the regulator of the market is guaranteed. When we introduced NEP in 1921, we directed its spearhead against War Communism, as well as against a regime and system which excluded any and every form of freedom for private trade.

The fifth mistake was “Bukharin’s opportunist distortion of the Party line on the question of the price ‘scissors’ between town and country, on the question of the so-called ‘tribute’”.

When talking about the speed of industrial development and the new form of urban-rural integration, Stalin pointed out that “all clues of actual differences are focused on this issue”. Bukharin argued that to reduce the speed of industrial development, he advocated that “the key to the reconstruction of agriculture should be to promote the development of individual peasant farming”, while Stalin argued that “Bukharin’s program aimed to reduce the development rate of industry and undermined the new forms of the bond” and that rapid development of the industry was the key for the reconstruction of agriculture on the basis of agricultural collectivism.

In his speech, Stalin also refuted the two mistakes of Rykov, firstly forgot the true central idea of the five-year plan of development of Soviet society; secondly Rykov did not see any difference between a collective farm and a private holder of grain; therefore, it is not important whether we buy grain from a collective farm or a private holder of grain. At the same time, Stalin criticized the factional activities of the trio (Bukharin Rykov, Tomsky) and pointed out that struggle against the right deviation was one of the urgent tasks of the party.

The essence of the dispute between Stalin and Bukharin was their different understanding of Lenin’s New Economic Policy. While Stalin’s program aimed to accelerate industrialization and agricultural collectivization, and included surpassing the framework of New Economic Policy, this program was defended by Stalin on the basis of Stalin’s analysis of the increasingly sharpening class struggles in the society. Bukharin’s program aimed to promote industrialization and agricultural collectivization in the framework of the New Economic Policy.

Finally, due to the victory of Stalin’s line, the New Economic Policy was terminated, and the Soviet model of socialism began to take shape.