| Category | Template | Form |
|---|---|---|
| Text | Text | Text |
| Author | Author | Author |
| Collection | Collection | Collection |
| Keywords | Keywords | Keywords |
| Subpage | Subpage | Subpage |
| Template | Form |
|---|---|
| BrowseTexts | BrowseTexts |
| BrowseAuthors | BrowseAuthors |
| BrowseLetters | BrowseLetters |
Template:GalleryAuthorsPreviewSmall
Special pages :
Molotov on Zinoviev
| Author(s) | Leon Trotsky |
|---|---|
| Written | 1 March 1933 |
The necessity for an explanation if not a justification for the expulsion and exile of Zinoviev and Kamenev becomes sufficiently clear since Molotov has found himself forced to turn to Zinoviev in connection with the planning figures for 1933. In this matter, Molotov quoted the evidence given by Zinoviev in his report to the Central Control Commission on the Ryutin-Slepkov case. "So far as I can judge," said Zinoviev, according to Molotov, "of late, a fairly significant proportion of party members has been gripped by dangerous, vague deviationist ideas" (Pravda, January 12, 1933).
Later on, Molotov quotes Trotsky, or rather refers — without quoting — to Trotsky … as the high priest of "deviation." "Not even a memory remains of the former super industrialization. Now he can think of only one thing: deviation, deviation, deviation. From such sources G. Zinoviev has drawn his sustenance." The concluding phrase (underlined by us) comes as a complete surprise. So Trotsky is "preaching" deviation. Zinoviev at least only referred to the fact that "dangerous, vague deviationist ideas" had gripped a significant proportion of the party members. In other words, if we are to believe Molotov (which, generally speaking, is not recommended), Zinoviev asserts that preacher Trotsky is dangerous, i. e., he gives the high priest of deviation the same rating as does Molotov.
If Molotov wanted to prove that detestable arbitrariness was shown by the Stalinist clique in the Zinoviev affair then he has fully proved it, for we must admit that Molotov has quoted that part of Zinoviev's evidence that is least advantageous to himself. Rather than get involved in argument, Molotov need only have said: Dizzy with success, we cannot tolerate in the party any person who can see what we cannot.