Letter to V. B. Eltsin, October 2, 1928

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

No Political Concessions to Conciliationist Moods

Dear Comrade Eltsin:

I have not written you for a long time, and am to blame for that. To tell the truth I thought Lyova was keeping you more or less abreast of things. And apparently that was the case.

In your last letter you wrote mainly about Oppositionist conciliators. You call for us to come out more decisively against them. With your basic idea, that there cannot be any concessions in this area, I am of course in full agreement. To the extent that conciliationism has tried to find political expression for itself, in the form of definite proposals, theses, etc., it has met with our fairly unanimous rejection. As a result we straightened out our front not at all badly vis-a-vis the Sixth Congress. Not counting Serebryakov, who is sinking more and more into philistinism, all the comrades signed our declaration to the congress. By this I in no way mean to say that all the comrades are of the same mind. Undoubtedly there are small shadings of difference, as well as fairly substantial ones. We have seen that comrades afflicted with conciliationism have begun to seek not only points of agreement with the centrists (dreaming up such points where they don't exist) but also points of difference with us, centering fatally around those same old fateful themes: two parties and – permanent revolution. It is absolutely clear that what we are dealing with here is a mood, that is, something very resistant to arguments. To decide in advance that these moods are unalterably bound to take political shape, and to draw the logical conclusions, would now be premature to say the least. It would be totally impermissible to push comrades in this direction when they have been seized by intangible conciliationist moods or otherwise thrown off their footing. We are passing through a fairly steep dip in the historical process, and a wavering in the moods of some comrades, however unpleasant that may be, is inevitable. In some equilibrium will be restored, and in others it will be lost completely. One thing is clear: there can be no political concessions in this area.

You of course have read Uglanov's speech. It is the "juiciest" of all the official speeches of the recent period. Especially good is the part dealing with the "new question" of the Opposition. Other reports supplement this part of Uglanov's speech and provide evidence that the mole of history is tunneling away, in spite of all and sundry thundering articles. Q.E.D.

The comrades now are very preoccupied with the question of my transfer from Alma-Ata. I do not expect this. Where would they send me? Rakovsky, who was sent to Astrakhan by order of the Central Committee, is denied the right to go to Kislovodsk for a cure, which is absolutely necessary for him. Now after a number of telegrams and protests, the leaders consider it less possible than ever to make concessions. After all, the question of "prestige" – that fetish of the weak – has been squarely posed. I am feeling considerably better now and am again carrying a normal workload. How stable this improvement is, only autumn will show. At any rate I maintain the perspective of continued residence here. Comrades who have sent telegrams and protests should limit themselves to that. Further steps would not be advisable from a practical point of view. They would not achieve their aim and might needlessly complicate the situation for many of our friends. I insist on this very firmly.

Are you working systematically on anything? The congress distracted me a little from the plans I had made for research work. I hope to return to those this winter, if the course of events allows. I firmly shake your hand and wish you all the best.