laureate education

Email Alert Sign Up Confirmation

• Ethics & Compliance

Copyright Laureate Education

650 S. Exeter Street, Maryland, MD 21202 USA: 1-866-452-8732, International: +1 410-843-6100

78 SW 7th St, Suite 900, Miami, FL 33130 USA: 1-866-452-8732, International: +1 410-843-6100

PMB 1158, 1000 Brickell Ave, Suite 715, Miami, FL 33131 USA: 1-866-452-8732, International: +1 410-843-6100

• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions

Going Global

By  Paul Fain and Elizabeth Redden

You have / 5 articles left. Sign up for a free account or log in.

Laureate Education is big. Like 800,000 students attending 78 institutions in 30 countries big. Yet the privately held for-profit university system has largely remained out of the public eye.

That may be changing, however, as the company appears ready for its coming out party after 14 years of quiet growth.

Laureate has spent heavily to solidify its head start on other globally minded American education providers. In addition to its rapid growth abroad, the company has courted publicity by investing in the much-hyped Coursera, a massive open online course provider. And Laureate recently made news when the International Finance Corporation, a World Bank subsidiary, invested $150 million in the company -- its largest-ever investment in education.

The company has also kicked up controversy over its affiliation with the struggling Thunderbird School of Global Management, a freestanding, nonprofit business school based in Arizona.

The backlash among Thunderbird alumni, many of whom aren’t keen on a takeover by a for-profit, has dragged the company into the ongoing fight over the role of for-profits in American higher education, which Laureate had largely managed to avoid until now.

In fact, Laureate likes to distinguish itself from other for-profit education companies. It is a strange (and substantial) beast to get one’s arms around.

Laureate is a U.S.-based entity whose primary operations are outside the U.S. It is a private, for-profit company that operates campuses even in countries, like Chile, where universities must be not-for-profit by law.

It is unabashed in its pursuit of prestige: Laureate boasts of partnerships with globally ranked public research universities like Monash University and the University of Liverpool as indicators of quality. It also aggressively promotes the connection to its honorary chancellor, former U.S. President Bill Clinton. When Laureate secured approval to build a new for-profit university in Australia (where for-profits are called “private” institutions), the headline in a national newspaper read : “First private uni in 24 years led by Clinton.”

Laureate likes to use the tagline “here for good.” The company has moved into parts of the world where there are insufficient opportunities to pursue a higher education, investing heavily in developing nations. It's based on this track record that the IFC  invested  in the company with the stated aim of helping Laureate expand access to career-oriented education in "emerging markets": Latin America, the Middle East and Africa.

The strategy of expanding student access in the developing world has won Laureate many fans. And for a for-profit, it gets unexpectedly little criticism.

Until recently, at least. With Thunderbird, Laureate has done what it has done in many countries around the world -- purchasing or in this case partnering with a struggling institution with a good brand, offering an infusion of capital, and promising to help develop new programs and grow enrollments and revenues. This time around, however, widespread skepticism about for-profit education has bedeviled the deal. The Bird's-Eye View

Laureate’s footprint outside the United States tops that of any American higher education institution. The company brought in approximately $3.4 billion in total revenue during the 2012 fiscal year, more than 80 percent of which came from overseas.

For comparison, the Apollo Group -- which owns the University of Phoenix and is the largest publicly traded for-profit chain -- brought in about $4.3 billion in revenue last year. However, Apollo Global, which is an internationally focused subsidiary, only accounted for $295 million of that.

Indeed, in the late 1990s, when most other for-profit education companies were focused on the potential of the U.S. market, Laureate looked abroad. The Baltimore-based company, at that point a K-12 tutoring outfit known as Sylvan Learning Systems, purchased its first campus, Spain’s Universidad Europea de Madrid, in 1999, and has since affiliated with or acquired a total of 78 higher education institutions on six continents, ranging from art and design institutes to hotel management and culinary schools to technical and vocational colleges to full-fledged universities with medical schools

Laureate operates the largest private university in Mexico, the 37-campus Universidad del Valle de México, and owns or controls 22 higher education institutions in South America (including 11 in Brazil), 10 in Asia, and 19 in continental Europe. It manages online programs in cooperation with the Universities of Liverpool and Roehampton, both in the United Kingdom. It has a new partnership with Australia’s Monash University to help manage its campus in South Africa and it runs seven vocational institutions in Saudi Arabia in cooperation with the Saudi government.

In contrast, Laureate’s largest and most recognizable brand in the U.S. is the online-only, predominantly graduate-level Walden University, which enrolls 50,000 students. And even Walden is global, with students in 145 countries.

The U.S. market looked crowded with well-established public and private colleges. For-profits were largely relegated to competing with community colleges to try to enroll working adults in vocational programs.

Outside of the U.S., on the other hand, where in many countries demand for higher education outstrips supply, and where heavily subsidized public universities are often highly selective, Laureate identified a need for reputable, comprehensive private universities.

“We believe the projected growth in the size of the middle class worldwide and limited government resources dedicated to higher education creates substantial opportunities for trustworthy private institutions to meet the growing unmet demand,” the company states in an extensive 2012 financial document that  Inside Higher Ed  obtained. The document provides detailed information on the company's finances and operations worldwide with the exception of Asia, where many of its institutions are owned by a sister company.

Laureate’s growth strategy, as outlined in that document, can be summarized as: increase operating efficiencies, expand existing campuses and add new programs -- in part by leveraging existing academic programs across its network of institutions. In addition, the company looks for colleges it might buy, focusing on ones with good reputations and relationships with regulators. In the five years after 2007, when the formerly public company went private, it acquired 28 new institutions for a total of $915 million.

Company officials say they have no intention of slowing down, with continued plans for growth through buying and expanding institutions.

In some ways Laureate has moved into the space occupied by ed-tech companies that help colleges expand their online offerings -- the so-called "enablers." But Laureate owns or manages the campuses it brings online.

Along the way the company has racked up a substantial amount of debt. “We are highly leveraged,” it reported in the financial document. Laureate holds $3.5 billion in debt – roughly equivalent to one year of revenue.

The relatively high debt levels have prompted bond ratings agencies to assign lackluster ratings to the company. But those reports  have been about individual slices of the Laureate pie, as opposed to the entire company. And the agencies have said that Laureate's overall financial health remains "stable."

Becker is frustrated that critics of the the company have used the debt figure to suggest that Laureate’s finances might be precarious. He says the company is under attack by some Thunderbird alumni. “The agenda has been hijacked by a very bitter and critical group.” Becker says the company can more than handle its debt. Laureate drew offers for more than 10 times the capital it sought to raise from investors during an offering last year, he says. The company’s holdings are diversified and its revenue is increasing faster than debt levels. Laureate also owns a city’s worth of valuable facilities and land around the world.

As for its modus operandi, Laureate employs a variety of models, ranging from outright acquisitions to partnerships with nonprofit universities. In the latter case the business approach revolves around Laureate selling educational services to the nonprofit entity, ranging from curriculum design to the use of real estate to finance, legal or other management services.

When Laureate acquires or affiliates with an institution, the Laureate name takes a backseat to the institution's preexisting name and brand: “Laureate” is used to refer to the network of universities, but with the exception of some of the technical institutes in Saudi Arabia, none of the institutions in the company’s network have “Laureate” in their name. This is a contrast, to say, DeVry or Kaplan, for-profit college chains that brand their campuses and online degree programs with the company's name.

Paula Singer, CEO of Laureate’s global products and services division, last month told Congress about the company’s approach to partnerships.

“The partners or parties we choose to support are those that want to take the good education they already provide and leverage it,” Singer said in  written testimony  for a hearing held by the U.S. House of Representatives’ subcommittee on higher education, “often either through the introduction of online education or new global locations or experiences or the provision of new services or program offerings to their students.”

The diversity of types of institutions Laureate owns and manages allows it to be more responsive to the needs of different markets, Becker says. And the scale of the company allows it to try strategies that work in multiple venues.

“We do benefit from taking our ideas from one country to the next,” he says.

There are also commonalities across the network. Becker says those include a student-centered approach and an emphasis on employment, with, in most cases “a very strong overlay of internationality.” Though it is short on specific numbers, Laureate says “thousands” of students traveled from their home campus to another company-managed institution for a short- or long-term exchange program in 2012; there are also “more than 25” dual degree programs throughout the network.

(Laureate tends to be vague when asked for hard data about its institutions -- a benefit of its privately held status.)

Laureate’s campus-buying spree has created college-going opportunities for thousands of students, Becker says, many of which would not have existed without the company. The expansion has also transformed the company into a major global player in a relatively quick amount of time.

“We build huge, first-rate universities,” he says.

‘An Aura of Quality’

Latin America has been the company’s largest market, accounting for approximately 60 percent of the company’s revenue.  Its largest single university is the University del Valle de México, which has about 120,000 students. Since Laureate acquired the institution in 2000, the number of campuses has grown from 12 to 37.

In a  chapter  in  State and Market in Higher Education Reforms  (2012 Sense Publishers), Angélica Buendía Espinosa, a professor at the Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana who formerly taught at UVM, analyzes what happened after Laureate took over the institution.

Under Laureate’s control, the university became more market-oriented in its focus, Espinosa wrote: “The primary growth strategies centered around the fulfillment of ‘enrollment goals’ using aggressive publicity strategies to ‘win’ more market share: these strategies were based on the benefits of ‘UVM’s internationalization.’ ”

Espinosa’s article identifies a tension: while Laureate officials were largely hands-off when it came to academic issues, preferring to leave those decisions in the hands of “experts,” the pressure for enrollment growth necessarily had an impact on academic decision making. “The academic plans that were created on the campuses always depended on the ‘achievement’ of enrollment goals, which in some cases were excessive,” she wrote.

Espinosa also wrote that Laureate placed an emphasis on accreditation and a respect for the regulatory framework. On its  website , UVM currently advertises accreditations for more than 60 of its programs.

Becker boasts of Laureate’s “culture of regulatory compliance.” Laureate does not enter a new country without consulting with the government first. “We don’t want to go someplace where we’re not wanted,” he says. And the company counts the welcome it’s received from diverse governments, from Saudi Arabia to Australia, as persuasive evidence of its strong track record and reputation for quality.

“There’s an aura of quality that surrounds the Laureate name and I think it’s partly because they have been successful on a global scale for a while without having regulatory controversies follow them around,” says Kevin Kinser, chair of the educational administration and policy studies department at the State University of New York at Albany and an expert on for-profit and cross-border higher education. “They’ve been able to navigate the regulatory minefields in the 30-something countries that they’re now in without there being a major scandal and perhaps without there being a minor scandal. I’m sure there are some things here and there.”

(One such thing: Laureate's universities in Chile were among those singled out in a 2012 Chilean Chamber of Deputies committee report accusing some private institutions of failing to comply with Chilean law requiring universities to be nonprofit. That report was subsequently rejected by the whole Chamber of Deputies, Congress’s lower house.) 

“Whether that means they are a high-quality institution, we don’t have good measures of quality and it’s not like anybody’s opening up their books and curriculum,” Kinser says. “But from the perspective of the regulatory agencies that pay attention to this stuff, they’ve been able to work within the rules and provide solid investments in education systems in various countries, expanding the number of seats and providing at least something of value presumably to the students who are enrolled.”

In a study of employment outcomes for 2009, ‘10 and ‘11 graduates that Laureate commissioned from Millward Brown Optimor, the research consultants compared 6- and 12-month employment rates and starting salary information from eight Laureate institutions in five key countries (Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Peru, and Spain) with market benchmark data they obtained from random samples of 400 recent college graduates, per country, obtained via survey paneling.

With the exception of the Instituto Profesional AIEP, in Chile, where the starting salary level was 11 percent below the market benchmark, all other Laureate institutions in the sample either performed on par or outpaced the market benchmarks: at Spain’s Universidad Europea de Madrid, for example, the 12-month employment rate was 29 percent higher than the market benchmark of 61 percent and the starting salary 39 percent higher than the benchmark of €929 per month. For the purposes of the survey, employment was defined as full-time and lasting more than one month, but not necessarily in the field of study. Inside Higher Ed was unable to independently verify those statistics.

Stateside Story

Laureate keeps an exceptionally low profile in the United States. Critics are hard to find outside of the Thunderbird deal. And when the company is discussed, it’s usually in a positive light.

For example, the company invested $5 million in Coursera in July. Daphne Koller, the massive open online course provider’s co-founder, at the time told Inside Higher Ed that she wouldn’t have been interested in investments from other for-profit companies.

Most Laureate institutions are largely campus-based. But roughly 60,000 of its 800,000 students are enrolled in fully online programs. The bulk of those online students attend Walden University, which is Laureate’s flagship U.S. institution. The company’s other domestic institutions are Kendall College, NewSchool of Architecture and Design, Santa Fe University of Art and Design and the relatively new National Hispanic University, which enrolls 800 students in undergraduate, graduate and certificate programs.

Walden has even earned the grudging respect of Sen. Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat, who has been a fierce antagonist of for-profits.

Last year Harkin released a voluminous report staff prepared on the industry and its alleged ills. While not all of the report’s section on Walden was positive, the university fared much better than others. In fact, Harkin singled out Walden’s performance, as measured by student withdrawal and federal loan default rates, as “perhaps the best of any company examined.”

Because of the scope of Laureate’s global operations, it is substantially less dependent on federal financial aid funds than are most U.S.-based for-profits. The vast majority of Laureate’s money comes from individual students and their families. That, in turn, has helped it avoid some of the scrutiny that has dogged other corporate higher ed providers.

Roughly 78 percent of Walden’s revenue came from federal financial aid in 2011. But only 12.4 percent of Laureate’s overall revenue was from federal sources.

One common critique of for-profits is that their holding companies spend heavily on student recruitment and marketing -- and Laureate is not exempt from this critique. In 2009, the percentage of Walden’s revenues dedicated to marketing (27 percent) and to profit (again, 27 percent) both exceeded the industry average. In 2009, Walden spent $1,574 per student on instruction and $2,230 per student on marketing, while taking in $1,915 per student in profit.

But perhaps the most striking Walden-related statistics in the report are its student loan default rates. The percentage of Walden students who default on their loans within three years of entering repayment ranged from 1.7 to 3 percent from 2005 to 2008, a rate that was dramatically lower than the average not only for for-profit universities (17.1-22.6 percent) but also for all U.S. colleges (8.4 to 12.3 percent).

The impressive numbers are partially due to Walden’s predominantly graduate-student population, most of whom are working adults. Even so, Walden graduates are, by and large, employed and in a position to pay back their debt.  For its part, the university’s alumni surveys find that 78 percent say their Walden degree helped them earn a pay raise, and 56 percent say it helped them change professions.

Thunderbird Blowback

Laureate’s talk of outcomes hasn’t impressed everyone. And the stigma surrounding for-profit higher education has proven real as Laureate negotiates the proposed deal with Thunderbird. Many alumni worry that the partnership with a proprietary education company will lead to a decline in quality and a devaluing of their degrees.

The terms of the partnership -- which was approved by Thunderbird’s board in June but is pending approval from Thunderbird’s accreditor, the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools -- are several-fold. Thunderbird, a stand alone, graduate institution, will remain an independent, 501(c)(3) nonprofit entity, and Laureate will have the right to appoint three members to the nonprofit’s board, which currently includes 23 voting trustees. Laureate will also purchase Thunderbird’s campus for about $50 million and lease it back to the business school; with the infusion of cash from the sale, Thunderbird plans to pay back its $24.5 million debt and become debt-free for the first time in its history.

Thunderbird and Laureate will also create a jointly owned educational services company, with ownership initially split in a 50-50 fashion, though Laureate will have a 5-4 majority on the joint venture’s board and also has the option to purchase up to an additional 25 percent. The joint venture will provide specialized educational services, such as marketing and recruitment or instructional technology, with an explicit aim of helping to develop Thunderbird programs at international locations: through the partnership, Thunderbird initially plans to offer programs at Laureate institutions in Paris, Madrid, São Paulo and Santiago, and a strategy for an Asia campus is in the works.

“Laureate’s model allows us to remain Thunderbird, not Laureate University, which doesn’t exist, or Thunderbird-Laureate,” says Larry Edward Penley, the school’s president and former president of Colorado State University. He says the two sides have developed hundreds of pages of contracts that ensure that Thunderbird will a) retain control of its brand and b) retain control of academic decision-making even if its ownership of the service provider falls to 25 percent.

“It gives us a global footprint for a global school,” Penley says. “Through Laureate, we’ll be able to isolate pieces of their campuses and control our degree programs and have permanent locations [abroad].” 

Officials at Thunderbird see the alliance with Laureate as a solution to the dilemma of smallness: the school’s Vision 2020 notes that, alone, its assets are too limited to allow it to compete effectively as a player in global business education. In deciding to forge an alliance, Laureate was not the only partner under consideration: Thunderbird also had talks with Arizona State University, Middlebury College, and Hult International Business School, all nonprofit entities.

“I honestly believe that we did not solicit a large enough number of prospective partners, and we focused far too quickly on the money option as opposed to quality or continuity or the appropriateness of the partner,” says Merle A. Hinrich, an alumnus and a former Thunderbird trustee, who resigned to protest the partnership.

Hinrich says the terms of the deal -- including the fact that Laureate will have 5-4 control of the joint venture, will be Thunderbird’s landlord and will have seats on the business school’s board -- lead him to be concerned about “the future lack of control that Thunderbird will have. It puts them in jeopardy of being basically led, managed and directed by a for-profit enterprise.”

Thunderbird and Laureate can give “lip service” to the fact that Thunderbird will remain an independent 501(c)(3), says Harry A. Cockrell, another trustee and alumnus who resigned, but it’s just that: lip service.

“Except for a few years in New York my entire professional career has been in the Asia Pacific,” Cockrell says. “I’m familiar with the quality of Laureate schools in the Asia-Pacific region, and they are not at the standard that Thunderbird is at, and therefore I believe that it will impact the value of our brand going forward: perhaps not in the first few years, but going forward. You’re going to be associated with technical schools, cooking schools, a couple of universities which, at best, at least in the Asia-Pacific region, are second-or-third rate."

All that said, Cockrell adds that if the alumni had come out in support of the partnership, he wouldn’t stand in its way. There was no consultation of alumni prior to the board vote on the partnership, a fact that negotiators attribute to confidentiality requirements. “In my world, I consult my shareholders,” Cockrell, a businessman, says.

The most likely way that would happen at this point would be if the Higher Learning Commission rejected the terms, which Thunderbird officials believe to be unlikely. Several Laureate institutions have HLC accreditation, including its flagship U.S. university, Walden. The independent alumni association has posted on its website a long list of ways in which it believes the partnership could potentially run afoul of the accreditor's standards. Many of the items on the list boil down to concerns about the perceived academic quality of for-profit institutions: alumni cite the high proportions of faculty who are part-timers at Walden (about 90 percent) as one reason for concern. They have also raised questions about a lack of public information regarding the specific terms of the partnership, and how, in practice, the for-profit and nonprofit models can coexist.

“There is a clear conflict of interest between Laureate’s profit driven model and Thunderbird’s nonprofit 501(c)3, and it remains unclear how a firewall will be maintained between the two," the list reads.

The proposed changes to Thunderbird are hardly trivial, says Will Counts, a 2009 alumnus and an organizer of the independent alumni association. “We’re talking about something that’s life-changing to a lot of people."

Counts says the value of a Thunderbird degree is at risk. And he’s most concerned about current students and recent Thunderbird alumni, who have yet to establish themselves in their professional careers.

“They didn’t sign up for this,” he says. “They didn’t sign up for a Laureate education.”

Clara M. Lovett, a Thunderbird board member and president emerita of Northern Arizona University, says she understands why some people are uncomfortable about partnering with a for-profit.

“Another concern was that somehow we would lose our academic identity and independence and therefore the Thunderbird degrees will be devalued," Lovett says. But she thinks the terms of the partnership are such that exactly the opposite will happen. "The school has an opportunity not only to remain independent but to grow.”

G. Kelly O’Dea agrees.

“This is our opportunity to take Thunderbird to a higher level and give more people the training that we’ve become famous for on a much smaller scale,” says O'Dea, who is the vice-chairman of the Thunderbird board and an alumnus. "My battle cry is 'this is our moment.' ” 

Future Directions

As the flap over Thunderbird continues, Laureate in August announced a new partnership with Monash University, an Australian public university. The company will help manage and grow Monash’s campus in South Africa, with a goal of doubling enrollment in five years, according to Ron Weber, the pro vice-chancellor and campus president. Monash’s South Africa campus, which began operations in 2001, has about 3,400 full-time equivalent students.

Laureate has a campus elsewhere in Africa, in Morocco, but, the Monash partnership marks its first foray into the sub-Saharan region. “It’s an important initiative for us,” says Esther Benjamin, the CEO for Africa operations. “We really hope that the Monash South Africa partnership becomes a platform and an anchor for many of our initiatives in other countries in Sub-Saharan Africa.

“It is a region where the organization can definitely contribute,” she says. “It’s a region where the number of students in higher education is rapidly growing. There’s an increasing demand for quality higher education, particularly with an international perspective and with an emphasis on employability.”

“I don’t think it’s going to happen overnight. Africa feels to me like Latin America felt like 20 or 30 years ago: there’s been enormous progress in Latin America in lessening poverty and moving people up into the middle classes, and Africa unfortunately has not had much of that, but I really believe it’s coming," he says. "It won’t be equally distributed. I think there are some countries that will be much better prepared to build their middle classes than others. But I’m very interested in Africa. I see it as a place where we can make an enormous impact.”

A big part of what makes Laureate unique, Becker says, is how it mixes the public and private sectors.

“Here is a private company but we’re owned in part by public sector institutions like the IFC, by pension funds, by university endowments. You can imagine all of those shareholders expect us to do the right thing in terms of social impact, social responsibility and reputation," he says. "That’s another big difference between us and a classic, commercial enterprise. Most companies feel obligated to say that their main job is to generate shareholder wealth. That isn’t what we say at Laureate. Our role is to create social mobility and to benefit students and we believe by doing that we can generate a return for our investors.”

Becker seems distressed by the controversy over Thunderbird. Without prompting, he says the criticism that not all institutions in the Laureate network are of Thunderbird’s caliber strikes him as unfair.

“We don’t have universities that are bad universities,” says Becker. “I think we’ve worked too hard and established too strong of a reputation for anyone to say that is the case. But we do have universities that are intended to be affordable and accessible."

And an accessible university that allows people in emerging markets to climb into the middle class is a good thing, Becker says.

“I’m just astonished there’s been this debate over this,” he says. “Why would the University of Liverpool choose to partner with us?” Or Monash, for that matter? “They don’t need our money, they maintain their own independence. They control their brand and accreditation, and yet they found that we could do something for them that could help them be successful and we do it with a moral compass that they appreciate. It’s not like this is our first partnership.”

Report: Stop-Outs Don’t Know About Support Services on Campus

Not all college students know about support measures available to them at their college, making them more vulnerable

Share This Article

More from global.

Tim Walz, China and Me

The choice of a vice presidential candidate with deep ties to China prompts Jeffrey Wasserstrom to reflect on trips t

New Ministers a ‘Signal of Intent’ on Tackling U.K. Sector Issues

Heavy hitters joining key higher education ministries in the U.K.

Gloomy Financial Outlook for British Universities

Four in five institutions could face deficits given stalling domestic enrollment and declines in international recrui

• Become a Member
• Sign up for Newsletters
• Learning & Assessment
• Diversity & Equity
• Career Development
• Labor & Unionization
• Shared Governance
• Academic Freedom
• Books & Publishing
• Financial Aid
• Residential Life
• Free Speech
• Physical & Mental Health
• Race & Ethnicity
• Sex & Gender
• Socioeconomics
• Traditional-Age
• Adult & Post-Traditional
• Teaching & Learning
• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Publishing
• Data Analytics
• Administrative Tech
• Alternative Credentials
• Financial Health
• Cost-Cutting
• Revenue Strategies
• Academic Programs
• Physical Campuses
• Mergers & Collaboration
• Fundraising
• Research Universities
• Regional Public Universities
• Community Colleges
• Private Nonprofit Colleges
• Minority-Serving Institutions
• Religious Colleges
• Women's Colleges
• Specialized Colleges
• For-Profit Colleges
• Executive Leadership
• Trustees & Regents
• State Oversight
• Accreditation
• Politics & Elections
• Supreme Court
• Student Aid Policy
• Science & Research Policy
• State Policy
• Colleges & Localities
• Employee Satisfaction
• Remote & Flexible Work
• Staff Issues
• Study Abroad
• International Students in U.S.
• U.S. Colleges in the World
• Intellectual Affairs
• Seeking a Faculty Job
• Advancing in the Faculty
• Seeking an Administrative Job
• Advancing as an Administrator
• Beyond Transfer
• Call to Action
• Confessions of a Community College Dean
• Higher Ed Gamma
• Higher Ed Policy
• Just Explain It to Me!
• Just Visiting
• Law, Policy—and IT?
• Leadership & StratEDgy
• Leadership in Higher Education
• Learning Innovation
• Online: Trending Now
• Resident Scholar
• University of Venus
• Student Voice
• Academic Life
• Health & Wellness
• The College Experience
• Life After College
• Academic Minute
• Weekly Wisdom
• Reports & Data
• Quick Takes
• Advertising & Marketing
• Consulting Services
• Data & Insights
• Hiring & Jobs
• Event Partnerships

4 /5 Articles remaining this month.

Sign up for a free account or log in.

• Sign Up, It’s FREE

• Today's news
• Reviews and deals
• Climate change
• 2024 election
• Newsletters
• Fall allergies
• Health news
• Mental health
• Sexual health
• Family health
• So mini ways
• Unapologetically
• Buying guides

Entertainment

• How to Watch
• My Portfolio
• Latest News
• Stock Market
• The Morning Brief
• Biden Economy
• Stocks: Most Actives
• Stocks: Gainers
• Stocks: Losers
• Trending Tickers
• World Indices
• US Treasury Bonds Rates
• Top Mutual Funds
• Options: Highest Open Interest
• Options: Highest Implied Volatility
• Basic Materials
• Communication Services
• Consumer Cyclical
• Consumer Defensive
• Financial Services
• Industrials
• Real Estate
• Stock Comparison
• Advanced Chart
• Currency Converter
• Credit Cards
• Balance Transfer Cards
• Cash-back Cards
• Rewards Cards
• Travel Cards
• Credit Card Offers
• Best Free Checking
• Student Loans
• Personal Loans
• Car insurance
• Mortgage Refinancing
• Mortgage Calculator
• Editor's Picks
• Investing Insights
• Trending Stocks
• Morning Brief
• Opening Bid
• Fantasy football
• Pro Pick 'Em
• College Pick 'Em
• Fantasy baseball
• Fantasy hockey
• Fantasy basketball
• Download the app
• Daily fantasy
• Scores and schedules
• GameChannel
• World Baseball Classic
• Premier League
• CONCACAF League
• Champions League
• Motorsports
• Horse racing

New on Yahoo

• Privacy Dashboard

Yahoo Finance

Laureate Education (NASDAQ:LAUR) Exceeds Q2 Expectations

In this article:.

Higher education company Laureate Education (NASDAQ:LAUR) reported Q2 CY2024 results topping analysts' expectations , with revenue up 8% year on year to $499.2 million. The company expects the full year's revenue to be around $1.56 billion, in line with analysts' estimates. It made a GAAP profit of $0.83 per share, improving from its profit of $0.35 per share in the same quarter last year.

Is now the time to buy Laureate Education? Find out in our full research report .

Laureate Education (LAUR) Q2 CY2024 Highlights:

Revenue: $499.2 million vs analyst estimates of $483.7 million (3.2% beat)

EPS: $0.83 vs analyst estimates of $0.63 (31.7% beat)

The company dropped its revenue guidance for the full year from $1.57 billion to $1.56 billion at the midpoint, a 1% decrease

Gross Margin (GAAP): 36.1%, in line with the same quarter last year

Free Cash Flow of $29.53 million, up 71% from the previous quarter

Enrolled Students: 444,200, up 19,800 year on year

Market Capitalization: $2.40 billion

Eilif Serck-Hanssen, President and Chief Executive Officer, said, “We are pleased with our solid operating results for the second quarter. Market dynamics remain favorable for the private sector in both our geographies. We continue to deliver strong growth in Mexico, while muted growth in Peru over the past 12 months is expected to pivot to a recovery in the second half of this year. In addition, our strong balance sheet and significant cash flow generation allow for a continued emphasis on returning capital to shareholders.”

Founded in 1998 by Douglas L. Becker and based in Miami, Laureate Education (NASDAQ:LAUR) is a global network of higher education institutions.

Education Services

A whole industry has emerged to address the problem of rising education costs, offering consumers alternatives to traditional education paths such as four-year colleges. These alternative paths, which may include online courses or flexible schedules, make education more accessible to those with work or child-rearing obligations. However, some have run into issues around the value of the degrees and certifications they provide and whether customers are getting a good deal. Those who don’t prove their value could struggle to retain students, or even worse, invite the heavy hand of regulation.

Sales Growth

Reviewing a company's long-term performance can reveal insights into its business quality. Any business can have short-term success, but a top-tier one tends to sustain growth for years. Laureate Education struggled to generate demand over the last five years as its sales dropped by 13.9% annually, a rough starting point for our analysis.

Long-term growth is the most important, but within consumer discretionary, product cycles are short and revenue can be hit-driven due to rapidly changing trends and consumer preferences. Laureate Education's annualized revenue growth of 15.5% over the last two years is above its five-year trend, suggesting some bright spots.

Laureate Education also discloses its number of enrolled students, which reached 444,200 in the latest quarter. Over the last two years, Laureate Education's enrolled students averaged 7.3% year-on-year growth. Because this number is lower than its revenue growth during the same period, we can see the company's monetization has risen.

This quarter, Laureate Education reported solid year-on-year revenue growth of 8%, and its $499.2 million of revenue outperformed Wall Street's estimates by 3.2%. Looking ahead, Wall Street expects sales to grow 6.3% over the next 12 months, a deceleration from this quarter.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, it should be obvious by now that generative AI is going to have a huge impact on how large corporations do business. While Nvidia and AMD are trading close to all-time highs, we prefer a lesser-known (but still profitable) semiconductor stock benefitting from the rise of AI. Click here to access our free report on our favorite semiconductor growth story .

Cash Is King

If you've followed StockStory for a while, you know we emphasize free cash flow. Why, you ask? We believe that in the end, cash is king, and you can't use accounting profits to pay the bills.

Laureate Education has shown decent cash profitability, giving it some flexibility to reinvest or return capital to investors. The company's free cash flow margin averaged 11.3% over the last two years, slightly better than the broader consumer discretionary sector.

Laureate Education's free cash flow clocked in at $29.53 million in Q2, equivalent to a 5.9% margin. The company's cash profitability regressed as it was 3.5 percentage points lower than in the same quarter last year, prompting us to pay closer attention. Short-term fluctuations typically aren't a big deal because investment needs can be seasonal, but we'll be watching to see if the trend extrapolates into future quarters.

Over the next year, analysts' consensus estimates show they're expecting Laureate Education's free cash flow margin of 11.5% for the last 12 months to remain the same.

Key Takeaways from Laureate Education's Q2 Results

We were impressed by how significantly Laureate Education blew past analysts' EPS expectations this quarter. We were also excited its revenue outperformed Wall Street's estimates. Overall, this quarter seemed fairly positive and shareholders should feel optimistic. The stock traded up 1.7% to $15.80 immediately after reporting.

Laureate Education may have had a good quarter, but does that mean you should invest right now? When making that decision, it's important to consider its valuation, business qualities, as well as what has happened in the latest quarter. We cover that in our actionable full research report which you can read here, it's free .

Recommended Stories

• Featured Events
• In the News

What is a laureate? A classics professor explains the word’s roots in ancient Greek

A statue with a golden crown of laurels

Professor Joel Christensen   is the chair in the department of   Classical Studies   at Brandeis University. This article originally appeared on   The Conversation .

When the Nobel Prizes are handed out each year, honorees each receive a medal and monetary prize . Even in the absence of these material goods, the honor of being a Nobel laureate persists as part of someone’s name or title, like a heroic epithet to recognize a life’s achievement.

I annually join my colleagues in the arts and sciences praising the winners and everything they have accomplished. As a scholar of classical studies , I also mull over the journey of that strange word, laureate, and how aptly it names those who receive it.

The English word “laureate” dates back to the 15th and 16th centuries, when it jumped almost straight out of the Latin “ laureatus ,” an adjective to describe someone crowned with a wreath of laurel leaves. But laurel’s history as a symbolically important plant goes back thousands of years.

A useful plant native to the Mediterranean

The laurel plant is one of a number of small bushes and trees found originally in the Mediterranean. Some varieties grow dozens of feet tall, often marked by smooth, sometimes wavy leaves, with berries and flowers of different colors. Many people will recognize the long, green aromatic leaves as bay, a popular spice in a range of cuisines.

The laurel was a useful plant, part of a long tradition of using the gifts of the natural world to treat human ailments .

The Romans had a variety of medicinal uses for the plant. They applied its leaves to snake bites and ingested them as an emetic. They prepared the plant with its berries in various cold remedies.

The Greeks used Laurus nobilis , or “bay laurel,” as a remedy for rashes from other plants and boiled it down for antiseptic and first aid applications .

But the use of crowns crafted from laurel sprigs emerged for different reasons.

A plant linked to Apollo

While “laurus” is the Romans’ word for the cultivated plant, the idea of being crowned or wreathed with laurel likely came first from the Greeks. They associated this plant, which they called “daphne,” with ritual purification and divine inspiration.

Worshippers of the god Apollo held the laurel tree to be sacred, as the location of the god’s oracular statements. In some traditions, the Pythia – the priestess who pronounced oracles at Delphi , one of the most sacred sites in the early Greek world – would chew laurel leaves , potentially to hallucinogenic effect, before delivering a prophecy .

The origin story of Apollo’s love for the laurel tree is more menacing. In the Roman poet Ovid’s “ Metamorphoses ,” Eros – Cupid to the Romans – sought to punish Apollo for mocking him, so he made him become infatuated with a young female nymph, Daphne.

She fled his repeated – and violent – advances, and begged her father, a river god, for help. He transformed his daughter into the laurel tree. Daphne avoided Apollo in her human form, but she could not escape becoming his sacred property.

While this story explains the laurel as Apollo’s sacred plant, its medicinal or imagined mind-altering effects may be better explanations for the tree’s association with Apollo, a god of medicine, prophecy and poetic arts.

Victors wreathed in laurel

The Greeks held the Pythian Games at Delphi every two years after the Olympic Games. By the time they were established in the sixth century B.C. in honor of Apollo, laurel was connected to the god strongly enough to be offered as the prize for victors .

These games, unlike the Olympics, started out with competitions in singing, poetry and dance, and later evolved to include athletic competitions. Laurel’s function as a prize in honor of Apollo and a marker of poetic power is the reason the laureate crown was adopted to honor poets and men of letters in the early Renaissance .

The story of “laureatus” has a few further twists. Ancient Greeks would suspend violent conflicts to hold their annual competitions. This tradition may be the reason the Romans used the Laurus delphica – the laurel tree native to the sacred site of Delphi – as a symbol of peace . They adorned announcements of victory called litterae laureatae (“laureate letters”) with wreaths of laurel.

In higher education, the word “baccalaureate” preserves the meaning of laureate as someone who is honored or who has achieved something. The term is synonymous with a bachelor’s degree, and hails from a medieval Latin word.

The custom of applying the word “laureate” to a Nobel Prize winner, however, may be younger than the prize itself. The Oxford English Dictionary documents the first description of a Nobel honoree in this way happened in 1947.

Categories: Humanities and Social Sciences , Research

Browse by Category

• Humanities and Social Sciences
• International Affairs
• Science and Technology
• Student Life

Suggest a Story

Laureates of the ICT in Education Prize

Theme:  Digital learning for greening education

• “Connecting the dots: Data driven carbon literacy”, the Republic of Korea Formed by a group of teachers at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the “ GOGO School ” initiative has evolved into a collaborative teachers’ association that promotes sustainable education with technology and develops students’ “net-zero” practices. By utilizing accessible digital tools, the carbon literacy project, entitled “Connecting the dots: Data driven carbon literacy”, engages students in collecting data on electricity consumption at home and school; documenting usage habits and patterns; and creating databases to track and analyze energy consumption. Spanning four regions in the Republic of Korea, and involving over 200 school students and 700 families, the project has improved students’ behaviours regarding electricity usage and increased awareness of climate change issues. Internationally recognized and featured at UN COP 28, the project demonstrates how teachers’ associations can drive teaching and learning practices to foster a climate-conscious generation. 
• “EducoNetImpact”, Belgium Conceptualized as part of a PhD research project, the  EducoNetImpact aims to raise awareness about the environmental impact of digital technologies and to promote responsible digital behaviours in students through the “digital sobriety” approach. The initiative supports teachers in effectively teaching about digital technology and its impact on the environment. As such, the project developed a pedagogical guide consisting of a self-training course and ready-to-use learning materials and games for different age levels, as well as other interactive resources, available via an online platform. Tested among 1,000 teachers with field experiments involving students, the project has demonstrated a positive impact on students' awareness and behaviours, including adopting eco-responsible practices in the use of digital platforms and the recycling of digital devices.

Theme: The use of public platforms to ensure inclusive access to digital education content

• Smart Education of China, Peoples’ Republic of China Rolled out in 2020,  Smart Education of China  is an all-encompassing platform that hosts a wide range of curriculum-aligned learning resources, including 44,000 resources for basic education, covering all grades and subjects; 19,000 resources vocational education; and 27,000 MOOCs for higher education. The platform also includes a rich pool of extra-curricula materials to support learners’ comprehensive learning, on issues such as mental health and well-being, sports, arts, etc. With 13.15 million registered users, the platform played a pivotal role in facilitating large-scale distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, the initiative includes digital competency development by providing training to more than 10 million teachers and reaching learners in remote and rural areas, thus contributing to the quality and equity of education in China.   
• The National Resource Hub, Republic of Ireland Established in 2019, the  National Resource Hub  is a collaborative and inclusive platform that serves as a gateway to open educational resources and practices in higher education. With over 780 high-quality resources, it has reached a global user base of 650,000 individuals from 173 countries. The Hub also features open courses for professional development, completed by over 5,000 higher education institutions staff and a network of 628 trained facilitators in Ireland. The Hub maintains a robust review process and incorporates user feedback to ensure the relevance and quality of its content. It embraces diversity and inclusion by encouraging gender-inclusive content, providing features for learners with additional needs, and offering resources for low-connectivity contexts. The Hub's commitment to openness is transforming the landscape of education and empowering educators and learners alike.

Theme: The use of technology to enable inclusive crisis-resilient learning systems.

• More information

Theme: The use of artificial intelligence to enhance the continuity and quality of learning.

• ​​​​​​​ More information

Theme: The use of artificial intelligence to innovate education, teaching and learning

• ​​​​​​​ Read the case study

Theme: The use of innovative ICT to ensure education for the most vulnerable groups

• Read the case study

Theme: The use of ICTs to increase access to quality education

Theme: The use of ICTs in education for disadvantaged groups

Theme: Pedagogical innovation in the use of ICTs in teaching and learning

• “National Program of Educational Informatics” (PRONIE) of the Omar Dengo Foundation, Costa Rica The project contributes to improving the quality and equity of learning opportunities within the public education system through the use of digital technologies. It gives priority to marginalized children and youth from rural and marginal urban areas. Since 1988, 8,674,521 students have benefited from the program in pre-schools, primary schools, secondary schools and TVET schools. The program PRONIE has developed an outstanding systematic approach to enhance students’ capacities to create ICT products across the school system. Furthermore, the program also focuses on teachers’ continuous training and monitoring to improve their teaching skills in educational informatics.
• Open Source Physics @Singapore project of the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Singapore The project has been developed by the Educational Technology Division of the Ministry of Education since 2012. Its goal is to give users, including students and teachers, the freedom to learn from, build on and share well designed ICT resources for teaching and learning physics. An outstanding innovative tool, “ Open Source Physics@Singapore ” for learning physics using an open platform, including open source code and open content, was developed. Both students and teachers work in a collaborative and innovative way, benefiting from the adaptable resources that it provides for better learning and teaching. So far, 9,800 students have been reached by the program in primary, secondary and TVET schools. In addition, the software application enhanced collaboration between the educational community, the Ministry and industry. It is easily scalable to a larger community as the tools and content are available worldwide.

Theme: Education youth for responsible global citizenship

• Internet-ABC, Germany Internet-ABC offers children, parents and educators support and information on how to handle the web safely. The content is ad-free, safe and easily accessible to everyone. Attractive and engaging sites invite 5-12-year-old children to play, learn and communicate, while reinforcing their knowledge of safe Internet use. The  www.internet-abc.de  website attracts 100,000 users per month on average.
• Dr Yuhyun Park, Co-Founder and CEO of iZ HERO, Republic of Korea iZ HERO is a digital leadership initiative that empowers 6-12-year-old children to become future leaders in the digital era by fostering essential skills and value-based digital citizenship. This international research-driven, award-winning programme includes a holistic online play-and-learn tool and a suite of offline programmes. It has demonstrated educational efficacy in improving children’s attitudes toward Internet risks such as cyber bullying, game addiction and online predators through academic research. To date, over 1.5 million people have visited the iZ HERO Exhibition at the Singapore Science Centre and around 70 per cent of primary schools and target students in Singapore have participated in the iZ HERO initiative.

Theme: Digital literacy: preparing adult learners for lifelong learning and flexible employment

• National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE), United Kingdom NIACE is the leading non-governmental body promoting the interests of adult learners in England and Wales. NIACE is a membership organization with paid staff, including a specialist Digital Learning Team. Its work draws on both theoretical and practical knowledge of the methods and pedagogies which work best in offering learning opportunities to adults. It has developed a national network of 6,000 Internet access centres to serve adults in both rural and urban areas.
• Technological Literacy for Older Adults, Venezuela The “Technological Literacy for Older Adults” project was submitted by the Infocentro Foundation. Following its own “Pedagogy of Patience” philosophy, facilitators of the Infocentros network have experience and expertise in working with the elderly. They use a variety of strategies, techniques and resources and adapt educational practices to older users to help them overcome their technological fears and familiarize themselves with computers. Some 680 Infocentros across the country enable adults and other users to achieve lifelong learning, and have helped more than 900,000 people at national level achieve technological literacy.

Theme:  Teaching, learning and e-pedagogy: teacher professional development for knowledge societies

• Prof Alexei Semenov, Rector of the Moscow Institute of Open Education, Russian Federation Teacher professional development is the major mission of the Moscow Institute of Open Education (MIOE), led by Professor Alexei Semenov. Every year, the Institute organizes dedicated e-pedagogy development for 5,000 to 10,000 teachers and introductory modules for 30,000 teachers with extensive web-based content and technologies.
• Jordan Education Initiative, Jordan The Jordan Education Initiative (JEI) is one of Her Majesty Queen Rania Al Abdullah’s non-profit organizations which works with the Ministry of Education to drive innovation by leveraging private-sector participation. JEI was created as a pioneer model for developing education, based on fostering ingenuity, harnessing the power of technology and coupling it with proven modern teaching strategies to transform the school environment into a cradle of discovery and creativity and allow Jordanian students to imagine and realize a future reality. Since its launch in 2003, JEI has impacted the lives of thousands and made a very tangible positive impact on students, teachers, families, communities and the economy.

Theme: Digital opportunities for all: preparing students for 21st century skills

• Shanghai TV University, People's Republic of China The “Changing the Digital Divide into a Digital Opportunity” project is aimed at implementing a lifelong learning system through digital means in Shanghai. It includes 230 social learning centres in Shanghai and promotes digital literacy among students, adults in employment, seniors and others.
• Dr Hoda Baraka, First Deputy to the Minister of Communications and Information Technology, Egypt The comprehensive “ICT-in-Education Programme: Towards Ubiquitous Reachability to All Learners” was started in the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT) in 2003 to reach out to learners through formal and informal educational practices in schools and universities, as well as non-formal education streams of systematic educational activities outside schools and universities. This project was developed by Dr Huda Baraka, First Deputy to the Minister of Communications and Information Technology. She has led the implementation of many national projects for the use of information and communication technologies in the field of education.

Theme:  Open education

• Curriki, United States of America Curriki’s driving mission is to make education more equitable through a global open educational resource (OER) community of educators, parents and students, enabling teachers to make learning more personalized and helping students reach their full potential. The online community gives teachers, students and parents universal access to a wealth of peer-reviewed “K-12” (kindergarten to 12th grade) curricula and powerful online collaboration tools. Curriki built the first website for open instruction and assessment. Founded by Sun Microsystems in 2004, the organization has operated as an independent non-profit organization since 2007.
• Claroline Connect, Belgium Claroline Consortium has implemented an e-learning and e-working platform (learning management system) released under an open-source GNU General Public License (GPL). It is a platform for distance training and collaborative work. Translated into 35 languages, Claroline allows hundreds of institutions from 93 countries to create free online courses. Adaptable to different trainings, Claroline has been developed according to teachers’ pedagogical experiences and needs. It supports course managers in their projects and stimulates them to set up efficient resources promoting the acquisition of knowledge and skills.

Theme:  Enhancing teaching and learning

• The Cyber Home Learning System (CHLS) for primary and secondary students, the Korean Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development (MOEHRD) and the Korea Education and Research Information Service (KERIS), Republic of Korea The Korea Education and Research Information Service (KERIS) was established in 1999 as an exclusive national institute to promote the effective use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in education. The Cyber Home Learning System is a nation-wide e-learning system aiming to provide elementary and secondary school students in Korea with a quality education service after school hours. It has helped reduce private tutoring expenses, enhance the quality of public education, and achieve equity in education and education welfare by narrowing the education gap between regions and income levels.
• eDegree Programme, Kemi-Tornio University of Applied Sciences, Finland The eDegree Program in Lapland is aimed at unemployed adults living in rural or remote, depopulated areas. It was developed by the Kemi-Tornio University of Applied Sciences, a pioneer in distance education in Finland. Originally planned for Lapland, the project has rapidly spread throughout the country. Its effectiveness has been proven by the number of people who have succeeded in completing their studies and work.

Related items

• Educational technology
• UNESCO King Hamad Bin Isa Al Khalifa Prize for the use of information and communication technologies in education

V. I. Lenin

First all-russia congress on adult education, may 6-19, 1919.

Delivered: 6 May & 19 May, 1919 First Published: Published in the pamphlet: N. Lenin, Two Speeches at the First All-Russia Congress on Adult Education, Moscow, 1919; Published according to the pamphlet Source: Lenin’s Collected Works , 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972 Volume 29, pages 333-376 Translated: George Hanna Transcription/HTML Markup: David Walters & Robert Cymbala Copyleft: V. I. Lenin Internet Archive (www.marx.org) 2002. Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

Speech Of Greeting

Comrades, it gives me pleasure to greet the Congress on adult education. You do not, of course, expect me to deliver a speech that goes deeply into this subject, like that delivered by the preceding speaker, Comrade Lunacharsky, who is well-informed on the matter and has made a special study of it. Permit me to confine myself to a few words of greeting and to the observations I have made and thoughts that have occurred to me in the Council of People’s Commissars when dealing more or less closely with your work. I am sure that there is not another sphere of Soviet activity in which such enormous progress has been made during the past eighteen months as in the sphere of adult education. Undoubtedly, it has been easier for us and for you to work in this sphere than in others. Here we had to cast aside the old obstacles and the old hindrances. Here it was much easier to do something to meet the tremendous demand for knowledge, for free education and free development, which was felt most among the masses of the workers and peasants; for while the mighty pressure of the masses made it easy for us to remove the external obstacles that stood in their path, to break up the historical bourgeois institutions which bound us to imperialist war and doomed Russia to bear the enormous burden that resulted from this war, we nevertheless felt acutely how heavy the task of re-educating the masses was, the task of organisation and instruction, spreading knowledge, combating that heritage of ignorance, primitiveness, barbarism and savagery that we took over. In this field the struggle had to be waged by entirely different methods; we could count only on the prolonged success and the persistent and systematic influence of the leading sections of the population, an influence which the masses willingly submit to, but often we are guilty of doing less than we could do. I think that in taking these first steps to spread adult education, education, free from the old limits and conventionalities, which the adult population welcomes so much, we had at first to contend with two obstacles. Both these obstacles we inherited from the old capitalist society, which is clinging to us to this day, is dragging us down by thousands and millions of threads, ropes and chains.

The first was the plethora of bourgeois intellectuals, who very often regarded the new type of workers’ and peasants’ educational institution as the most convenient field for testing their individual theories in philosophy and culture, and in which, very often, the most absurd ideas were hailed as something new, and the supernatural and incongruous were offered as purely proletarian art and proletarian culture. [1] ( Applause .) This was natural and, perhaps, pardonable in the early days, and the broad movement cannot be blamed for it. I hope that, in the long run, we shall try to get rid of all this and shall succeed.

The second was also inherited from capitalism. The broad masses of the petty-bourgeois working people who were thirsting for knowledge, broke down the old system, but could not propose anything of an organising or organised nature. I had opportunities to observe this in the Council of People’s Commissars when the mobilisation of literate persons and the Library Department were discussed, and from these brief observations I realised the seriousness of the situation in this field. True, it is not quite customary to refer to something bad in a speech of greeting. I hope that you are free from these conventionalities, and will not be offended with me for telling you of my somewhat sad observations. When we raised the question of mobilising literate persons, the most striking thing was the brilliant victory achieved by our revolution without immediately emerging from the limits of the bourgeois revolution. It gave freedom for development to the available forces, but these available forces were petty bourgeois and their watch- word was the old one—each for himself and God for all—the very same accursed capitalist slogan which can never lead to anything but Kolchak and bourgeois restoration. If we review what we are doing to educate the illiterate, I think we shall have to draw the conclusion that we have done very little, and that our duty in this field is to realise that the organisation of proletarian elements is essential. It is not the ridiculous phrases which remain on paper that matter, but the introduction of measures which the people need urgently and which would compel every literate person to regard it his duty to instruct several illiterate persons. This is what our decree says [2] ; but in this field hardly anything has been done.

When another question was dealt with in the Council of People’s Commissars, that of the libraries, I said that the complaints we are constantly hearing about our industrial backwardness being to blame, about our having few books and being unable to produce enough—these complaints, I told myself, are justified. We have no fuel, of course, our factories are idle, we have little paper and we cannot produce books. All this is true, but it is also true that we cannot get at the books that are available. Here we continue to suffer from peasant simplicity and peasant helplessness; when the peasant ransacks the squire’s library he runs home in the fear that somebody will take the books away from him, because he cannot conceive of just distribution, of state property that is not something hateful, but is the common property of the workers and of the working people generally. The ignorant masses of peasants are not to blame for this, and as far as the development of the revolution is concerned it is quite legitimate, it is an inevitable stage, and when the peasant took the library and kept it hidden, he could not do otherwise, for he did not know that all the libraries in Russia could be amalgamated and that there would be enough books to satisfy those who can read and to teach those who cannot. At present we must combat the survivals of disorganisation, chaos, and ridiculous departmental wrangling. This must be our main task. We must take up the simple and urgent matter of mobilising the literate to combat illiteracy. We must utilise the books that are available and set to work to organise a network of libraries which will help the people to gain access to every available book; there must be no parallel organisations, but a single, uniform planned organisation. This small matter reflects one of the fundamental tasks of our revolution. If it fails to carry out this task, if it fails to set about creating a really systematic and uniform organisation in place of our Russian chaos and inefficiency, then this revolution will remain a bourgeois revolution because the major specific feature of the proletarian revolution which is marching towards communism is this organisation—for all the bourgeoisie wanted was to break up the old system and allow freedom for the development of peasant farming, which revived the same capitalism as in all earlier revolutions.

Since we call ourselves the Communist Party, we must understand that only now that we have removed the external obstacles and have broken down the old institutions have we come face to face with the primary task of a genuine proletarian revolution in all its magnitude, namely, that of organising tens and hundreds of millions of people. After the eighteen months’ experience that we all have acquired in this field, we must at last take the right road that will lead to victory over the lack of culture, and over the ignorance and barbarism from which we have suffered all this time. ( Stormy applause .)

Deception Of The People With Slogans Of Freedom And Equality

Comrades, instead of an appraisal of the current situation, which I think some of you expect today, permit me to answer the most important political questions—not only theoretical, of course, but also practical—which now loom before us, characterise the entire stage of the Soviet revolution and give rise to most controversy; they give rise to most of attacks by people who think they are socialists, and they cause most confusion in the minds of people who think they are democrats and who are particularly fond of accusing us of violating democracy. It seems to me that these general political questions are too often, even constantly, to be found in all present-day propaganda and agitation, and in all anti-Bolshevik literature—when, of course, this literature rises slightly above the level of the downright lying, slander and vituperation of all organs of the bourgeois press. If we take the literature of a slightly higher level I think we shall find that the fundamental questions are the relations between democracy and dictatorship, the tasks of the revolutionary class in a revolutionary period, the tasks of the transition to socialism in general, and the relations between the working class and the peasantry; I think that these questions serve as the main basis for all present-day political controversies, and although it may sometimes seem to you that it is something of a digression from the immediate topics af the day, the explanation of these issues should be our chief duty. I can not, of course, undertake to cover all these questions in a short lecture. I have chosen some, which I should like to talk to you about.

The first point I have chosen is that of the difficulties of every revolution, of every transition to a new system. If you examine the attacks that are made against the Bolsheviks by people who think that they are socialists and democrats—and as examples of such I can quote the groups of writers in Vsegda Vperyod! and Dyelo Naroda , newspapers which in my opinion have quite rightly been suppressed in the interests of the revolution, and the representatives of which most often resort to theoretical criticism in attacks of the type natural for organs which our authorities regard as counter-revolutionary—if you examine the attacks on Bolshevism made by this camp, you will find that a constant accusation is the following: “The Bolsheviks promised you, the working people, bread, peace and freedom; but they have not given you bread, or peace, or freedom, they have deceived you, and they have deceived you by abandoning democracy.” I shall deal with the departure from democracy separately. At present I will take the other side of this accusation—“The Bolsheviks promised bread, peace and freedom, but the Bolsheviks gave you a continuation of the war, an exceptionally fierce and stubborn struggle, a war of all the imperialists, of the capitalists of all the Entente countries—which means of the most civilised and advanced countries—against tormented, tortured, backward and weary Russia.” And these accusations, I repeat, you will find in both the newspapers I have mentioned; you will hear them made in conversation with every bourgeois intellectual who, of course, thinks that he is not bourgeois; you will constantly hear them in conversation with every philistine. And so I ask you to give some thought to this sort of accusation.

Yes, the Bolsheviks did set out to make a revolution against the bourgeoisie, to overthrow the bourgeois government violently, to break away from all the traditional customs, promises and commandments of bourgeois democracy; they did set out to wage a most desperate and violent struggle and war to crush the propertied classes; they did this to extricate Russia, and then the whole of mankind, from the imperialist slaughter and to put an end to all war. Yes, the Bolsheviks did set out to make a revolution in order to achieve all this, and, of course, they have never thought of abandoning this fundamental and main object. Nor is there any doubt that the attempts to emerge from this imperialist slaughter, to smash the rule of the bourgeoisie, prompted all the civilised countries to attack Russia; for such is the political programme of France, Britain and America, no matter how much they insist that they have abandoned the idea of intervention. No matter how much the Lloyd Georges, Wilsons and Clemenceaus may assure us that they have abandoned the idea of intervention, we know that they are lying. We know that the Allied warships which left, and were compelled to leave, Odessa and Sevastopol, are now blockading the Black Sea coast, and are even giving artillery cover to that part of the Crimean Peninsula, near Kerch, where the volunteers [3] are concentrated. They say: “We cannot surrender this to you. Even if the volunteers fail to cope with you, we cannot surrender this part of the Crimean Peninsula, because, if we did, you would be masters of the Azov Sea, you will cut us off from Denikin and prevent us from sending supplies to our friends.” Or take the offensive now developing against Petrograd. Yesterday one of our destroyers fought against four enemy destroyers. Is it not clear that this is intervention? Is not the British navy taking part in it? Is not the same thing happening in Archangel and Siberia? The fact is that the whole civilised world is now fighting against Russia.

The question is, did we contradict ourselves when we called upon the working people to make a revolution, promising them peace, and brought things to the pitch that the whole civilised world is now attacking weak, weary, backward and ruined Russia? Or are those who have the presumption to hurl such a reproach at us acting in contradiction to the elementary concepts of democracy and socialism? That is the question. To present this question in its theoretical, general form, I shall draw an analogy. We talk about the revolutionary class, the revolutionary policy of the people, but I suggest you take an individual revolutionary. Take, for example, Chernyshevsky, and appraise his activities. What would be the appraisal of an absolutely ignorant man? Probably he would say: “Well, the man wrecked his own life, found himself in Siberia, and achieved nothing.” This is a sample. If we were to hear an argument like this from some unknown person we would say: “At best it comes from a man who is hopelessly ignorant and who is, perhaps, not to blame for being so ignorant that he cannot understand the importance of the activities of an individual revolutionary in the general chain of revolutionary events; or else it comes from a scoundrel, a supporter of reaction, who is deliberately trying to frighten the working people away from the revolution.” I took the example of Chernyshevsky because, no matter which trend the people who call themselves socialists may belong to, there cannot be any serious disagreement in their appraisal of this individual revolutionary. Everybody will agree that if an individual revolutionary is appraised from the point of view of the outwardly useless and often fruitless sacrifices he has made and the nature of his activities and their connection with the activities of preceding and succeeding revolutionaries is ignored—if the importance of his activities is appraised from this point of view, it is due either to complete ignorance, or to a vicious and hypocritical defence of the interests of reaction, oppression, exploitation and class tyranny. On this point there can be no disagreement.

Now I ask you to carry your thoughts from the individual revolutionary to the revolution of a whole nation, of a whole country. Has any Bolshevik ever denied that the revolution can be finally victorious only when it embraces all, or at all events, some of the most important advanced countries? We have always said that. Did we ever say that it was possible to emerge from the imperiarist war simply by the men sticking their bayonets into the ground? I deliberately use this expression which, in the Kerensky period, I personally, and all our comrades, constantly used in resolutions, speeches and newspaper articles. We said: The war cannot be brought to a close by the men sticking their bayonets into the ground. If there are Tolstoyans who think otherwise, they must be pitied as people who have taken leave of their senses, and you can expect nothing better from them.

We said that emergence from this war may involve us in a revolutionary war. We said this from 1915 onwards, and then later, in the Kerensky period. Of course, revolutionary war is also war, just as arduous, sanguinary and painful. And when the revolution develops on a world scale it inevitably arouses resistance on the same world scale. The situation now being such that all the civilised countries in the world are fighting against Russia, we must not be surprised that extremely ignorant peasants are accusing us of failing to keep our promises. Nothing else is to be expected from them. In view of their absolute ignorance, we cannot blame them. Indeed, how can you expect a very ignorant peasant to understand that there are different kinds of wars, that there are just and unjust wars, progressive and reactionary wars, wars waged by advanced classes and wars waged by backward classes, wars waged for the purpose of perpetuating class oppression and wars waged for the purpose of eliminating oppression? To understand this one must be familiar with the class struggle, with the principles of socialism, and at least a little bit familiar with the history of revolution. You cannot expect this from an ignorant peasant.

But when a man who calls himself a democrat, or a socialist, gets up on a platform to make a public statement— irrespective of what he calls himself, Menshevik, Social-Democrat, Socialist-Revolutionary, true socialist, adherent of the Berne International, there are lots of titles of this sort, titles are cheap—when such an individual gets up and charges us with having promised peace and called forth war, what answer should be made to him? Are we to assume that he is as ignorant as the ignorant peasant who cannot distinguish one kind of war from another? Are we to assume that he does not see the difference between the imperialist war, which was a predatory war, and which has now been utterly exposed as such—since the Treaty of Versailles only those who are totally incapable of reasoning and thinking, or who are totally blind, can fail to see that it was a predatory war on both sides—are we to assume that there is even one literate person who fails to see the difference between that predatory war and the war we are waging and which is assuming world-wide dimensions, because the world bourgeoisie have realised that they must fight their last decisive battle? We cannot assume any of this. And that is why we say that anybody who claims to be a democrat, or a socialist, of whatever shade, is a supporter of the bourgeoisie if he in one way or another, directly or indirectly, spreads among the people the accusation that the Bolsheviks are dragging out the Civil War, which is an arduous and painful war, whereas they promised peace; and this is how we shall answer him, and we shall take our stand against him just as we do against Kolchak. Such is our answer. Such is the entire issue.

The gentlemen of Dyelo Naroda express astonishment and say: “But we are opposed to Kolchak; what terrible injustice to persecute us!”

It is a great pity, gentlemen, that you refuse to be logical and do not wish to understand the simple ABC of politics from which certain definite deductions must be made. You say that you are opposed to Kolchak. I take up the newspapers Vsegda Vperyod! and Dyelo Naroda and read the philistine arguments of this type, these moods that are so numerous and that prevail among the intelligentsia. I say that every one of you who spreads such accusations among the people is supporting Kolchak, because he does not understand the elementary, fundamental difference, which every literate person sees, between the imperialist war which we smashed, and the Civil War in which we have become involved. We never concealed from the people the fact that we were taking this risk. We are straining every nerve to defeat the bourgeoisie in this Civil War and to prevent all possibility of class oppression. There has never been, nor can there ever be, a revolution that was guaranteed against a long and arduous struggle, and perhaps filled with the most desperate sacrifices. Those who are unable to distinguish between the sacrifices made in the course of a revolutionary struggle for the sake of its victory, when all the propertied, all the counter-revolutionary classes are fighting against the revolution, those who cannot distinguish between these sacrifices and the sacrifices involved in a predatory war waged by the exploiters, are either abysmally ignorant—and such people ought to be made to learn their ABC, before giving them adult education they ought to be given the most elementary.education—or they are out-and-out Kolchak-supporting hypocrites, whatever they may call themselves, or under whichever title they may try to disguise themselves. And these accusations against the Bolsheviks are the most common and widespread. They are really linked up with the broad masses of the working people, because the ignorant peasants find it difficult to understand; they suffer from all war, no matter what the war is about. I am not surprised when I hear an ignorant peasant say: “We had to fight for the tsar, we fought for the Mensheviks, and now we have to fight for the Bolsheviks.” This does not surprise me. Indeed, war is war, and entails endless heavy sacrifices. “The tsar said that it was a war for freedom and liberation from a yoke; the Mensheviks said that it was a war for freedom and liberation from a yoke. And now the Bolsheviks say the same thing. They all say the same thing; how can we sort this all out?”

Indeed, how can an ignorant peasant sort it all out? Such a man still has to learn elementary politics. But what can we say about a man who uses such words as “revolution”, “democracy”, and “socialism”, and claims that these words should be used with understanding. He cannot juggle with such words unless he wants to be a political faker, for the difference between a war between two groups of robbers and a war waged by an oppressed class which has risen in revolt against all robbery is an elementary, radical and fundamental difference. The issue is not one of a certain party, class or government justifying war—the real point at issue is the nature of the war, its class content, which class is waging it, and what policy is embodied in it.

I shall now leave the question of appraising the arduous and difficult period we are now passing through, and which is inevitably connected with the revolution, for another political issue, which also comes up in all debates, and also gives rise to confusion. This is the question of a bloc with the imperialists, of an alliance, an agreement with the imperialists.

Probably you have read in the newspapers the names of the Socialist-Revolutionaries Volsky and, I believe, Svyatitsky, who recently wrote in Izvestia , and issued their manifesto. They regard themselves as Socialist-Revolutionaries who cannot possibly be accused of having supported Kolchak. They left Kolchak, they suffered at the hands of Kolchak, and on coming over to us they rendered us a service against Kolchak. That is true. But examine the arguments these citizens advance. See how they appraise the question of a bloc with the imperialists, of an alliance, or agreement, with the imperialists. I had occasion to read their arguments when the authorities combating counter-revolution confiscated their writings, and when I had to examine their papers to be able to judge correctly the extent of their association with Kolchak. These are undoubtedly the best of the Socialist-Revolutionaries. In their writings I found the following argument, “What do you mean? You want us to repent; you are waiting for us to repent. Never! We have nothing to repent of! You accuse us of having entered into a bloc, an agreement with the Entente, with the imperialists. But did you Bolsheviks not enter into an agreement with the German imperialists? What is the Brest peace? Is not the Brest peace an agreement with imperialism? You entered into an agreement with German imperialism at Brest; we entered into an agreement with French imperialism; we are quits, we have nothing to repent of!”

This argument, which I found in the writings of the persons I have mentioned and of their colleagues, is one that I also find when I call to mind the newspapers I mentioned and when I try to sum up my impressions of philistine conversations. We constantly hear arguments of this kind, it is one of the chief political arguments we have to deal with. I therefore ask you to examine and analyse this argument, and to study it theoretically. What does it amount to? Are those right who say: “We democrats and socialists were in a bloc with the Entente; you were in a bloc with Wilhelm, you concluded the Brest peace. We have no grounds for mutual reproach. We are quits”? Or are we right when we say that those who not merely in words but in deeds are in agreement with the Entente against the Bolshevik revolution are supporters of Kolchak? Although they may deny it a thousand times, although they have personally deserted Kolchak and have proclaimed to the whole people that they are opposed to him, their very roots, the whole nature and significance of their arguments and their deeds make them Kolchak supporters. Who is right? This is the fundamental question of the revolution; and some thought must be given to this.

To explain this point, permit me to draw another analogy, this time, however, not with an individual revolutionary, but with an individual man in the street. Let us suppose that you were riding in an automobile and suddenly your car is surrounded by bandits who point a revolver at your head. Let us suppose that after this you surrender your money and weapons to the bandits, and even let them take the car and ride off. Well? You have given the bandits weapons and money. That is a fact. Now let us suppose that another citizen gave these bandits weapons and money so as to take part in their attacks on peaceful citizens.

In both cases an agreement is reached, whether written or verbal makes no difference. We can picture to ourselves a man giving up his revolver, his weapons and his money, without uttering a word. The nature of the agreement is clear: “I give you my revolver, my weapons and money, and you give me the opportunity to rid myself of your pleasant company.” ( Laughter .) The agreement is a fact. It is also possible for a tacit agreement to be concluded by the man who gives the bandits weapons and money to enable them to rob other people and afterwards give him part of the loot. This, too, is a tacit agreement.

Now I ask you, could any literate person fail to distinguish between these two agreements? You will say that if a man is unable to distinguish between these two agreements and says, “You gave the bandits money and weapons and so don’t accuse other people of banditism; what right have you to accuse other people of banditism?”—such a man must be a cretin. If you were to meet such a literate person you would have to admit, or at least 999 out of 1,000 would admit, that he had taken leave of his senses, and that it is useless to discuss political, or even criminal, subjects with such a man.

I now ask you to carry your thoughts from this example to the comparison between the Brest peace and the agreement with the Entente. What was the Brest peace? Was it not an act of violence on the part of bandits who had at tacked us when we were honestly proposing peace and were calling upon all nations to overthrow their own bourgeoisie? It would have been ridiculous had we started by trying to overthrow the German bourgeoisie! We denounced this treaty before the whole world as a most predatory, plundering treaty, we condemned it and at first even refused to sign it, as we counted on the assistance of the German workers. But when the robbers put a revolver to our heads we said, take the weapons and the money, we will settle accounts with you later on by other means. We know that German imperialism has another enemy, whom blind people have not noticed, namely, the German workers. Can this agreement with imperialism be put on a par with the agreement entered into by democrats, socialists and Socialist-Revolutionaries—don’t laugh, the more radical the title the more resonant it sounds—with the agreement they entered into with the Entente to fight against the workers of their own country? But that is what they did, and are doing to this day. The most influential Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, those with European reputations, are living abroad even today, and they are in alliance with the Entente. I do not know whether this is a written agreement; probably not, clever people do such things on the quiet. But it is obvious that such an agreement exists, since they are being made such a fuss of, are given passports, and wireless messages are being sent all over the world stating that Axelrod delivered a speech today, that Savinkov, or Avksentyev, will deliver a speech tomorrow, and that Breshkovskaya will speak the day after tomorrow. Is this not an agreement, even if a tacit one? But is it the same kind of agreement with the imperialists as we concluded? Outwardly it resembles ours as much as the act of a man who gives weapons and money to bandits resembles any act of this nature, irrespective of its object and character, at all events, irrespective of the object for which I give the bandits money and weapons: whether it is to get rid of them when they attack me and I find myself in a position where if I do not give them my revolver they will kill me; or I give the bandits money and weapons for the purpose of robbery, of which I am aware, and in the proceeds of which I am to share.

“I, of course, call this liberating Russia from the dictatorship of tyrants. I, of course, am a democrat, because I support the famous Siberian or Archangel democracy, and am fighting, of course, for a Constituent Assembly. Don’t dare to suspect that I am pursuing some evil object. And even if I am rendering assistance to those bandits, the British, French and American imperialists, I am doing so only in the interests of democracy, of the Constituent Assembly, of government by the people, of the unity of the working classes of the population, and in order to overthrow those tyrants and usurpers, the Bolsheviks!”

Noble aims, no doubt. But has not everybody who engages in politics heard that politics are not judged by bare statements but by real class content? Which class do you serve? If you are in agreement with the imperialists, are you participating in imperialist banditism or not?

In my “Letter to American Workers”, I spoke, among other things, about the American revolutionary people fighting to liberate themselves from England in the eighteenth century, when they were waging one of the first and greatest wars for real liberation in human history, one of the few really revolutionary wars in human history—and this great revolutionary American people, in fighting for their liberation, entered into agreements with the bandits of Spanish and French imperialism, who at that time had colonies in neighbouring parts of America. In alliance with these bandits, the American people fought the English and liberated themselves from them. Have you ever met any literate person anywhere in the world, have you seen any socialists, Socialist-Revolutionaries, representatives of democracy, or whatever it is they call themselves—even the Mensheviks—have you ever heard that any of these have the temerity publicly to blame the American people for this, to say that they violated the principle of democracy, freedom, and so forth? Such a crank has not yet been born. But today, we get people here who call themselves by these titles, and even claim a right to belong to the same International that we belong to, and say that it is merely a piece of Bolshevik mischievousness—and everybody knows that the Bolsheviks are mischievous—to organise their own International and refuse to join the good, old, common to all, united, Berne International!

And there are people who say: “We have nothing to repent of. You entered into an agreement with Wilhelm, we entered into an agreement with the Entente, we are quits!”

I say that if these people have even an elementary knowledge of politics they are Kolchak supporters, no matter how much they personally may have denied this, no matter how much they personally are sick and tired of Kolchak, no matter how much they have suffered at his hands and in spite of their having come over to our side. They are Kolchak supporters because it is impossible to imagine that they do not see the difference between an agreement one is compelled to make in the course of the struggle against the exploiters—and which the exploited classes have been compelled to make over and over again throughout the history of the revolution—and the conduct of our most influential alleged democrats, representatives of our”socialist” intelligentsia, some of whom yesterday and some today entered into agreements with the bandits and robbers of international imperialism against a section —as they say—a section of the working classes of their own country. These are Kolchak people, and the only relations possible with them are those between conscious revolutionaries and Kolchak supporters.

I now come to the next question, that of our attitude towards democracy in general.

I have already said that the democrats and socialists plead democracy as the most common justification, the most common defence of the political stand taken against us. The most emphatic supporter of this point of view in European literature is, as you, of course, know, Kautsky, the ideological leader of the Second International, and to this day a member of the Berne International. “The Bolsheviks have chosen a method which violates democracy; the Bolsheviks have chosen the method of dictatorship. Hence, their cause is unjust,” he says. This argument has been repeated a thousand and a million times, it occurs constantly in all periodicals, including the newspapers I have mentioned. It is being constantly repeated by all intellectuals, and sometimes the ordinary man in the street sub-consciously repeats it in his arguments. “Democracy means freedom, it means equality, it means settling questions by a majority. What can be higher than freedom, equality, and majority decisions? Since you Bolsheviks have departed from this, and even have the presumption to say publicly that you stand above freedom, equality and majority decisions, you must not be surprised, nor must you complain, when we call you usurpers and tyrants!”

We are not in the least surprised at this, for what we desire most of all is clarity; and the only thing we rely on is that the advanced section of the working people should really be conscious of its position. Yes, we said, and say it all the time in our programme, in the programme of our Party, that we shall not allow ourselves to be deceived by such high-sounding slogans as freedom, equality and the will of the majority, and that we shall treat as aiders and abettors of Kolchak those who call themselves democrats, adherents of pure democracy, adherents of consistent democracy and who, directly or indirectly, oppose it to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Get this clear—you must get it clear. Are the pure democrats guilty of merely preaching pure democracy, defending it from the usurpers, or are they guilty of being on the side of the propertied classes, on the side of Kolchak?

We shall begin our examination with the question of freedom. Needless to say, for every revolution, socialist or democratic, freedom is a very, very important slogan. But our programme says that if freedom runs counter to the emancipation of labour from the yoke of capital, it is a deception. And every one of you who has read Marx—and, I think, even every one who has read at least one popular exposition of Marx’s theories—knows that Marx devoted the greater part of his life, the greater part of his literary work, and the greater part of his scientific studies to ridiculing freedom, equality, the will of the majority, and all the Benthams who wrote so beautifully about these things, and to proving that these phrases were merely a screen to cover up the freedom of the commodity owners, the freedom of capital, which these owners use to oppress the masses of the working people.

At the present time, when things have reached the stage of overthrowing the rule of capital all over the world, or at all events in one country; in this historical epoch, when the struggle of the oppressed working people for the complete overthrow of capital and the abolition of commodity production stands in the forefront, we say that all those who in such a political situation talk about “freedom in general”, who in the name of this freedom oppose the dictatorship of the proletariat are doing nothing more nor less than aiding and abetting the exploiters, for unless freedom promotes the emancipation of labour from the yoke of capital, it is a deception, as we openly say in our Party programme. Perhaps this is superfluous from the point of view of the outward structure of the programme, but it is most fundamental from the point of view of our propaganda and agitation, from the point of view of the principle of the proletarian struggle and proletarian power. We know perfectly well that we have to contend against world capital; we know perfectly well that at one time it was the task of world capital to create freedom, that it overthrew feudal slavery, that it created bourgeois freedom. We know perfectly well that this was epoch-making progress. And yet we say that we are opposing capitalism in general, republican capitalism, democratic capitalism, free capitalism; and, of course, we know that it will raise tho standard of liberty against us. But to this we have our answer, and we deemed it necessary to give this answer in our programme—all freedom is deception if it runs counter to the emancipation of labour from the yoke of capital.

But, perhaps, this is not the case? Perhaps there is no contradiction between freedom and the emancipation of labour from the yoke of capital? Take the West-European countries that you have visited, or at least have read about. Every book you read describes their system as the freest system. And now, these civilised countries of Western Europe—France and Britain—and America have raised this standard, are marching against the Bolsheviks “in the name of freedom”. Only the other day—we now get French newspapers but rarely because we are completely surrounded, but we do get wireless information, because, after all, they cannot blockade the air, and we intercept foreign wireless messages—the other day I had the opportunity of reading a wireless message that was sent out by the predatory government of France to the effect that in fighting the Bolsheviks and supporting their opponents, France was remaining true to her “lofty ideals of freedom”. We hear this sort of thing at every step, it is the general tone of their polemics against us.

But what do they mean by freedom? By freedom these civilised Frenchmen, Englishmen and Americans mean, say, freedom of assembly. The constitution should contain the clause: “Freedom of assembly for all citizens.” “This,” they say, “is the substance, this is the principal manifestation of freedom. But you Bolsheviks have violated freedom of assembly.”

To this we answer indeed, the freedom that you British, French and American gentlemen preach is a deception if it runs counter to the emancipation of labour from the yoke of capital. You have forgotten a detail, you civilised gentlemen. You have forgotten that your freedom is inscribed in a constitution which sanctions private property . That is the whole point.

In your constitution you have freedom side by side with private property. The fact that you recognise freedom of assembly, of course, marks vast progress compared with the feudal system, with medievalism, with serfdom. All socialists admitted this when they took advantage of the freedom of bourgeois society to teach the proletariat how to throw off the yoke of capitalism.

But your freedom is only freedom on paper, but not in fact. By that I mean that the large halls that are to be found in big cities—like this hall, for example—belong to the capitalists and landowners, and are sometimes called “Assembly Rooms for the Gentry”. You may freely assemble in these halls, citizens of the Russian Democratic Republic, but remember that they are private property and, pardon me for saying so, you must respect private property, otherwise you will be Bolsheviks, criminals, murderers robbers and mischief-makers. But we say: “We shall change all this. We shall first convert these Assembly Rooms into premises for workers’ organisations and then begin to talk about freedom of assembly.” You accuse us of violating freedom. But we say that all freedom is deception if it is not subordinated to the task of emancipating labour from the yoke of capital. The freedom of assembly inscribed in the constitutions of all bourgeois republics is a deception because in order to assemble in a civilised country, which after all has not abolished winter, has not changed its climate, it is necessary to have premises in which to assemble, and the best of these premises are private property. First, we shall confiscate the best premises and then begin to talk about freedom.

We say that to grant freedom of assembly to the capitalists would be a heinous crime against the working people; it would mean freedom of assembly for counter-revolutionaries. We say to the bourgeois intellectual gentlemen, to the gentlemen who advocate democracy—you lie when you throw in our face the accusation of violating freedom. When your great bourgeois revolutionaries made a revolution in England in 1649, and in France in 1792-93, they did not grant freedom of assembly to the royalists. The French revolution is called great because it did not suffer from the flabbiness, half-heartedness and phrase mongering which distinguished many of the revolutions of 1848, but was an effective revolution which, after overthrowing the royalists, completely crushed them. And we shall do the same thing with the capitalist gentlemen; for we know that in order to emancipate the working people from the yoke of capital we must deprive the capitalists of freedom of assembly; their “freedom” must be abolished, or curtailed. This will help to emancipate labour from the yoke of capital; it will help the cause of that true freedom under which there will be no buildings inhabited by single families, and which belong to private individuals, such as landowners, capitalists, or to joint-stock companies. When that time comes, when people have forgotten that it was possible for public buildings to be somebody’s property, we shall be in favour of complete “freedom”. When the world is inhabited only by those who work, and when people have forgotten that it was possible for idlers to have been members of society—this will not be very soon, and the bourgeois and bourgeois intellectual gentlemen are to blame for the delay—we shall then be in favour of freedom of assembly for all. At the present time, however, freedom of assembly would mean freedom of assembly for the capitalists, for counter-revolutionaries. We are fighting against them, we are resisting them, and we say that we deprive them of this freedom.

We are marching into battle—this is the meaning of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Gone is the time of naïve, utopian, fantastic, mechanical and intellectual socialism, when people imagined that it was sufficient to convince the majority, that it was sufficient to paint a beautiful picture of socialist society to persuade the majority to adopt socialism. Gone, too, is the time when it was possible to entertain oneself and others with these children’s fairy-tales. Marxism, which recognises the necessity for the class struggle, asserts that mankind can reach the goal of socialism only through the dictatorship of the proletariat. The word dictatorship is a cruel, stern, bloody and painful one; it is not a word to play with. Socialists advance this slogan because they know that the exploiters will surrender only after a desperate and relentless struggle, and that they will try to cover up their own rule by means of all sorts of high-sounding words.

Freedom of assembly—what can be loftier, what can be finer than this term? Is the development of the working people and of their mentality conceivable without freedom of assembly? Are the principles of humanity conceivable without freedom of assembly? But we say that the freedom of assembly inscribed in the constitution of Great Britain and the United States of America is a deception because it ties the hands of the masses of the working people during the whole period of their transition to socialism; it is a deception because we know perfectly well that the bourgeoisie will do all in their power to overthrow this new government, which is so unusual, and which seems so “monstrous” at first. Those who have thought about the class struggle and have anything like a clear and definite idea of the relations between the workers in revolt and the bourgeoisie, who have been overthrown in one country, but have not yet been overthrown in all countries, and who, because they have not been overthrown everywhere, are rushing into the struggle with greater ferocity than ever, will agree that it cannot be otherwise.

It is precisely after the bourgeoisie is overthrown that the class struggle assumes its acutest forms. And we have no use for those democrats and socialists who deceive themselves and deceive others by saying: “The bourgeoisie have been overthrown, the struggle is all over.” The struggle is not over, it has only just started, because, to this day, the bourgeoisie have not reconciled themselves to the idea that they have been overthrown. On the eve of the October Revolution they were very nice and polite, and Miiyukov, Chernov and the Novaya Zhizn people said jestingly: “Now, please, Bolshevik gentlemen, form a Cabinet, take power yourselves for a few weeks, that would be a great help to us!” This is exactly what Chernov wrote on behalf of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, what Milyukov wrote in Rech , and what the semi-Menshevik Novaya Zhizn wrote. They spoke in jest because they did not take matters seriously. But now they see that matters are serious, and the British, French and Swiss bourgeoisie, who thought that their “democratic republics” were armour which protected them, see and realise that matters have become serious, and now they are all arming. If only you could see what is going on in free Switzerland, how, literally, every bourgeois is arming, how they are forming a White Guard, because they know that it is now a matter of preserving the privileges which enable them to keep millions of people in a state of wage-slavery. The struggle has now assumed world-wide dimensions, and therefore, anybody who opposes us with such catchwords as “democracy”, and “freedom”, takes the side of the propertied classes, deceives the people, for he fails to understand that up to now freedom and democracy have meant freedom and democracy for the propertied classes and only crumbs from their table for the propertyless.

What is freedom of assembly when the working people are crushed by slavery to capital and by toil for the benefit of capital? It is a deception; and in order to achieve freedom for the working people it is first of all necessary to overcome the resistance of the exploiters, and since I am faced with the resistance of a whole class, it is obvious that I cannot promise this class either freedom, equality, or majority decisions.

I shall now pass from freedom to equality. This is a much more profound subject. This brings us to a still more serious, a more painful question, one that gives rise to considerable dlsagreement.

The revolution in its course sweeps away one exploiting class after another. First, it swept away the monarchy, and by equality implied an elected government, a republic. Proceeding further it swept away the landowners; and you know that the keynote of the entire struggle against the medieval system, against feudalism, was the slogan “equality”. All are equal irrespective of social-estate; all are equal, millionaires and paupers alike. This is what the great revolutionaries of the period that has gone into history as the period of the great French Revolution said, thought and sincerely believed. The slogan of the revolution against the landowners was equality, and by equality was meant that the millionaires and the workers should have equal rights. The revolution developed. It said that “equality”—we did not specify this in our programme, for one cannot go on repeating the same thing endlessly; it is as clear as what we said about freedom—that equality is a deception if it runs counter to the emancipation of labour from the yoke of capital. That is what we say, and it is absolutely true. We say that a democratic republic with present-day equality is a fraud, a deception; here there is no equality, nor can there be. It is prevented by the private ownership of the means of production and money, capital. It is possible, at one stroke, to confiscate privately owned mansions and fine buildings, it is possible in a relatively short period to confiscate capital and the means of production. But try to abolish the private ownership of money.

Money is congealed social wealth, congealed social labour. Money is a token which enables its owner to take tribute from all the working people. Money is a survival of yesterday’s exploitation. That is what money is. Can it be abolished at one stroke? No. Even before the socialist revolution the socialists wrote that it is impossible to abolish money at one stroke, and our experience corroborates this. There must be very considerable technical and, what is much more difficult and much more important, organisational achievement before we can abolish money; and until then we must put up with equality in words, in the constitution; we must put up with a situation in which everybody who possesses money practically has the right to exploit. We could not abolish money at one stroke. We say that for the time being money will remain and remain for a fairly long time in the transition period from the old capitalist system to the new socialist system. Equality is a deception if it runs counter to the emancipation of labour from the yoke of capital.

Engels was a thousand times right when he said that the concept of equality is a most absurd and stupid prejudice if it does not imply the abolition of classes. [4] Bourgeois professors attempted to use the concept equality as grounds for accusing us of wanting all men to be alike. They themselves invented this absurdity and wanted to ascribe it to the socialists. But in their ignorance they did not know that the socialists—and precisely the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels—had said: equality is an empty phrase if it does not imply the abolition of classes. We want to abolish classes, and in this sense we are for equality. But the claim that we want all men to be alike is just nonsense, the silly invention of an intellectual who sometimes conscientiously strikes a pose, juggles with words, but says nothing—I don’t care whether he calls himself a writer, a scholar, or anything else.

But we say that our goal is equality, and by that we mean the abolition of classes. Then the class distinction between workers and peasants should be abolished. That is exactly our object. A society in which the class distinction between workers and peasants still exists is neither a communist society nor a socialist society. True, if the word socialism is interpreted in a certain sense, it might be called a socialist society, but that would be mere sophistry, an argument about words. Socialism is the first stage of communism; but it is not worth while arguing about words. One thing is clear, and that is, that as long as the class distinction between workers and peasants exists, it is no use talking about equality, unless we want to bring grist to the mill of the bourgeoisie. The peasantry constitute a class of the patriarchal era, a class which has been reared by decades and centuries of slavery; and throughout all these decades the peasants existed as small proprietors , first, under the heel of other classes, and later, formally free and equal, but as property-owners and the owners of food products .

This brings us to the question which most of all rouses the ire of our enemies, which most of all creates doubt in the minds of inexperienced and thoughtless people, and which separates us most of all from those would-be democrats and socialists who are offended because we do not recognise them as such, but call them supporters of the capitalists, perhaps due to their ignorance, but supporters of the capitalists all the same.

Their social conditions, production, living and economic conditions make the peasant half worker and half huckster.

This is a fact. And you cannot get away from this fact until you have abolished money, until you have abolished exchange. And for this years and years of the stable rule by the proletariat is needed; for only the proletariat is capable of vanquishing the bourgeoisie. We are told: “You are violators of equality, you have violated eguality not only with the exploiters—’with this I am inclined to agree’, some Socialist-Revolutionary or Menshevik who does not know what he is talking about may say—but you have violated equality between the workers and the peasants, you have violated the equality of ’labour democracy’, you are criminals!” In answer to this we say: “Yes, we have violated equality between the workers and peasants, and we assert that you who stand for this equality are supporters of Kolchak.” Recently I read a splendid article by Comrade Germanov, in Pravda , in which he deals with the theses drawn up by Citizen Sher, one of the most “socialistic” of the Menshevik Social-Democrats. These theses were submitted to one of our co-operative organisations, and they are of such a nature that they deserve to be engraved on a tablet and hung up in every volost executive committee with an inscription underneath stating: “This is Kolchak’s man.”

I know perfectly well that Citizen Sher and his friends will call me a slanderer for this, and perhaps something worse. Nevertheless, I invite those people who have learned the ABC of political economy and of politics to make a very careful study to see who is right and who is wrong. Citizen Sher says that the Soviet government’s food policy, and its econonlic policy in general, is all wrong; that it is necessary, gradually at first, and then to an increasing degree, to grant freedom to trade in food products, and to safeguard private property.

I say that this is Kolchak’s economic programme, his economic basis. I assert that anybody who has read Marx, especially the first chapter of Capital , anybody who has read at least Kautsky’s popular outline of Marx’s theories entitled The Economic Theories of Karl Marx , must come to the conclusion that in the midst of a proletarian revolution against the bourgeoisie, at a time when landowner and capitalist property is being abolished, when the country that has been ruined by four years of imperialist war is starving, freedom to trade in grain would mean freedom for the capitalists, freedom to restore the rule of capital. This is Kolchak’s economic programme, for Kolchak does not rest on air.

It is rather silly to denounce Kolchak only because of the atrocities he committed against the workers, or even because he flogged schoolmistresses for sympathising with the Bolsheviks. This is a vulgar defence of democracy, a silly accusation against Kolchak. Kolchak operates with the means he has at hand. But what is his economic basis? His basis is freedom of trade. This is what he stands for; and this is why all the capitalists support him. But you say: “I have left Kolchak, I do not support him.” This stands to your credit, of course; but it does not prove that you have a head on your shoulders and are able to think. This is the answer we give to these people, without casting any slur on the honour of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks who deserted Kolchak when they realised that he is a tyrant. But if such people, in a country which is fighting a desperate struggle against Kolchak, continue to fight for the “equality of labour democracy”, for freedom to trade in grain, they are still supporting Kolchak, the only trouble being that they do not understand this and cannot reason logically.

Kolchak—it does not matter whether his name is Kolchak or Denikin, their uniforms may be different, but their natures are the same—is able to hold out because, having captured a region rich in grain, he grants freedom to trade in grain and permits the free restoration of capitalism . This was the case in all revolutions, and this will be the case in this country if we abandon the dictatorship of the proletariat for the sake of the “freedom” and “equality” of the democratic, Socialist-Revolutionary, Left Menshevik and other gentlemen, sometimes including the anarchists—the number of titles is infinite. In the Ukraine at the present time, every gang chooses a political title, each more free and democratic than the other, and there is a gang to every uyezd.

The “advocates of the interests of the working peasantry”, mainly the Socialist-Revolutionaries, propose equality between the workers and the peasants. Others, like Citizen Sher, have studied Marxism, but they still do not understand that there can be no equality between the workers and the peasants in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, and that those who promise this should be regarded as advocating Kolchak’s programme, even if they do so unwittingly. I assert that anybody who gives some thought to the actual conditions prevailing in this completely ruined country will understand this.

The “socialists” who assert that in this country we are in the period of the bourgeois revolution, constantly accuse us of having introduced “consumers’” communism. Some of them say it is communism for soldiers, and imagine that they are superior to this, imagine that they have risen above this “base” form of communism. But these are simply people who juggle with words. They have seen books, studied hooks, repeat what is in books, but they understand nothing about what the books say. There are scholars, and even very learned scholars, like that. They have read in books that socialism represents the highest development of production. Kautsky does nothing else but repeat this sort of thing even now. The other day I read in a German newspaper, which got here by accident, a report of the last Congress of Workers’ Councils in Germany. Kautsky was one of the rapporteurs at this Congress, and in his report he emphasised—not he personally, but his wife; he was sick, and so his wife read the report—in this report he emphasised that socialism represents the highest development of production, that without production neither capitalism nor socialism was possible, and that this the German workers did not understand.

Poor German workers. They are fighting Scheidemann and Noske, fighting against the butchers, striving to overthrow the power of Scheidemann and Noske, the butchers who continue to call themselves Social-Democrats, and they think civil war is going on! Liebknecht was murdered, and so was Rosa Luxemburg. All the Russian bourgeois say—and this was stated in an Ekaterinodar newspaper: “This is what ought to be done to our Bolsheviks!” This is exactly what this paper stated. Those who understand what is going on know perfectly well that this is the opinion of the entire world bourgeoisie. We must defend ourselves. Scheidemann and Noske are waging civil war against the proletariat. War is war. The German workers think that they are in a state of civil war and all other questions are of minor importance. The first task is to feed the workers. Kautsky thinks that this is “soldiers’” or “consumers’” communism, and that it is necessary to develop production! . . .

Oh, how clever you are, gentlemen! But how can production be developed in a country that is being plundered and ruined by the imperialists, and which lacks coal, raw materials and machinery? “Develop production!” There is not a meeting of the Council of People’s Commissars, or of the Council of Defence that does not share out the last millions of pood s of coal or oil, and find ourselves in a terrible fix when the commissars take the last scraps and even then no one has enough, and we have to decide which factory to close down, in which place to leave the workers without work—a painful question, but one we are compelled to decide because we have no coal. The coal is in the Donets Basin; the coal has been destroyed by the German invaders. This is a typical state of affairs. Take Belgium or Poland. The same thing is happening everywhere as a consequence of the imperialist war. Hence, unemployment and starvation are likely to last many years, for some flooded mines take many years to restore. And yet we are told that socialism means increasing output. You have read books, good, kind gentlemen, you have written books, but you don’t understand a scrap of what is in the books. ( Applause .)

Of course, if it were a case of capitalist society in peace time, peacefully developing into socialism, there would be no more urgent task before us than that of increasing output. But the little word “if” makes all the difference. If only socialism had come into being peacefully, in the way the capitalist gentlemen did not want to see it born. But there was a slight hitch. Even if there had been no war, the capitalist gentlemen wonld have done all in their power to prevent such a peaceful evolution. Great revolutions, even when they commence peacefully, as was the case with the great French Revolution, end in furious wars which are instigated by the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie. Nor can it be otherwise, if we look at it from the point of view of the class struggle and not from the point of view of philistine phrase-mongering about liberty, equality, labour democracy and the will of the majority, of all the dull-witted, philistine phrase-mongering to which the Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and all these “democrats” treat us. There can be no peaceful evolution towards socialism. In the present period, after the imperialist war, it is ridiculous to expect peaceful evolution, especially in a ruined country. Take France. France is one of the victors, and yet the production of grain there has dropped to half. In Britain they are saying that they are now paupers—I read this in an English bourgeois newspaper. And yet the Communists in a ruined country are blamed because industry is at a standstill! Whoever says this is either an utter idiot—even if he thrice calls himself a leader of the Berne International—or else a traitor to the workers.

The primary task in a ruined country is to save the working people . The primary productive force of human society as a whole , is the workers , the working people . If they survive, we shall save and restore everything .

We shall have to put up with many years of poverty, retrogression to barbarism. The imperialist war has thrown us back to barbarism; but if we save the working people, if we save the primary productive force of human society—the workers—we shall recover everything, but if we fail to save them, we shall perish, so that those who are now shouting about “consumers’”, or “soldiers’”, communism, who look down upon others with contempt and imagine that they are superior to these Bolshevik Communists, are, I repeat, absolutely ignorant of political economy, and pick out passages from books like a scholar whose head is a card index box filled with quotations from books, which he picks out as he needs them; but if a new situation arises which is not described in any book, he becomes confused and grabs the wrong quotation from the box.

At the present time, when the country is ruined, our main and fundamental task is to save the lives of the workers, to save the workers, for the workers are dying because the factories are at a standstill, and the factories are at a standstill because there is no fuel, and because our production is all artificial, industry is isolated from raw material sources. It is the same thing all over the world. Raw materials for the Russian cotton mills must be transported from Egypt, America, or the nearer Turkestan. Try to obtain these when the counter-revolutionary gangs and the British forces have captured Ashkhabad and Krasnovodsk. Try to obtain them from Egypt or America when the railways lie in ruins, when they are at a standstill because there is no coal.

We must save the workers even if they are unable to work. If we keep them alive for the next few years we shall save the country, save society and socialism. If we don’t, we shall slip back into wage-slavery. This is how things stand with the socialism that springs not from the imagination of a peaceful simpleton who calls himself a Social-Democrat, but from actual reality, from the fierce, desperately fierce class struggle. This is a fact. We must sacrifice everything to save the lives of the workers. And in the light of this, when people come to us and say they are in favour of the equality of labour democracy, whereas the Communists do not even allow equality between the workers and peasants, our answer is: the workers and peasants are equal as working people, but the well-fed grain profiteer is not the equal of the hungry worker. This is the only reason why our Constitution says that the. workers and peasants are not equal.

Do you say that they ought to be equal? Let us weigh and count it up. Take sixty peasants and ten workers. The sixty peasants possess surplus stocks of grain. They are clothed in rags, but they have bread. Take the ten workers. After the imperialist war they, too, are in rags, but they are also exhausted, they have no bread, fuel or raw materials. The factories are idle. Well, are they equal? Should the sixty peasants have the right to decide and the ten workers be obliged to obey? The great principle of equality, unity of labour democracy and deciding by a majority vote!

That is what they tell us. And we tell them that they are mere clowns who confuse the hunger problem and obscure it with their high-sounding phrases.

We ask you whether the workers in a ruined country where the factories are idle ought to submit to the decision of the majority of peasants when the latter refuse to deliver their surplus stocks of grain. Have they the right to take these surplus stocks, by force, if necessary, if there is no other way? Give us a straightforward answer! But when we get right down to brass tacks they begin to twist and wriggle.

Industry is ruined in all countries, and it will remain in that state for several years, because it is easy to set fire to factories or to flood mines, it is easy to blow up railway wagons and to wreck locomotives—any fool can do that, even if he calls himself a German or French officer, and is very efficient, especially when he has good instruments for causing explosions, good fire-arms, and so forth. But it is a very difficult matter to restore it all. That will take years.

The peasantry constitute a special class. As working people they are hostile to capitalist exploitation; but at the same time they are property-owners. For centuries the peasant has been brought up to believe that the grain is his and he is at liberty to sell it. “This is my right,” each one thinks, “because it is the fruit of my labour, my sweat and blood.” This mentality cannot be changed overnight. It can be changed only as a result of a long and stern struggle. Whoever imagines that socialism can be achieved by one person convincing another, and that one a third, is at best an infant, or else a political hypocrite; and, of course, the majority of those who speak on political platforms belong to the latter category.

The whole point is that the peasants are accustomed to having the right to trade in grain. After we had abolished the capitalist institutions we found that there was still another force which kept capitalism going—the force of habit. And the more resolutely we abolished the institutions on which capitalism was based, the more strongly we felt the effects of this other force on which capitalism was based—the force of habit. Under favourable circumstances, institutions can be smashed at one stroke; but habit, never, no matter how favourable circumstances may be. Although we have given all the land to the peasants, have liberated them from landed proprietorship, and have swept away everything that held them in bondage, they nevertheless continue to think that “freedom” means freedom to trade in grain; and they regard as tyranny the compulsory surrendering of surplus stocks of grain at fixed prices. Why, what do you mean by “surrender”? they ask indignantly, especially since our grain supply apparatus is still defective because the entire bourgeois intelligentsia is on the side of Sukharevka. [5] Naturally, this machinery has to rely on people who are only just learning, at best—if they are conscientious and devoted to their task—will learn their business in a few years, and until that time the machinery will be defective, and sometimes all sorts of rascals who call themselves Communists will find their way into it. This danger threatens every ruling party, the victorious proletariat of every country, for it is impossible either to break the resistance of the bourgeoisie or to build up efficient machinery overnight. We know perfectly well that the machinery of the Commissariat of Food is still bad. Recently a scientific statistical investigation was made into the food conditions of the workers in the non-agricultural gubernias . The investigation showed that the workers obtain half their food from the Commissariat of Food and the other half from the profiteers; for the first half they pay one-tenth of their total expenditure on food, and for the other half they pay nine-tenths.

The first half of the food supplies, collected and delivered by the Commissariat of Food, is badly collected, of course, but it is collected on socialist and not on capitalist lines. It is collected by defeating the profiteers, and not by compromising with them; it is collected by sacrificing all other interests in the world, including the interests of the formal “equality” which the Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and Co. make so much fuss about, to the interests of the starving workers. You keep your “equality”, gentlemen, and we shall keep our hungry workers we have saved from starvation. No matter how much the Mensheviks may accuse us of violating “equality”, the fact is that we have solved half our food problem in spite of unprecedented and incredible difficulties. And we say that if sixty peasants have surplus stocks of grain and ten workers are starving, we must not talk about “equality” in general, or about “the equality of working people”, but say that it is the bounden duty of the sixty peasants to submit to the decisions of the ten workers and to give them, or at least to loan them, their surplus stocks of grain.

The science of political economy, if anybody has learned anything from it, the history of revolution, the history of political evolution throughout the whole of the nineteenth century show that the peasants follow the lead of either the workers or the bourgeoisie. Nor can they do otherwise. Some democrats may, of course, take exception to this, others may think that, being a malicious Marxist, I am slandering the peasants. They say the peasants constitute the majority, they are working people, and yet cannot follow their own road. Why?

If you don’t know why, I would say to such citizens, read the elements of Marx’s political economy in Kautsky’s popular exposition, think about the evolution of any of the great revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, about the political history of any country in the nineteenth century, and you will learn why. The economics of capitalist society are such that the ruling power can be only capital or the proletariat which has overthrown capital.

There are no other forces in the economics of this society .

A peasant is half worker and half huckster. He is a worker because he earns his bread by the sweat of his brow and is exploited by the landowners, capitalists and merchants. He is a huckster because he sells grain, an article of necessity, an article for which a man will give up all his possessions if there is a shortage of it. Hunger is no man’s friend. People will pay a thousand rubles, any sum of money, will give up all their property, for bread.

The peasant cannot be blamed for this; he is living under a commodity economy and has been for scores and hundreds of years, and is accustomed to exchange grain for money. You cannot change a habit or abolish money overnight. To abolish money you must organise the distribution of products for hundreds of millions of people, and this is something that must take many years. And so, as long as the commodity system exists, as long as there are starving workers side by side with well-fed peasants who are concealing their surplus stocks of grain, the antagonism of workers’ and peasants’ interests will persist. And whoever attempts to use phrases like “freedom”, “equality” and “labour democracy” to brush aside this real antagonism created by the actual state of affairs, is at best a mere phrase-monger, and at worst a hypocritical champion of capitalism. If capitalism defeats the revolution it will do so by taking advantage of the ignorance of the peasants, by bribing them and luring them with the prospect of a return to freedom of trade. Actually, the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries side with capitalism against socialism.

The economic programme of Kolchak, Denikin and all the Russian whiteguards is freedom to trade. They understand this, and it is not their fault that Citizen Sher does not. The economic facts of life do not change because a certain party does not understand them. The slogan of the bourgeoisie is freedom to trade. Efforts are made to beguile the peasants by asking them whether it would not be better to live in the good old way? Whether it would not be better to live freely by the free sale of the fruits of farm labour? What could be fairer? This is what those who consciously support Kolchak say, and they are right from the point of view of the interests of capital. To restore the power of capital in Russia it is necessary to rely on tradition—on the prejudices of the peasants as against their common sense, on their old habits of trading on the open market, and it is necessary forcibly to crush the resistance of the workers. There is no other way. The Kolchaks are right from the point of view of capital; their economic and political programme ties up neatly, there are no loose ends; they know there is a connection between freedom for peasants to trade and shooting down the workers. They are connected even though Citizen Sher is unaware of it. Freedom to trade in grain is the economic programme of Kolchak; the shooting of tens of thousands of workers—as occurred in Finland—is a necessary means of realising this programme, because the workers will not voluntarily surrender their gains. The connection cannot be broken, yet the Mensheviks and Social-Revolutionaries, who are totally ignorant of economic science and politics, who, being terrified philistines, have forgotten the ABC of socialism, are trying to make us forget this connection by talking about “equality” and “freedom”, by shouting about our violating the principle of equality of “labour democracy” and saying that our Constitution is “unfair”.

The vote of one worker is equal to several peasant votes. Is that unfair?

No, in the period when it is necessary to overthrow capital it is quite fair. I know where you have borrowed your conception of fairness from; you have borrowed it from yesterday’s capitalist era. The equality, the freedom of commodity owners—that is your conception of fairness. A petty-bourgeois survival of petty-bourgeois prejudices—that is what your fairness, your equality, your labour democracy amount to. We, however, subordinate fairness to the interests of defeating capital. And capital can be defeated only by the united efforts of the proletariat.

Can tens of millions of peasants be firmly united against capital, against freedom of trade, overnight? No, economic conditions would prevent it even if the peasants were quite free and much more cultured. It cannot be done because different economic conditions and long years of preparation are needed for this. And who will make these preparations? Either the proletariat or the bourgeoisie.

Owing to their economic status in bourgeois society the peasants must follow either the workers or the bourgeoisie. There is no middle way . They may waver, become confused, conjure up all sorts of things; they may blame, swear, curse the “bigoted” representatives of the proletariat and the “bigoted” representatives of the bourgeoisie and say that they are the minority. You may curse them, talk loud about the majority, about the broad universal character of your labour democracy, about pure democracy. There is no end to the number of words you can string together, but they will only serve to obscure the fact that if the peasants do not follow the lead of the workers they will follow the lead of the bourgeoisie. There is not, nor can there be, a middle course. And those people who in this most difficult period of transition in history, when the workers are hungry and their industry is at a standstill, do not help the workers to take grain at a fairer but not a “free” price , not at a capitalist, hucksters’ price, are carrying out the Kolchak programme no matter how much they may deny this to themselves, and no matter how sincerely they may be convinced that they are carrying out their own programme conscientiously.

I will now deal with the last question on my list, that of the defeat and victory of the revolution. Kautsky, whom I mentioned to you as the chief representative of the old, decayed socialism, does not understand the tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat. He reproached us, saying that a decision taken by a majority might have ensured a peaceful issue. A decision by a dictatorship is a decision taken by military means. Hence, if you do not win by force of arms you will be vanquished and annihilated, because in civil war no prisoners are taken, it is a war of extermination. This is how terrified Kautsky tried to “terrify” us.

Quite right. What you say is true. We confirm the correctness of your observation and there is nothing more to be said. Civil war is more stern and cruel than any other war. This has been the case throughout history since the time of the civil wars in ancient Rome; wars between nations always ended in a deal between the propertied classes, and only during civil war does the oppressed class exert efforts to exterminate the oppressing class, to eliminate the economic conditions of this class’s existence.

I ask you, what is the “revolutionary” worth who tries to scare those who have started the revolution with the prospect that it might suffer defeat? There has never been, there is none, there will not be, nor can there be a revolution which did not stand some risk of defeat. A revolution is a desperate struggle of classes that has reached the peak of ferocity. The class struggle is inevitable. One must either reject revolution altogether or accept the fact that the struggle against the propertied classes will be sterner than all other revolutions. Among socialists who are at all intelligent there was never any difference of opinion on this point. A year ago, when I analysed the apostasy that lay behind Kautsky’s statements I wrote the following. Even if—this was in September last year—even if the imperialists were to overthrow the Bolshevik government tomorrow we would not for a moment repent that we had taken power. And not a single class-conscious worker who represents the interests of the masses of the working people would repent, or have any doubt that, in spite of it all, our revolution had triumphed; the revolution triumphs if it brings to the forefront the advanced class which strikes effectively at exploitation. Under such circumstances, the revolution triumphs even if it suffered defeat. This may sound like juggling with words; but to prove the truth of it, let us take a concrete example from history.

Take the great French Revolution. It is with good reason that it is called a great revolution. It did so much for the class that it served, for the bourgeoisie, that it left its imprint on the entire nineteenth century, the century which gave civilisation and culture to the whole of mankind. The great French revolutionaries served the interests of the bourgeoisie although they did not realise it for their vision was obscured by the words “liberty, equality and fraternity”; in the nineteenth century, however, what they had begun was continued, carried out piecemeal and finished in all parts of the world.

In a matter of eighteen months our revolution has done ever so much more for our class, the class we serve, the proletariat, than the great French revolutionaries did.

They held out in their own country for two years, and then perished under the blows of united European reaction, under the blows of the united hordes of the whole world, who crushed the French revolutionaries, reinstated the legitimate monarch in France, the Romanov of the period, reinstated the landowners, and for many decades later crushed every revolutionary movement in France. Nevertheless, the great French Revolution triumphed.

Everybody who studies history seriously will admit that although it was crushed, the French Revolution was nevertheless triumphant, because it laid down for the whole world such firm foundations of bourgeois democracy, of bourgeois freedom, that they could never be uprooted.

In a matter of eighteen months our revolution has done ever so much more for the proletariat, for the class which we serve, for the goal towards which we are striving—the overthrow of the rule of capital—than the French Revolution did for its class. And that is why we say that even if we take the hypothetically possible worst contingency, even if tomorrow some lucky Kolchak were to exterminate the Bolsheviks to the last man, the revolution would still be invincible. And what we say is proved by the fact that the new type of state organisation produced by this revolution has achieved a moral victory among the working class all over the world and is already receiving its support. When the prominent French bourgeois revolutionaries perished in the struggle they were isolated, they were not supported in other countries. All the European states turned against them, chief among them England, although it was an advanced country. After only eighteen months of Bolshevik rule, our revolution succeeded in making the new state organisation which it created, the Soviet organisation, comprehensible, familiar and popular to the workers all over the world, in making them regard it as their own.

I have shown you that the dictatorship of the proletariat is an inevitable, essential and absolutely indispensable means of emerging from the capitalist system. Dictatorship does not mean only force, although it is impossible without force, but also a form of the organisation of labour superior to the preceding form. That is why in my brief speech of greeting at the opening of the Congress I emphasised this fundamental, elementary and extremely simple task of organisation ; and that is why I am so strongly opposed to all these intellectual fads and “proletarian cultures”. As opposed to these fads I advocate the ABC of organisation. Distribute grain and coal in such a way as to take care of every pood —this is the object of proletarian discipline. Proletarian discipline is not discipline maintained by the lash, as it was under the rule of the serf-owners, or discipline maintained by starvation, as it is under the rule of the capitalists, but comradely discipline, the discipline of the labour unions. If you solve this elementary and extremely simple problem of organisation, we shall win, for then the peasants—who vacillate between the workers and the capitalists, who cannot make up their minds whether to side with the people of whom they are still suspicious, but can not deny that these people are creating a more just organisation of production under which there will be no exploitation, and under which “freedom” of trade in grain will be a crime against the state, who cannot make up their minds whether to side with these people or with those who, as in the good old days, promise freedom to trade which is alleged to mean also freedom to work in any way one pleased—the peasants, I say, will whole-heartedly side with us. When the peasants see that the proletariat is organising its state power in such a way as to maintain order—and the peasants want this and demand it, and they are right in doing so, although this desire for order is connected with much that is confused and reactionary, and with many prejudices—they, in the long run, after considerable vacillation, will follow the lead of the workers. The peasants-cannot simply and easily pass from the old society to the new overnight. They are aware that the old society ensured “order” by ruining the working people and making slaves of them. But they are not sure that the proletariat can guarantee order. More cannot be expected of these downtrodden, ignorant and disunited peasants. They will not believe words and programmes. And they are quite right not to believe words, for otherwise there would be no end to frauds of every kind. They will believe only deeds, practical experience. Prove to them that you, the united proletariat, the proletarian state, the proletarian dictatorship, are able to distribute grain and coal in such a way as to husband every pood , that you are able to arrange matters so that every pood of surplus grain and coal is distributed not by the profiteers, shall not profit the heroes of Sukharevka, but shall be fairly distributed, supplied to starving workers, even to sustain them during periods of unemployment when the factories and workshops are idle. Prove that you can do this. This is the fundamental task of proletarian culture, of proletarian organisation. Force can be used even if those who resort to it have no economic roots, but in that case, history will doom it to failure. But force can be applied with the backing of the advanced class, relying on the loftier principles of the socialist system, order and organisation. In that case , it may suffer temporary failure , but in the long run it is invincible .

If the proletarian organisation proves to the peasants that it can maintain proper order, that labour and bread are fairly distributed and that care is being taken to husband every pood of grain and coal, that we workers are able to do this with the aid of our comradely, trade union discipline, that we resort to force in our struggle only to protect the interests of labour, that we take grain from profiteers and not from working people, that we want to reach an understanding with the middle peasants, the working peasants, and that we are ready to provide them with all we can at present—when the peasants see all this, their alliance with the working class, their alliance with the proletariat, will be indestructible. And this is what we aim at.

But I have digressed somewhat from my subject and must return to it. Today, in all countries, the word “Bolshevik” and the word “Soviet” have ceased to be regarded as queer terms, as they were only recently, like the word “Boxer”, which we repeated without understanding what it meant. The word “Bolshevik” and the word “Soviet” are now being repeated in all the languages of the world. Every day the class-conscious workers see that the bourgeoisie of all countries release a flood of lies about Soviet power in the millions of copies of their newspapers, but they learn from this vituperation. Recently I read some American newspapers. I read the speech of a certain American parson who said that the Bolsheviks were immoral, that they had nationalised women, that they are robbers and plunderers. And I also read the reply of the American Socialists. They are distributing at five cents a copy the Constitution of the Soviet Republic of Russia, of this “dictatorship”, which does not provide “equality of labour democracy’’. They reply by quoting a clause of the Constitution of these “usurpers”, “robbers” and “tyrants” who disrupt the unity of labour democracy. Incidentally, in welcoming Breshkovskaya on the day she arrived in America, the leading capitalist newspaper in New York carried a headline in letters a yard long stating: “Welcome, Granny!” The American Socialists reprinted this and wrote: “She is in favour of political democracy—is there anything surprising, American workers, in the fact that the capitalists praise her?” She stands for political democracy. Why should they praise her? Because she is opposed to the Soviet Constitution. “Well,” said the American Socialists, “here is a clause from the Constitution of these robbers.” And they always quote the same clause which says that those who exploit the labour of others shall not have the right to elect or be elected. This clause from our Constitution is known all over the world. And it is because Soviet power frankly states that all must be subordinated to the dictatorship of the proletariat, that it is a new type of state organisation—it is precisely for this reason that it has won the sympathies of the workers all over the world. This new state organisation is being born in travail because it is far more difficult, a million times more difficult, to overcome our disruptive, petty-bourgeois laxity than to suppress the tyrannical landowners or the tyrannical capitalists, but the effort bears a million times more fruit in creating the new organisation which knows no exploitation. When proletarian organisation solves this problem, socialism will triumph completely. And it is to this that you must devote all your activities both in the schools and in the field of adult education. Notwithstanding the extremely difficult conditions that prevail, and the fact that the first socialist revolution in history is taking place in a country with a very low level of culture, notwithstanding this, Soviet power has already won the recognition of the workers of other countries. The phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat” is a Latin phrase, and the working people who heard it for the first time did not know what it meant, and did not know how it could be instituted. Now this Latin phrase has been translated into the modern languages and we have shown that the dictatorship or the proletariat is Soviet power, the government under which the workers organise themselves and say that their organisation is superior to every other. No idler, no exploiter can belong to this organisation. This organisation has but one object, and that is, to overthrow capitalism. No false slogans, no fetishes like “freedom”, and “equality”, will deceive us. We recognise no freedom, no equality, no labour democracy if it conflicts with the cause of emancipating labour from the yoke of capital. This is what we incorporated in the Soviet Constitution, and we have already won for it the sympathies of the workers of all countries. They know that in spite of the difficulty with which the new order is being born, and in spite of the severe trials and even defeats which may fall to the lot of some of the Soviet republics, no power on earth can compel mankind to turn back. ( Stormy applause .)

[1] This refers to the views of A. Bogdanov and others that had been implanted in the Proletcult (Proletarian Culture) literary and art organisations. Bogdanov and his supporters propagandised the philosophical views (Machism) in the guise of “proletarian culture”, denied the leading role of the Party and the Soviet state in cultural development, separated the development of Soviet culture from the general tasks of socialist construction and denied the need to make use of cultural achievements of the past. They tried to give the Proletcult organisations a position that made them independent of the Party and of Soviet power. Lenin spoke resolutely against attempts to implant these theories in the Proletcult organisations. The Central Committee of the R.C.P.(B.) and the Communist group at the First All-Russia Congress of Proletcult Organisations in October 1920 took a decision to subordinate Proletcult organisations to the People’s Commissariat of Education, making them departments of that Commissariat. The Central Committee of the R.C.P.(B.) condemned the anti-Marxist, bourgeois tendencies in the Proletcult organisations in a letter headed “On the Proletcult Organisations”. The organisations began to decline in 1922.

[2] This was a decree on ”The Mobilisation of the Literate and the Organisation of Propaganda of the Soviet System” issued by the Council of People’s Commissars on December 10, 1918.

[3] This refers to whiteguard units of officer volunteers.

[4] Frederick Engels, Anti-Dühring , Moscow, 1959, pp. 147-48.

[5] Sukharevka —the name of a market that once existed in Moscow. During the Civil War it was here that profiteers sold their goods. The word “Sukharevka” is used in the broader sense of “freedom to trade in food”.

Collected Works Volume 29 Collected Works Table of Contents Lenin Works Archive

[ Back to The Nobel Prize Internet Archive ] [ Literature * Peace * Chemistry * Physics * Economics * Medicine ] We always welcome your feedback and comments . Copyright © 1996-2003 Ona Wu. All rights reserved.