c yacht 1130 ds

C-Yacht 1130 ds

Description

There are no reviews yet.

Be the first to write a review

• Sort by date added
• Sort by price: low to high
• Sort by price: high to low
• Advertising

Customer reviews

• Netherlands
• United States
• United Arab Emirates
• United Kingdom

Review of C-Yacht 1130 DS

Basic specs..

The C-Yacht 1130 DS is equipped with a fin keel. The fin keel is the most common keel and provides splendid manoeuvrability. The downside is that it has less directional stability than a long keel.

The boat can enter most marinas as the draft is just about 1.60 - 1.70 meter (5.25 - 5.55 ft) dependent on the load. See immersion rate below.

Sailing characteristics

This section covers widely used rules of thumb to describe the sailing characteristics. Please note that even though the calculations are correct, the interpretation of the results might not be valid for extreme boats.

What is Capsize Screening Formula (CSF)?

The capsize screening value for C-Yacht 1130 DS is 1.92, indicating that this boat could - if evaluated by this formula alone - be accepted to participate in ocean races.

What is Theoretical Maximum Hull Speed?

The theoretical maximal speed of a displacement boat of this length is 7.4 knots. The term "Theoretical Maximum Hull Speed" is widely used even though a boat can sail faster. The term shall be interpreted as above the theoretical speed a great additional power is necessary for a small gain in speed.

The immersion rate is defined as the weight required to sink the boat a certain level. The immersion rate for C-Yacht 1130 DS is about 230 kg/cm, alternatively 1291 lbs/inch. Meaning: if you load 230 kg cargo on the boat then it will sink 1 cm. Alternatively, if you load 1291 lbs cargo on the boat it will sink 1 inch.

Sailing statistics

This section is statistical comparison with similar boats of the same category. The basis of the following statistical computations is our unique database with more than 26,000 different boat types and 350,000 data points.

What is Motion Comfort Ratio (MCR)?

What is L/B (Length Beam Ratio)?

What is a Ballast Ratio?

What is Displacement Length Ratio?

SA/D (Sail Area Displacement ratio) Indicates how fast the boat is in light wind: - Cruising Boats have ratios 10-15 - Cruiser-Racers have ratios 16-20 - Racers have ratios above 20 - High-Performance Racers have ratios above 24 Sail-area/displacement ratio (SA/D ratio): 16.45

Maintenance

When buying anti-fouling bottom paint, it's nice to know how much to buy. The surface of the wet bottom is about 37m 2 (398 ft 2 ). Based on this, your favourite maritime shop can tell you the quantity you need.

If you need to renew parts of your running rig and is not quite sure of the dimensions, you may find the estimates computed below useful.

This section shown boat owner's changes, improvements, etc. Here you might find inspiration for your boat.

Do you have changes/improvements you would like to share? Upload a photo and describe what to look for.

We are always looking for new photos. If you can contribute with photos for C-Yacht 1130 DS it would be a great help.

If you have any comments to the review, improvement suggestions, or the like, feel free to contact us . Criticism helps us to improve.

C yacht 1130 ds

The c yacht 1130 ds is a 37.07ft fractional sloop designed by frans maas and built in fiberglass by c-yachts/compromis since 2002..

The C yacht 1130 ds is a moderate weight sailboat which is a reasonably good performer. It is very stable / stiff and has a good righting capability if capsized. It is best suited as a coastal cruiser. The fuel capacity is average. There is a short water supply range.

C yacht 1130 ds for sale elsewhere on the web:

Main features

Login or register to personnalize this screen.

You will be able to pin external links of your choice.

See how Sailboatlab works in video

We help you build your own hydraulic steering system - Lecomble & Schmitt

Accommodations

Builder data, other photos.

Modal Title

The content of your modal.

Personalize your sailboat data sheet

• +31 (0)320 26 46 60
• IJsselmeerdijk 2 (Flevo Marina TC), 8221 RC, Lelystad

The C-Yacht 1130 Deck Salon: comfort, luxury and safety.

The C-Yacht 1130 Deck Salon ist ein Schiff das riecht nach Komfort, Luxus und Sicherheit. Diese Mini Super Yacht ist ideal für lange Törns oder für Wochenende in Luxus auf dem Wasser. Hochwertige Materialien und siebzig Jahre Erfahrung der Werft machen dies zu einem einmaligen wunderbaren Schiff.

Ein Schiff mit Rundsicht

Der Ausbau der C-Yacht 1130 ds ist eine einmalige Kombination von Licht, Raum und Komfort. Der Ausbau bietet einen komfortablen Sitzplatz auf Deckniveau. Der Panoramablick hinaus in den Hafen gibt mehr Kontakt mit Wasser und See

Komfort und Luxus

Mit der C-Yacht 1130 ds zu segeln ist ein Genuß! Sowohl bei leichtem Wetter mit wenig Wind, oder wenn der Wind auffrischt garantiert die C-Yacht 1130 ds Komfort. Ob Sie ein Schiff für das Wochende oder längere Reisen suchen, die 1130 ds ist das perfekte Schiff für den Trip rund um die Welt.

‚eine einmalige Kombination aus Licht, Raum und Komfort‘

Mini Super Yacht

The C-Yacht 1130 ds ist zu 100% ein Segelschiff.  Das Design basiert auf der erfolgreichen C-Yacht 1100. Der größte Unterschied ist der Lebenskomfort. Der Decksaloon ermöglicht einen einmaligen Rundblick über das Wasser. Das Deckslayout gibt ein gutes Gefühl und ermöglicht sicheres Bewegen. Das Schiff hat einen einfachen Zugang zum Cockpit

Unter Deck befindet sich eine große Eignerkabine die über eine große Küchenzeile erreicht wird. Die geräumige Dusche ist unmittelbar neben der Eignerkabine angeordnet. Neben dem Niedergang befindet sich ein großer Kartentisch in Kombination mit den Navigationsinstrumenten.

Rundblick über das Wasser.

Ausgewogenheit und Hohe Qualität

Das Design berücksichtigt alle Wünsche des Seglers. Komfort, Geschwindigkeit und Luxus sind die Grundelemente des Designs. Durch den höheren Ausbau liegt das Schiff etwas höher über Wasser wodurch wiedrum eine bessere Gwichtsverteilung erreicht wird. Alle schweren Komponenten des Schiffes sind unter Deck zusammengefaßt zu einem Ballastanteil von 40%, das dem Schiff überdurchschnittliche Segeleigenschaften verleiht. Die nahezu siebzig Jahre Erfahrung der Werft, die Konstruktion und die hochwertigen Materialien bedeuten, daß die “mini Super Yacht” hervorragend für lange Zeiten an Bord geeignet ist

Bau einer C-Yacht

Yachtbau bei c-yacht: modern und sicher.

Specifications

Model – C-Yacht 1130 Deck Salon Lenght over all – 11.30 m Waterline lenght – 9.30 m Beam – 3.70 m Draft – 1.60 m Deep keel – 1.80 m Keel with hydraulic centrebourd -1.40-2.50 m Displacement – 7.300 kg Displacement deep keel -7.500 kg Ballast – 3.000 kg Ballast deep keel – 3.200 kg Ballast percentage – 41% Air draft – 17.10 m Total sail area – 60.9 m2 Mainsail – 29.7 m2 H.A. Jib – 1.2 m2 Gennaker – 74.0 m2 Fuel tank -290 l Water tank – 350 l Waste holding tank – 60 l Engine – Yanmar Power (HP/kW) – 39/28.8 Berths – 4-6 CE certification – class A Cabin headroom – 2.00m

HISWA, Bestimmungen

‘C-Yacht ist Mitglied der HISWA  Association’

Alle unsere Verträge sind nach den HISWA  Bestimmungen für Verkauf, Verträge und Lieferung erstellt. Die Bedingungen beschreiben klar und deutlich alle Rechte und Verpflichtungen. Dies bedeutet, daß Sie stets Vertrauen zu uns haben können wenn Sie mit C-Yacht ein Geschäft abschließen. The HISWA Bestimmungen gewährleisten ein Maximum an Sicherheit.

HISWA Association: ‘HISWA companies provide good products with competitive prices and excellent service. ‘Doing business with a HISWA member is to do business with confidence and that is the credo of the HISWA Association’

Für mehr Information: http://www.hiswa.nl

Yacht Magazine test C-Yacht 1130 ds

• C-Yacht 1250i
• C-Yacht 1150
• C-Yacht 1050
• Gebrauchtboote

• Favorites 0
• Used Boats for Sale
• Power Boats for Sale
• Sailing Boats for Sale
• Sell Your Boat
• Quicksilver Power Boats
• Jeanneau Power Boats
• Sea Ray Power Boats
• Bayliner Power Boats
• Sunseeker Power Boats
• Bénéteau Power Boats
• Mercury Boat Engines
• Bavaria Sailing Boats
• Bénéteau Sailing Boats
• Cranchi Power Boats
• Bavaria Power Boats
• Azimut Power Boats
• Princess Power Boats
• Yamaha Boat Engines
• Jeanneau Sailing Boats
• Regal Power Boats
• Zodiac Inflatable Boats
• Capelli Inflatable Boats
• Fairline Power Boats
• Dufour Sailing Boats
• Motor Yacht
• Cabin Cruiser
• Center Console
• Fishing Boat
• Wakeboard/Wakesurf
• Classic Power Boat
• Floating House
• Offshore Boat
• Power Catamaran
• Pontoon Boat
• Utility Boat
• Passenger Ship

Sailing Yacht

• Regatta Boat
• Cruising Yacht

Centre cockpit

• Deck Saloon
• Classic Sailing Yacht
• Motorsailer
• Sailing Dinghy
• Cruising Dinghy
• Flat Bottom Boat
• Sailing Superyacht
• Foldable Inflatable Boat
• Rowing Boat
• Personal Water Craft

Country • Language

• Category Sailing Boats Category Remove Filter

Multiple selection possible

• Only offers from Europe
• Berth Available
• Tiller Steering
• Wheel control
• Mast Furling
• Boom Furling
• Battened Mainsail
• Roller Furling
• Self-tacking Jib
• Display Model
• New Boat from Stock
• New Boat on Order
• Boat Sharing
• Advanced Search
• Save Search
• More Filters
• Less filters
• Reset Filters

No Ads Found

Your search query.

C Yacht 1130 Ds / Sailing Boats / C-Yacht

Let us Find Your Dream Boat

With a search agent notification you will be notified as soon as an advertisement which meets your search criteria is submitted to Boat24

Search Suggestion

Centre cockpit, Cruising Yacht, Sailing Yacht

C-Yacht Compromis 999

C-yacht 11.00, c-yacht 1250i, c-yacht 1050.

C YACHT 1130 DS vergelijkbare resultaten:

HALLBERG RASSY 382

VICTOIRE 1122

De c-yacht 1130 ds hieronder is verkocht:, c-yacht 1130 ds.

Verkoop informatie

• De Valk Sint Annaland Nederland
• +31 166 601 000
• Bel de makelaar

e-mail de makelaar

Vertel een vriend.

• download brochure

Bezoek een jacht op afstand met een live videotour

Heeft u een jacht gezien die uw interesse wekt, maar die u nu niet persoonlijk kan bezoeken? Een van onze makelaars zal uw ogen en oren zijn als ze u meenemen op een videotour met hun telefoon. U kunt hen ook vragen stellen over alles wat visueel niet voor de hand ligt. Bel ze op en wees welkom aan boord...

Download brochure

Broker's comments.

C-Yacht 1130 is een unieke combinatie van licht ruimte en comfort onder deks en met uitstekende zeileigenschappen bovendeks. Deze deksalon biedt een prachtig uitzicht over het water, de dek lay-out is daarnaast prettig en overzichtelijk gebleven, het schip is eenvoudig vanuit de kuip te bedienen. “Amare” is in een zeer nette conditie en voorzien van veel opties en vernieuwingen. Klaar voor verre reizen of heerlijke weekend trips. Bij de Valk Zeeland op de wal kunt u haar prima bewonderen en beoordelen.

Algemeen - C-YACHT 1130 DS

Accommodatie.

• Boats for sale
• Sailing yachts
• C-Yacht 1130 Ds

Buy 2002 C-Yacht 1130 Ds

2002 C-Yacht 1130 Ds for sale

Used 2002 C-Yacht 1130 Ds for sale is located in Tholen ( Zeeland , Kingdom of the Netherlands ). This vessel was designed and built by the C-Yacht shipyard in 2002. Key features 2002 C-Yacht 1130 Ds: length 11.3 meters, beam 3.7 meters, boat displacement 7,500 kilograms and max boat draft 1.6 meters. 1 x Yanmar engine: engine hours - 1200 hours and fuel type - diesel. Max speed - 146 kilometers per hour. Total berths - 6. 2002 C-Yacht 1130 Ds refers to classes: sailing yachts , sailboats and sailing sloops . To clarify the price €139,000 and buy C-Yacht 1130 Ds - contact the offerer!

2002 C-Yacht 1130 Ds photos

2002 C-Yacht 1130 Ds specification & technical information

2002 c-yacht 1130 ds price, broker / dealer information.

This offer published by De Valk

Relevant and similar

Other c-yacht for sale.

C-YACHT Ck 64

C-Yacht Ck67

C-Yacht 1040

Dealer`s offers

Astondoa 52 Flybridge

Jacabo 1325 Sl

Hallberg Rassy 39

• Aluminum boats
• Center console boats
• Fishing boats
• Motor boats
• Narrow boats
• Speed boats
• Bowrider boats
• Cabin cruiser boats
• Cargo ships
• Charter boats
• Commercial boats
• Container ships
• Cruise ships
• Cruising boats
• Downeast boats
• Fishing trawlers
• Flats boats
• Floating homes
• Floating houses
• Hovercrafts
• Lobster boats
• Mega yachts
• Motorsailers
• Offshore boats
• Power catamarans
• Runabout boats
• Sailing catamarans
• Sport fishing boats
• Superyachts
• Trailer sailers
• Walkaround boats
• Widebeam boats

J. V. Stalin

The Right Danger in the C.P.S.U.(B.)

Speech delivered at the plenum of the moscow committee and moscow control commission of the c.p.s.u.(b.) october 19, 1928.

Source: Works , Vol. 11, January, 1928 to March, 1929 Publisher: Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1954 Transcription/Markup: Salil Sen for MIA, 2008 Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2008). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit "Marxists Internet Archive" as your source.

I think, comrades, that we must first rid our minds of trivialities, of personal matters, and so forth, in order to settle the question which interests us, that of the Right deviation.

Is there a Right, opportunist danger in our Party? Do there exist objective conditions favourable to the development of such a danger? How should this danger be fought? These are the questions that now confront us.

But we shall not settle this question of the Right deviation unless we purge it of all the trivialities and adventitious elements which have surrounded it and which prevent us from understanding its essence.

Zapolsky is wrong in thinking that the question of the Right deviation is an accidental one. He asserts that it is all not a matter of a Right deviation, but of petty squabbles, personal intrigues, etc. Let us assume for a moment that petty squabbles and personal intrigues do play some part here, as in all struggles. But to explain everything by petty squabbles and to fail to see the essence of the question behind the squabbles, is to depart from the correct, Marxist path.

A large, united organisation of long standing, such as the Moscow organisation undoubtedly is, could not be stirred up from top to bottom and set into motion by the efforts of a few squabblers or intriguers. No, comrades, such miracles do not happen. That is apart from the fact that the strength and power of the Moscow organisation cannot be estimated so lightly. Obviously, more profound causes have been at work here causes which have nothing to do with either petty squabbles or intrigues.

Fruntov is also wrong; for although he admits the existence of a Right danger, he does not think it worth while for serious, busy people to concern themselves with it seriously. In his opinion, the question of the Right deviation is a subject for noise-makers, not for serious people. I quite understand Fruntov: he is so absorbed in the day-to-day practical work that he has no time to think about the prospects of our development. But that does not mean that we must convert the narrow, practical empiricism of certain of our Party workers into a dogma of our work of construction. A healthy practicalism is a good thing; but if it loses sight of the prospects in the work and fails to subordinate the work to the basic line of the Party, it becomes a drawback. And yet it should not be difficult to understand that the question of the Right deviation is a question of the basic line of our Party; it is the question as to whether the prospects of development outlined by our Party at the Fifteenth Congress are correct or incorrect.

Those comrades who in discussing the problem of the Right deviation concentrate on the question of the individuals representing the Right deviation are also wrong. Show us who are the Rights and the conciliators, they say, name them, so that we can deal with them accordingly. That is not the correct way of presenting the question. Individuals, of course, play some part. Nevertheless, the question is not one of individuals, but of the conditions, of the situation, giving rise to the Right danger in the Party. Individuals can be kept out, but that does not mean that we have thereby cut the roots of the Right danger in our Party. Hence, the question of individuals does not settle the matter, although it is undoubtedly of interest.

In this connection I cannot help recalling an incident which occurred in Odessa at the end of 1919 and the beginning of 1920, when our forces, having driven Denikin's forces out of the Ukraine, were crushing the last remnants of his armies in the area of Odessa. One group of Red Army men searched high and low for the "Entente" in Odessa, convinced that if they could only capture it—the Entente—the war would be over. ( General laughter. ) It is conceivable that our Red Army men might have captured some representatives of the Entente in Odessa, but that, of course, would not have settled the question of the Entente, for the roots of the Entente did not lie in Odessa, although Odessa at that time was the Denikinites' last terrain, but in world capitalism.

The same can be said of certain of our comrades, who in the question of the Right deviation concentrate on the individuals representing that deviation, and forget about the conditions that give rise to it.

That is why we must first of all elucidate here the conditions that give rise to the Right, and also to the "Left" (Trotskyite), deviation from the Leninist line.

Under capitalist conditions the Right deviation in communism signifies a tendency, an inclination that has not yet taken shape, it is true, and is perhaps not yet consciously realised, but nevertheless a tendency of a section of the Communists to depart from the revolutionary line of Marxism in the direction of Social-Democracy. When certain groups of Communists deny the expediency of the slogan "Class against class" in election campaigns (France), or are opposed to the Communist Party nominating its own candidates (Britain), or are disinclined to make a sharp issue of the fight against "Left" Social-Democracy (Germany), etc., etc., it means that there are people in the Communist Parties who are striving to adapt communism to Social-Democratism.

A victory of the Right deviation in the Communist Parties of the capitalist countries would mean the ideological rout of the Communist Parties and an enormous strengthening of Social-Democratism. And what does an enormous strengthening of Social-Democratism mean? It means the strengthening and consolidation of capitalism, for Social-Democracy is the main support of capitalism in the working class.

Consequently, a victory of the Right deviation in the Communist Parties of the capitalist countries would lead to a development of the conditions necessary for the preservation of capitalism.

Under the conditions of Soviet development, when capitalism has already been overthrown, but its roots have not yet been torn out, the Right deviation in communism signifies a tendency, an inclination that has not yet taken shape, it is true, and is perhaps not yet consciously realised, but nevertheless a tendency of a section of the Communists to depart from the general line of our Party in the direction of bourgeois ideology. When certain circles of our Communists strive to drag the Party back from the decisions of the Fifteenth Congress, by denying the need for an offensive against the capitalist elements in the countryside; or demand a contraction of our industry, in the belief that its present rapid rate of development is fatal for the country; or deny the expediency of subsidies to the collective farms and state farms, in the belief that such subsidies are money thrown to the winds; or deny the expediency of fighting against bureaucracy by methods of self-criticism, in the belief that self-criticism undermines our apparatus; or demand that the monopoly of foreign trade be relaxed, etc., etc., it means that there are people in the ranks of our Party who are striving, perhaps without themselves realising it, to adapt our socialist construction to the tastes and requirements of the "Soviet" bourgeoisie.

A victory of the Right deviation in our Party would mean an enormous strengthening of the capitalist elements in our country. And what does the strengthening of the capitalist elements in our country mean? It means weakening the proletarian dictatorship and increasing the chances of the restoration of capitalism.

Consequently, a victory of the Right deviation in our Party would mean a development of the conditions necessary for the restoration of capitalism in our country.

Have we in our Soviet country any of the conditions that would make the restoration of capitalism possible? Yes, we have. That, comrades, may appear strange, but it is a fact. We have overthrown capitalism, we have established the dictatorship of the proletariat, we are developing our socialist industry at a rapid pace and are linking peasant economy with it. But we have not yet torn out the roots of capitalism. Where are these roots imbedded? They are imbedded in commodity production, in small production in the towns and, especially, the countryside.

As Lenin says, the strength of capitalism lies "in the strength of small production. For, unfortunately, small production is still very, very widespread in the world, and small production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale" (see Vol. XXV, p. 173).

It is clear that, since small production bears a mass, and even a predominant character in our country, and since it engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously and on a mass scale, particularly under the conditions of NEP, we have in our country conditions which make the restoration of capitalism possible.

Have we in our Soviet country the necessary means and forces to abolish, to eliminate the possibility of the restoration of capitalism? Yes, we have. And it is this fact that proves the correctness of Lenin's thesis on the possibility of building a complete socialist society in the U.S.S.R. For this purpose it is necessary to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat strengthen the alliance between the working class and peasantry, develop our key positions from the standpoint of industrialising the country, develop industry at a rapid rate, electrify the country, place the whole of our national economy on a new technical basis, organise the peasantry into co-operatives on a mass scale and increase the yield of its farms gradually unite the individual peasant farms into socially conducted, collective farms, develop state farms, restrict and overcome the capitalist elements in town and country, etc., etc. Here is what Lenin says on this subject:

"As long as we live in a small-peasant country, there is a surer economic basis for capitalism in Russia than for communism. This must be borne in mind. Anyone who has carefully observed life in the countryside, as compared with life in the towns, knows that we have not torn out the roots of capitalism and have not undermined the foundation, the basis of the internal enemy. The latter depends on small-scale production, and there is only one way of undermining it, namely, to place the economy of the country, including agriculture, on a new technical basis, the technical basis of modern large-scale production. And it is only electricity that is such a basis. Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country. Otherwise, the country will remain a small-peasant country, and we have got to understand that clearly. We are weaker than capitalism, not only on a world scale, but also within the country. Everybody knows this. We are conscious of it, and we shall see to it that our economic base is transformed from a small-peasant base into a large-scale industrial base. Only when the country has been electrified, only when our industry, our agriculture, our transport system have been placed upon the technical basis of modern large-scale industry shall we achieve final victory" (Vol. XXVI, pp. 46-47).

It follows, firstly, that as long as we live in a small-peasant country, as long as we have not torn out the roots of capitalism, there is a surer economic basis for capitalism than for communism. It may happen that you cut down a tree but fail to tear out the roots; your strength does not suffice for this. Hence the possibility of the restoration of capitalism in our country.

Secondly, it follows that besides the possibility of the restoration of capitalism there is also the possibility of the victory of socialism in our country, because we can destroy the possibility of the restoration of capitalism, we can tear out the roots of capitalism and achieve final victory over capitalism in our country, if we intensify the work of electrifying the country, if we place our industry, agriculture and transport on the technical basis of modern, large-scale industry. Hence the possibility of the victory of socialism in our country.

Lastly, it follows that we cannot build socialism in industry alone and leave agriculture to the mercy of spontaneous development on the assumption that the countryside will "move by itself" following the lead of the towns. The existence of socialist industry in the towns is the principal factor in the socialist transformation of the countryside. But it does not mean that that factor is quite sufficient. If the socialist towns are to take the lead of the peasant countryside all the way, it is essential, as Lenin says, "to place the economy of the country, including agriculture,* on a new technical basis, the technical basis of modern large-scale production."

Does this quotation from Lenin contradict another of his statements, to the effect that "NEP fully ensures us the possibility * of laying the foundation of a socialist economy"? No, it does not. On the contrary, the two statements fully coincide. Lenin by no means says that NEP gives us socialism ready-made. Lenin merely says that NEP ensures us the possibility of laying the foundation of a socialist economy. There is a great difference between the possibility of building socialism and the actual building of socialism. Possibility and actuality must not be confused. It is precisely for the purpose of transforming possibility into actuality that Lenin proposes the electrification of the country and the placing of industry, agriculture and transport on the technical basis of modern large-scale production as a condition for the final victory of socialism in our country.

But this condition for the building of socialism cannot be fulfilled in one or two years. It is impossible in one or two years to industrialise the country, build up a powerful industry, organise the vast masses of the peasantry into co-operatives, place agriculture on a new technical basis, unite the individual peasant farms into large collective farms, develop state farms, and restrict and overcome the capitalist elements in town and country. Years and years of intense constructive work by the proletarian dictatorship will be needed for this. And until that is accomplished—and it can not be accomplished all at once—we shall remain a small peasant country, where small production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously and on a mass scale, and where the danger of the restoration of capitalism remains.

And since our proletariat does not live in a vacuum, but in the midst of the most actual and real life with all its variety of forms, the bourgeois elements arising on the basis of small production "encircle the proletariat on every side with petty bourgeois elemental forces, by means of which they permeate and corrupt the proletariat and continually cause relapses among the proletariat into petty-bourgeois spinelessness, disunity, individualism, and alternate moods of exaltation and dejection" (Lenin, Vol. XXV, p. 189), thereby introducing into the ranks of the proletariat and of its Party a certain amount of vacillation, a certain amount of wavering.

There you have the root and the basis of all sorts of vacillations and deviations from the Leninist line in the ranks of our Party.

That is why the Right and "Left" deviations in our Party cannot be regarded as a trifling matter.

Where does the danger of the Right, frankly opportunist, deviation in our Party lie? In the fact that it underestimates the strength of our enemies, the strength of capitalism: it does not see the danger of the restoration of capitalism; it does not understand the mechanism of the class struggle under the dictatorship of the proletariat and therefore so readily agrees to make concessions to capitalism, demanding a slowing down of the rate of development of our industry, demanding concessions for the capitalist elements in town and country, demanding that the question of collective farms and state farms be relegated to the background, demanding that the monopoly of foreign trade be relaxed, etc., etc.

There is no doubt that the triumph of the Right deviation in our Party would unleash the forces of capitalism, undermine the revolutionary positions of the proletariat and increase the chances of the restoration of capitalism in our country.

Where does the danger of the "Left" (Trotskyite) deviation in our Party lie? In the fact that it overestimates the strength of our enemies, the strength of capitalism; it sees only the possibility of the restoration of capitalism, but cannot see the possibility of building socialism by the efforts of our country; it gives way to despair and is obliged to console itself with chatter about Thermidor tendencies in our Party.

From the words of Lenin that "as long as we live in a small peasant country, there is a surer economic basis for capitalism in Russia than for communism," the "Left" deviation draws the false conclusion that it is impossible to build socialism in the U.S.S.R. at all; that we cannot get anywhere with the peasantry; that the idea of an alliance between the working class and the peasantry is an obsolete idea; that unless a victorious revolution in the West comes to our aid the dictatorship of the proletariat in the U.S.S.R. must fall or degenerate; that unless we adopt the fantastic plan of super-industrialisation, even at the cost of a split with the peasantry, the cause of socialism in the U.S.S.R. must be regarded as doomed.

Hence the adventurism in the policy of the "Left" deviation. Hence its "superhuman" leaps in the sphere of policy.

There is no doubt that the triumph of the "Left" deviation in our Party would lead to the working class being separated from its peasant base, to the vanguard of the working class being separated from the rest of the working-class masses, and, consequently, to the defeat of the proletariat and to facilitating conditions for the restoration of capitalism.

You see, therefore, that both these dangers, the "Left" and the Right, both these deviations from the Leninist line, the Right and the "Left," lead to the same result, although from different directions.

Which of these dangers is worse? In my opinion one is as bad as the other.

The difference between these deviations from the point of view of successfully combating them consists in the fact that the danger of the "Left" deviation is at the present moment more obvious to the Party than the danger of the Right deviation. The fact that an intense struggle has been waged against the "Left" deviation for several years now has, of course, not been without its value for the Party. It is clear that the Party has learned a great deal in the years of the fight against the "Left," Trotskyite deviation and cannot now be easily deceived by "Left" phrases.

As for the Right danger, which existed before, but which has now become more prominent because of the growth of the petty-bourgeois elemental forces resulting from last year's grain-procurement crisis, I think it is not quite so obvious to certain sections of our Party. That is why our task must be—while not in the least relaxing the fight against the "Left," Trotskyite danger—to lay the emphasis on the fight against the Right deviation and to take all measures to make the danger of this deviation as obvious to the Party as the Trotskyite danger.

The question of the Right deviation would not, perhaps, be as acute as it is now, were it not for the fact that it is connected with the difficulties accompanying our development. But the whole point is that the existence of the Right deviation complicates the difficulties accompanying our development and hinders our efforts to overcome these difficulties. And for the very reason that the Right danger hinders the efforts to overcome the difficulties, the question of overcoming the Right danger has assumed particularly great importance for us.

A few words about the nature of our difficulties. It should be borne in mind that our difficulties should by no means be regarded as difficulties of stagnation or decline. There are difficulties that arise at a time of economic decline or stagnation, and in such cases efforts are made to render the stagnation less painful, or the decline less profound. Our difficulties have nothing in common with difficulties of that kind. The characteristic feature of our difficulties is that they are difficulties of expansion, difficulties of growth. When we speak about difficulties we usually mean by what percentage industry ought to be expanded, by what percentage the crop area ought to be enlarged, by how many poods the crop yield ought to be increased, etc., etc. And because our difficulties are those of expansion, and not of decline or stagnation, they should not be anything particularly dangerous for the Party.

But difficulties are difficulties, nevertheless. And since in order to overcome difficulties it is necessary to exert all efforts, to display firmness and endurance, and since not everybody possesses sufficient firmness and endurance—perhaps as a result of fatigue and overstrain, or because of a preference for a quiet life, free from struggle and commotion—it is just here that vacillations and waverings begin to take place, tendencies to adopt the line of least resistance, talk about slowing down the rate of industrial development, about making concessions to the capitalist elements, about rejecting collective farms and state farms and, in general, everything that goes beyond the calm and familiar conditions of the daily routine.

But unless we overcome the difficulties in our path we shall make no progress. And in order to overcome the difficulties we must first defeat the Right danger, we must first overcome the Right deviation, which is hindering the fight against the difficulties and is trying to undermine our Party's will to fight and overcome the difficulties.

I am speaking, of course, of a real fight against the Right deviation, not a verbal, paper fight. There are people in our Party who, to soothe their conscience, are quite willing to proclaim a fight against the Right danger in the same way as priests sometimes cry, "Hallelujah! Hallelujah!" But they will not undertake any practical measures at all to organise the fight against the Right deviation on a firm basis, and to overcome this deviation in actual fact. We call this tendency a conciliatory tendency towards the Right, frankly opportunist, deviation. It is not difficult to understand that the fight against this conciliatory tendency is an integral part of the general fight against the Right deviation, against the Right danger. For it is impossible to overcome the Right, opportunist deviation without waging a systematic fight against the conciliatory tendency, which takes the opportunists under its wing.

The question who are the exponents of the Right deviation is undoubtedly of interest, although it is not of decisive importance. We came across exponents of the Right danger in our lower Party organisations during the grain-procurement crisis last year, when a number of Communists in the volosts and villages opposed the Party's policy and worked towards forming a bond with kulak elements. As you know, such people were cleared out of the Party last spring, a matter specially referred to in the document of the Central Committee of our Party in February this year.

But it would be wrong to say that there are no such people left in our Party. If we go higher up, to the uyezd and gubernia Party organisations, or if we dig deeper into the Soviet and co-operative apparatus, we could without difficulty find exponents of the Right danger and conciliation towards it. We know of "letters," "declarations," and other documents written by a number of functionaries in our Party and Soviet apparatus, in which the drift towards the Right deviation is quite distinctly expressed. You know that these letters and documents were referred to in the verbatim report of the July plenum of the Central Committee.

If we go higher still, and ask about the members of the Central Committee, we shall have to admit that within the Central Committee, too, there are certain elements, very insignificant it is true, of a conciliatory attitude towards the Right danger. The verbatim report of the July plenum of the Central Committee provides direct proof of this.

Well, and what about the Political Bureau? Are there any deviations in the Political Bureau? In the Political Bureau there are neither Right nor "Left" deviations nor conciliators towards those deviations. This must be said quite categorically. It is time to put a stop to the tittle-tattle spread by enemies of the Party and by the oppositionists of all kinds about there being a Right deviation, or a conciliatory attitude towards the Right deviation, in the Political Bureau of our Central Committee.

Were there vacillations and waverings in the Moscow organisation, or in its top leadership, the Moscow Committee? Yes, there were. It would be absurd to assert now that there were no waverings, no vacillations there. The candid speech made by Penkov is direct proof of this. Penkov is by no means the least important person in the Moscow organisation and in the Moscow Committee. You heard him plainly and frankly admit that he had been wrong on a number of important questions of our Party policy. That does not mean, of course, that the Moscow Committee as a whole was subject to vacillation. No, it does not mean that. A document like the appeal of the Moscow Committee to the members of the Moscow organisation in October of this year undoubtedly shows that the Moscow Committee has succeeded in overcoming the vacillations of certain of its members. I have no doubt that the leading core of the Moscow Committee will be able completely to straighten out the situation.

Certain comrades are dissatisfied with the fact that the district organisations interfered in this matter and demanded that an end be put to the mistakes and vacillations of certain leaders of the Moscow organisation. I do not see how this dissatisfaction can be justified. What is there wrong about district activists of the Moscow organisation raising the demand that an end be put to mistakes and vacillations? Does not our work proceed under the slogan of self-criticism from below? Is it not a fact that self-criticism increases the activity of the Party rank and file and of the proletarian rank and file in general? What is there wrong or dangerous in the fact that the district activists proved equal to the situation?

Did the Central Committee act rightly in interfering in this matter? I think that it did. Berzin thinks that the Central Committee acted too drastically in demanding the removal of one of the district leaders to whom the district organisation was opposed. That is absolutely wrong. Let me remind Berzin of certain incidents in 1919 or 1920, when some members of the Central Committee who were guilty of certain, in my opinion, not very serious errors in respect of the Party line were, on Lenin's suggestion, subjected to exemplary punishment, one of them being sent to Turkestan, and the other almost paying the penalty of expulsion from the Central Committee.

Was Lenin right in acting as he did? I think he was quite right. The situation in the Central Committee then was not what it is now. Half the members of the Central Committee followed Trotsky, and the situation in the Central Committee was not a stable one. The Central Committee today is acting much more mildly. Why? Is it, perhaps, because we want to be more gentle than Lenin? No, that is not the point. The point is that the position of the Central Committee is more stable now than it was then, and the Central Committee can afford to act more mildly.

Nor is Sakharov right in asserting that the intervention of the Central Committee was belated. Sakharov is wrong because he evidently does not know that, properly speaking, the intervention of the Central Committee began in February of this year. Sakharov can convince himself of that if he desires. It is true that the intervention of the Central Committee did not immediately yield required results. But it would be strange to blame the Central Committee for that.

Conclusions:

1) the Right danger is a serious danger in our Party, for it is rooted in the social and economic situation in our country;

2) the danger of the Right deviation is aggravated by the existence of difficulties which cannot be overcome unless the Right deviation and conciliation towards it are overcome;

3) in the Moscow organisation there were vacillations and waverings, there were elements of instability;

4) the core of the Moscow Committee, with the help of the Central Committee and the district activists, took all measures to put an end to these vacillations;

5) there can be no doubt that the Moscow Committee will succeed in overcoming the mistakes which began to take shape in the past;

6) our task is to put a stop to the internal struggle, to unite the Moscow organisation into a single whole, and to carry through the elections in the Party units successfully on the basis of fully developed self-criticism. ( Applause. )

Pravda, No. 247, October 23, 1928

* My italics.—J. Stalin

Collected Works Index | Volume 11 Index Works by Decade | J. V. Stalin Archive

10 Presnenskaya Naberezhnaya Block C, Moscow

View Pictures of this Serviced Office

Serviced Office Description

This area, Moscow City, is known as the Canary Wharf of Moscow, approx. 1,000,000 sq. m of development has been planned including many office buildings, Moscow local government offices and high-speed trains to the Moscow International Airports. This business centre is located in the third building of the highly successful Embankment Tower complex. The business centre offers unrivaled visibility on Moskva river and an irresistible waterfront setting. It offers clients with one of the city’s most prestigious business addresses, an elegant corporate environment, and superior on-site support services. Clients enjoy an elegant reception area, 11 fully-furnished conference rooms, and touchdown stations in our business lounge for clients on-the-go. The centre also provides videoconferencing studios, LCD projectors, and other advanced audio-visual technology. The on-site support team is also available to provide professional administrative support.

Managed Office Facilities

• Virtual Office Services Available
• Meeting Rooms
• Business Lounge
• High-Speed Internet Access
• Reception Staff
• 24 Hr Security
• 24 Hr Access
• Raised Floors
• Suspended Ceilings
• Temp Control
• Videoconferencing Services
• Secretarial Services
• Copying & Fax Services
• Postal Services
• IT & Comms Support
• Break-Out Areas
• On-Site Sandwich / Coffee Bar
• Car Parking

Map of Office Location

Find more office spaces to rent in other locations here.

• View all properties in Moscow
• View all properties in RUSSIA

FIND SPACE IN

• Los Angeles
• San Francisco
• StartUp Office Space
• Co-Working Space
• Managed Office Space
• Corporate Office Space
• Commercial Real Estate
• Virtual Offices
• Cheap Office Space
• Temporary Office Space
• Executive Office Suites
• Flexible Office Space
• Leasehold Offices
• Privacy Policy
• Agent Referrals

The Office Providers, Suite 55 Citygate, 1 Blantyre Street, Manchester, M15 4JT

© Copyright 2009 - 2024 The Office Providers . All rights reserved

Customer Support: Telephone: 020 3051 2375 / Email: [email protected]

Website Developed by Quality Internet Solutions Ltd