Averbach Caught with the Goods

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

In Moscow there is published a Literaturnaya Gazeta [Literary Gazette], the organ of the Federation of Soviet Authors. The critic on this paper is Averbach. His right to be an authority on literature is determined on the one hand by the fact that he deserted soon enough the ranks of the Opposition, into which he came accidentally, for the ranks of the bureaucracy, where he is quite at home (L N. Smirnov i" used to say about him, "he won't stay with us — he's too gluttonous"), and on the other hand by the fact that he has absolutely no literary flair, to which every line of his writings testify. In the Literaturnaya Gazeta of February 19 Averbach wrote a very long article entitled "Tempos of Self-exposure (on Trotsky, Maïakovsky,and Fellow-Traveling)." Reproduced in the center of the article is a citation from Trotsky devoted to Mayakovsky's suicide From this Averbach extracts a quotation concerning proletarian literature. The "self-exposure" consists in the fact that Trotsky has at last openly recognized the complete opposition of his views to the views of Lenin on the question of proletarian culture and proletarian literature. Let us produce the quotation from Trotsky's article in the form in which it is presented by Averbach, along with his own parenthetical remarks.

"The struggle for 'proletarian culture' (quotation marks by Trotsky — L. A) — something on the order of the 'toted collectivization' (his own quotation marks — L. A) of all humanity's gains within the span of a single five-year plan — had at the beginning of the October Revolution the character of utopian idealism. It is significant that in this field, even then, the conflict between Lenin and the author of these lines was exposed."

The whole paragraph, as we see, is in quotation marks, and Averbach also points out correctly the single quotation marks made by Trotsky. Averbach is exact and scrupulous. But despite this, the Averbachian style of the quotation and particularly its last sentence — "It is significant that in this field, even then, the conflict between Lenin and the author of these lines was exposed" — is puzzling. For Trotsky not only points out that he had disagreements with Lenin on a definite question, but he even hurries to emphasize the "significance" of the fact that these disagreements were exposed "even then," that is, it would appear that Trotsky was aiming for self-exposure. This does sound odd. Averbach, however, does not spare comment "First of all, what is most obvious," he says, "is the frank declaration about the disagreements with Lenin." Yes, Averbach is correct There is something obvious. Further on: "We must be grateful; what is more pleasant to read than the acknowledgment by Trotsky himself of Lenin's disagreement with his views on literature and general questions of culture." The sentence is poor, like the majority of Averbach's sentences, but it can be understood. The article concludes: "The speed of the self-exposure is significant."

Thus in the year 1930, Trotsky exposed the fact that he did not agree with Lenin's views on literature. On this score, Averbach celebrates a victory and speaks of the speed of self-exposure. But in the year 1928, Trotsky was exiled to Alma-Ata and, in the year 1929, was expelled from the country for counterrevolutionary activity and preparation of an armed uprising against the Soviet power. Of what significance, in comparison with this, is Trotsky's disagreement with Lenin's views on proletarian literature? Where and in what does the speed (!) of self-exposure lie? Is it not the other way around? Does not this "disproportion" in the accusations expose — Averbach's employers? This is the political side of the matter. But there is also another side.

The fact is that Averbach lied from beginning to end. The quotation which he gave is not a quotation; it is a falsification, crude, illiterate, insolent — a la Averbach. Here, word for word, is the excerpt from Trotsky's article which Averbach distorted:

"The struggle for 'proletarian culture’ — something on the order of the 'total collectivization' of all humanity's gains within the span of a single five-year plan — had at the beginning of the October Revolution the character of utopian idealism, and it was precisely on this basis that it was rejected by Lenin and the author of these lines."

Thus Trotsky says that the philosophy of proletarian culture "was rejected by Lenin and the author of these lines." But Averbach says "even then, the conflict between Lenin and the author of these lines was exposed" — neither more nor less! The man who poses as a proletarian critic simply turns out to be a low literary swindler. This time he has been caught with the goods too crudely and it isn't necessary to say another word. We cannot help commenting, however, that Averbach's dishonesty is even more reprehensible because he himself is very well informed about Lenin's and Trotsky's attitude toward the Averbachian margarine of literary and cultural philosophy. Averbach knows how strenuously Lenin came out against the theoreticians of so-called "proletarian culture" in the years when this movement had a revolutionary content and was not yet in the grips of the bureaucratic charlatans. Averbach knows that if Trotsky had "disagreements" with Lenin on this question, they were perhaps expressed in the fact that Trotsky had a softer attitude than Lenin to the infatuations of the ideologists of proletarian culture and at times defended them to Lenin. Averbach knows that Trotsky wrote his book on literature in agreement with Lenin, who insisted more than once that Trotsky first of all work on the chapter devoted to proletarian culture and publish it in Pravda. Incidentally, its publication was not accompanied by any comments or footnotes by the editor. Yaroslavsky — Yaroslavsky himself! — wrote to Trotsky that he agreed with the viewpoint he expressed. All this is known to Averbach, because as one of the young aspirants to "proletarian literature" he had attempted a number of times to find in Trotsky a defender against Lenin's views, but invariably met with a rebuff.

Really, whatever aspect you touch, the ideology of the centrist bureaucracy is built upon lies, falsifications, distortions of the past. Just think of it. This Averbach comes forward as an instructor and tutor of the proletarian youth! He, Averbach, paves the way for "proletarian" (!) "culture" (!!). People who can judge by symptoms will understand from this example alone what a fatal danger the current party regime represents for the development of a socialist society and a socialist culture.