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 :
Notes of a Journalist. Concerning Zinoviev, Manuilsky, and “Radovoy”
PART I[edit source]
Zinoviev and the Evils of Printing[edit source]
In Number 5 of the Bolshevik of this year, Zinoviev once more “fuses” with the Party – by that single method now accessible to him. Zinoviev writes:
“In 1922, Trotsky predicted that ‘the real rise of socialist’ economy will become possible only after the victory of the proletariat in the most important countries of Europe.’ This prediction has not been confirmed, just as many other predictions of the author mentioned. The real rise of our socialist economy became possible already prior to the victory of the proletariat in the most important countries of Europe. The real rise is developing before our very eyes.”
The same Zinoviev, beginning with the same year 1922, accused Trotsky of “super-industrialism”, that is, of demanding a too speedy industrial rise. How should this be reconciled?
The Opposition was accused of non-belief in socialist construction and at the same time that it wants to rob the peasantry. If that were so, why did it have to “rob” the peasantry? In reality, the Opposition spoke of compelling the Kulak and the upper layer of the peasantry in general to bring sacrifices for socialist construction – the one which the Opposition was supposed “not to have believed”. A fiery belief in socialist construction was manifested only by those who struggled against “super-industrialism” and proclaimed the empty slogan “face towards the village”. Zinoviev proposed to the peasantry, instead of cotton prints and a tractor, a pleasant smiling “face”.
In 1930 as well as in 1922 Trotsky considers that “the real rise of socialist economy in Russia will become possible only after the victory of the proletariat in the most important countries of Europe.” Only it must be understood – and this is not so difficult, after all – that by socialist economy we have here in mind precisely socialist economy and not the contradictory transitory economy of the NEP and that by a real rise we understand such a rise which will completely reconstruct the habitual and cultural conditions of life of the toiling masses, destroying not only the “queues”, O wise Zinoviev, but also the contradiction between the city and the village. Only in this sense can a Marxist speak about a real rise in socialist economy.
After his struggle with “Trotskyism” in 1923–1926, Zinoviev in July 1926, officially admitted that the basic core of the Opposition of 1923 was correct in its prognosis. And now for the sake of fusion with Yaroslavsky, Zinoviev once more rushes into all the difficulties and warms over the old dishes.
It is worth while therefore, to recall that this same Zinoviev signed, and in part wrote on the question he now touches, in the Platform of the Opposition:
“When we, in the words of Lenin, say that in order to construct a socialist society in our country a victory of the proletarian revolution is needed in one or more of the advanced capitalist countries, and that the final victory of socialism in one country and a backward one at that as impossible, as Marx, Engels and Lenin proved, the Stalin group ascribes to us the view that we ‘do not believe’ in socialism and socialist construction in the U.S.S.R.” (Platform of the Bolshevik-Leninists, page 72)
Not badly said, is it? How to explain these scurryings from falsifications to repentance and from repentance to falsifications? On this point the Platform of the Opposition does not leave us without an answer:
“... The petty bourgeois tendency within our own Party cannot struggle against our Leninist views otherwise than by ascribing to us things we never thought or said.” (ibid., page 72)
The last lines were not only signed by Zinoviev, but, unless we are mistaken, were written by him. Truly Joseph Gutenberg has rendered some people a very poor service. Particularly when they have to “fuse” with the other “Joseph” who, it is true, did not invent printing, but works very conscientiously at its destruction.
Has France Entered the Period of Revolution?[edit source]
The Left turn in the C.I. began in 1928. in July, the “third period” was proclaimed. A year later, Molotov declared that France, together with Germany and Poland, had entered a period of “the greatest revolutionary events”. All this was deducted from the development of the strike movement. No figures, no facts were cited. They limited themselves to two or three examples taken from the last numbers of the newspapers. We took (see Militant, No. 29–33) the question of the dynamics of the French labor movement in the light of figures and facts. The picture given by Molotov, prompted by the words of others (the role of the prompters, we assume, was played by Manuilsky and Kuusinen) in no way coincided with reality. The strike wave of the last two years had a very limited character, even though it revealed a certain rise compared to the preceding year, which was the lowest of the decade. The weak development of the strike struggle in the last two years is all the more remarkable because France during 1928–1929 went through an undeniable industrial revival, clear enough in the metal industry where the strike movement was the weakest of all.
One of the reasons for the fact that the French workers did not utilize the favorable conjuncture is undoubtedly the extremely superficial character of the strike strategy of Monmousseau and the other pupils of Losovsky. It became clear that they did not know the state of industry in their own country. As a substitute for that they characterized as offensive, revolutionary and political strikes the isolated, defensive economic strikes primarily in the light industries.
This is the essential part of the analysis we made in our work on the “third period” in France. Thus far we have not seen a single article in which our analysis is submitted to criticism but evidently a very acute need for such a criticism is felt. There is no other way of explaining the appearance in Pravda of an enormous feuilleton, On the Strike Strategy of the Generalissimo Trotsky, where there are frivolous rhymes, quotations from Juvenal, and in general fathomless wit, but not a word about a factual analysis of the struggle of the French proletariat (for the last decade), particularly for the last two years. The article which evidently belongs to the pen of one of the recent gifts of the “third period” is signed modestly Radovoy (rank and filer).
The author accuses Trotsky that he knows strike defense but does not recognize the offensive. Let us assume that Trotsky is guilty of that. But is this a reason for renouncing an offensive struggle in the metal industry under the most favorable conditions and at the same time designate petty, defensive strikes as offensve?
The author accuses Trotsky of not distinguishing capitalism of the epoch of rise from capitalism of the epoch of decline. Let us assume that this is so. Let us forget about the struggle over the relation of the the crisis of capitalism and its cyclical crises which went on in the Comintern in the period of its Third Congress, when live thought was pulsing in the Comintern. Let us assume that Trotsky forgot all of that, and that Radovoy absorbed it all. But does this give an answer to the question whether France entered for the past two years into the period of decisive revolutionary events, or not? This is precisely what the Comintern has proclaimed. Has this question any significance or not? It would seem that it has. But what does the author of the witty feuilleton say on this point? Not a word. France and its labor movement are completely disregarded. As a substitute, this Radovoy proves that Trotsky is a “mis[lead]er” and that he serves the bourgeoisie.
Is that all? Yes, nothing more than that. But, a well-meaning reader will object, can so much be expected from a young Radovoy? He still has a chance to grow. After all it is not he who creates the trade union policy for France. For that we have serious revolutionary strategists, tested in struggle, as for instance, the general secretary of the Profintern, Losovsky.
Correct – we will reply to the reader – all this would be convincing if ... if only the Radovoy were not Losovsky himself. And in the meantime, the matter stands thus: the bouquet of soured light-mindedness and flaccid wit is such that it cannot deceive us.
The leading general, under the modest pseudonym, defends his own acts. With rhymes he drapes the calamities he inflicts upon the labor movement with his leadership, in connection with that, he assails the Left Opposition with all the magnificence of his vengeful irony: it can, don’t you see, be completely seated on one sofa. Let the Radovoy investigate: Are there any sofas in the jails that are filled with Oppositionists? But if they really were so few in number as Lovosky would have it, this would not frighten us at all. At the beginning of the war, the revolutionary internationalists of all Europe went to Zimmerwald on a few carriages. We never feared remaining in the minority. It is Losovsky who, during the war, was very much afraid of remaining in the minority and therefore defended in print the Longuetists, with whom he tried by all means to unite us, against us. During the October revolution, Losovsky was afraid that the Bolshevik Party would be “isolated” from the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries and he therefore betrayed the Party which he temporarily joined, and united with its enemies in the most critical period. But even later on, when Losovsky did join the victorious Soviet power, his quantitative evaluations were just as little reliable as his qualitative ones.
After the victory of which he was not in the least guilty, Losovsky, putting the minus signs where he had previously had his pluses, at the time of the Fifth Congress of the Comintern, declared in a triumphant manifesto that the French Socialist party “no longer exists.” and in spite of all our protests against this shameful light-mindedness, retained this contention when it became clear that the international social democracy nevertheless does exist, Losovsky together with his teachers, crawled on all fours through the whole policy of the Anglo-Russian Committee and was in a union with the strike-breakers during the greatest strike of the British proletariat. With what triumph – with a triumph over the Opposition – did Losovsky, at the session of the Plenum of the Central Committee, report the telegram in which Citrine and Purcell generously agreed to converse with the representatives of the All-Russian Trade Union Central Committee, after they had crushed not only the general strike but also the strike of the coal miners.
After the destruction of the Chinese revolution and the disintegration of the organizations of the Chinese proletariat, Losovsky, at the Plenum of the Central Committee (where he came as a guest because Stalin had not as yet decided to bring him in as a member) reporting the fantastic data about the conquests of the Profintern, gave the figure of the workers organized in the trade unions of China as three million. Everybody gasped. But Losovsky did not even wink an eye. He operates just as lightly with millions of organized workers as he does with rhymes for the coloring of articles. This explains sufficiently why Losovsky’s witticisms about the sofa on which the whole Opposition can be seated do not in the least overwhelm us with their magnificence. Sofas as well as furniture in general are undoubtedly in abundance in the offices of the Profintern, but unfortunately there are no ideas there. And it is ideas that conquer, because they win the masses ...
“But why did Losovsky sign ‘Radovoy’?” we hear a distrustful or a doubtful voice. There are two reasons: a personal and a political. The personal role of Losovsky is such that it is not of advantage to him to expose himself to blows. In delicate moments of ideological clashes he prefers modest anonymity, just as in the sharp, acute hours of the revolutionary struggle he is inclined to solitary deliberations. This is the personal reason. As we have said, there is also a political reason. Had Losovsky signed Losovsky, everybody would say: Is it possible that in the questions of the trade union movement, we really have nothing better than this? But seeing the signature of Radovoy (rank and filer) under the article, the well-meaning reader retains the possibility of saying: We must admit that Radovoy is a sorry scribbler. But nevertheless we still have Losovsky.
Another New Talent[edit source]
Only a few months have elapsed since it was declared throughout the Comintern by command of Molotov that the ideological struggle against “Trotskyism” must be considered at an end. Well? The publications of the Comintern, beginning with the publications of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, are once more devoting an innumerable amount of columns and pages to the struggle against “Trotskyism.” Even the most honorable Pokrovsky, who is burdened with the labors of instructing the youth, has been moved to the front trenches. This corresponds approximately to the period in the imperialist war when Germany resorted to the mobilization of those forty-five and fifty years old. This fact alone would suggest serious fears for the condition of the Stalinist front. Fortunately, the Nestor of the Marxist historiography has not only grand-children but even great grand-children. One of them is S. Novikov, the author of an article on the autobiography of L.D. Trotsky. This young talent immediately established a record by showing that one can fill one and a half printed pages without presenting a single fact or formulating a single idea. Such an exceptional gift could be developed only under the direction of an experienced master. And we involuntarily ask ourselves: Was it not Manuilsky, in the hours free from the direction of the Comintern, that nourished Novikov at his breast, this blessed baby of the “third period”? Or perhaps Manuilsky had no need of bringing up the young talent? Maybe Manuilsky simply made use ... of his own talents? We will not tire the reader any longer: Novikov is Manuilsky. The same one who in 1918 wrote that Trotsky – no more, no less! – liberated Russian Bolshevism from national limitedness and made it a world ideological current. Now, Manuilsky writes, that Stalin freed Bolshevism from Trotskyism and by that definitely strengthened it as an ideological current of the solar system.
But are we not mistaken in identifying the little Novikov with the great Manuilsky? No, we are not mistaken. We did not come to this conclusion lightly, and not by guessing, but through zealous investigation, to be exact: we read five lines at the beginning of the article and five lines at the end. More than that, we hope, nobody will demand of us. But why should Manuilsky hide under the signature of Novikov, somebody will ask? Isn’t this clear? To have people think: If Novikov is so invincible then how must Manuilsky himself be! By the way, we will not repeat ourselves : The motives are the same for which Losovsky turned into Radovoy. These people are in need of reincarnation, like shiny pants – of a chemical cleaning.
PART II[edit source]
Who Is Responsible for the “Turns”; Yakovlev’s General Line[edit source]
The Responsibility for the Turns Lies with ... Trotskyism[edit source]
It is known that the Opposition is pulling to the “Right”, that it is against socialism and collectivization. It is no less known that the Opposition is for compulsory collectivization. And being that the selection and training of the apparatus, as is further well known, were in the past years in the hands of tine Opposition, then with it, naturally, lies the responsibility for the turns. At any rate this is all they talk about in Pravda. If you do not like it, do not listen, but do not interfere with the “general line”.
In the preceding issue we quoted the official Platform of the Opposition published in 1927 in regards to collectivization. But let us go way back of 1927, to the period of military Communism when civil war and famine necessitated a rigorous policy of bread requisitions. How did the Bolsheviks in those severe years paint the perspective of collectivization? In a speech devoted to the peasant uprisings on the ground of the requisitioning of bread, comrade Trotsky spoke on April 6, 1919:
“These uprisings gave us the possibility to realize our greatest ideological and organizational strength. But alongside of this, it is understood, the uprisings were also a sign of our weakness, because they drew into their wake not only the Kulaks but also – we must not deceive ourselves on this score – a certain part of the middle and intermediate peasantry. This can be explained by the general reasons which have been depicted by me – by the backwardness of the peasantry itself. We must not however, blame everything on the backwardness. Marx said on one occasion that a peasant not only has prejudice but also judgement, and one can appeal from the prejudice of the peasant to his judgement, to lead him towards a new order on the basis of experience. The peasantry should feel by deeds that in the working class, in its Party, in its Soviet apparatus, it has a leader, a defender; the peasant should understand the requisitions to which we were forced, should accept them as something unavoidable; he should know that we are entering into the internal life of the village, that we examine for whom it is easier, for whom it is more difficult, that we make an internal differentiation and seek the closest friendly bonds with the middle peasants.
“This we need first of all because as long as in Western Europe the working class has not gained power, as long as our Left flank cannot lean on the proletarian dictatorship of Germany, France and other countries, so long are we compelled to lean our Right flank on the Russian middle peasant. But not only in this period, no, also after the decisive, inevitable and historically pre-determined victory of the working class throughout Europe, for us, in our country, there will remain the important enormous task of the socialization of our agricultural economy, transforming it from a scattered, backward, peasant economy into a new, collective group, Communist economy. Can this greatest transition in world history be in any way computed against the desires of the peasantry? In no way. Not measures of violence will be needed here, not measures of compulsion, but educational measures, measures of influencing, of support, of good example, of encouragement – these are the methods by which the organized and enlightened working class speaks to the middle peasant.” (L.Trotsky, Vol.XVII, pages 119–120)
Yakovlev’s “General Line”[edit source]
Every self-respecting bureaucrat has his “general line”, sometime full of the unexpected. The “general line” of Yakovlev has always consisted of serving the command but winking to the Opposition. He ceased his winking when he understood that it is a serious matter, and for a responsible post the command demands not only the hands but the heart as well. Yakovlev has become people’s commissar of agriculture. In this capacity he presented the Sixteenth Congress with a thesis on the collectivization movement. One of the basic reasons for the rise of agricultural economy, the thesis declares, is the “crushing of counter-revolutionary Trotskyism”. It will therefore not hurt to recall how the present leader of the collectivization put the question of agricultural economy in the very recent past, and in the struggle against that same Trotskyism.
Characterizing the dispersal and backwardness of peasant economy, Yakovlev wrote at the end of 1927:
“These data are quite sufficient to characterize the drama of the small and tiniest economy. On the cultural and organizational level of peasant economy as inherited by us from czarism we will in no way succeed in advancing in the sphere of socialist development in our country with the necessary speed.” (On the Question of Socialist Reconstruction of Agricultural Economy, edited by Yakovlev, page xxiv).
Two years ago when 75 percent of the collectives were as yet made up of the poor, the present commissar of agriculture, Yakovlev, evaluated their socialist character in the following manner:
“The question of the growth in the collectives of the communal and not individual elements of capital, even at the present time, perhaps particularly at the present time – is still a quesstion of struggle; in many instances private individual accumulation hides under the communal form, etc.” (Ibid., page xxxvii)
Defending against the Opposition the right of the Kulak to live and breath, Yakovlev wrote:
“The quintessence of the tasks is the socialist transformation of peasant economy into a cooperative socialist economy ... precisely this small and tiny economy which middle peasant economy is at bottom. This is our basic and most difficult task. While solving this task we may in parsing, by measures of economic and general policy, solve the task of limiting the growth of Kulak exploiting elements – the task of an offensive against the Kulak.” (Ibid., p. xlvi)
Consequently, even the possibility of limiting the growth of the Kulak elements was made dependent by Yakovlev upon the solution “of the basic and most difficult task”: the socialist transformation of peasant economy. As for the liquidation of the Kulak as a class. Yakovlev did not even raise the question. All this was two years ago.
Speaking of the necessity for the gradual transition from commercial cooperation to productive cooperation, that is, to collective farms, Yakovlev wrote: “This is the only road of cooperative development which really secures – naturally, not in one-two-three years, maybe not in one decade – the socialist reconstruction of all of peasant economy.” (Ibid., page xii) Let us notice carefully: “not in one-two-three years, maybe not in one decade.”
“Collective farms and communes,” Yakovlev wrote in the same work, “are at the present time and will for a long time yet undoubtedly be only islets in the sea of peasant economy, since a pre-condition for their vitality is first of all a tremendous rise of culture.” (Ibid., page xxxvii, our emphasis)
Finally, in order to present the basis for the perspective of decades, Yakovlev emphasized that:
“The creation of a mighty, rationally organized industry, capable of producing not only the means of consumption but also the means of production, which are imperative for national economy – this is the pre-condition for a real cooperative socialist plan.” (Ibid., page xliii)
This is how matters appeared in recent times when Yakovlev, in the capacity of a member of the Central Control Commission, exiled the Opposition to the East for an assault upon the rights of the Kulak and the bureaucracy, and for the endeavor to accelerate collectivization. In the struggle for the official course of that time, the course towards the “strong peasant”, against the conscienceless and spiteful criticism on the part of the Opposition” – the actual words in the article mentioned – Yakovlev considered that the collective farms “will for a long time yet undoubtedly be only islets” – not even islands, but islets! – “in the sea of peasant economy”, for the socialist reconstruction of which “more than once decade will be needed”. If two years ago, Yakovlev proclaimed, in contrast to the Opposition, that even the simple limitation of the Kulak can only be a passing result of socialist reconstruction of all of peasant economy in the course of a series of decades – then today, in the capacity of people’s commissar of agriculture, he undertakes “to liquidate the Kulak as a class” in the course of two or three sowing campaigns. By the way – this was yesterday: today Yakovlev expresses himself in theses much more enigmatically ... and this sort of gentleman which is incapable of thinking anything through seriously, still less capable of foreseeing anything, accuses the Opposition of ... “consciencelessness”, and on the basis of this accusation arrest, exile and even shoot. Two years ago – because the Opposition pushed them on to the road of collectivization and industrialization; today – because it restrains the collectivizers from adventurism.
Here it is, the pure culture of bureaucratic adventurism.
PART III[edit source]
Two or Not Even One? (Blucher’s Enigmatic Speech)[edit source]
One of the first sessions of the Sixteenth Party Congress was greeted by the commander of the Far Eastern army, Blucher. This fact in itself has no political significance and would hardly deserve mention. Neither has the fact a Party significance: If, as a soldier, Blucher is far inferior to Budenny for instance, then in a Party sense he is very little superior to him. Besides Blucher’s speech of greetings was edited beforehand in the office of Voroschilov and therefore very badly edited. But the spirit of the flunkey who falls in line at command was consistent to the end. There were the enraptured acclaim of Stalin and the ardent greetings to Voroschilov, and several jabs aimed at the Right wing before whom Blucher stood at attention only the day before. Everything is in order. There is also an interesting admission: “In the period between the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Congresses, our Party and Communist Youth organization in the army carried on a successful struggle against counter-revolutionary Trotskyism.” The Fifteenth Congress, as was said in its day, drew the final balance under the “struggle against Trotskyism” and liquidated it completely. Now we hear from Blucher that “a successful struggle against Trotskyism” was carried on in the army for the last two and a half years, between the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Congresses. We must assume that at the Seventeenth Congress we will find out not a little of instructive value concerning the further course of this struggle which is no sooner ended than it starts anew. If we live – we shall hear about it.
But we have paused at Blucher’s speech not because of this admission, nor because of its general tone, which can be expressed in three words: At your service! In this speech, or at any rate in the reports of it, there is one point which is of serious significance – not as a characterization of Blucher but as a characterization of what is now being done in the Party and what is what is now being done to the Party.
According to the report in Pravda of June 28, 1930, Blucher declared:
“We, the fighters in the Red Army, can proudly report to you that during these battles we did not have a single defection, not a single deserter to the enemy. The army showed a high political and class devotion to socialist construction.”
Every revolutionist can only welcome this information. Unfortunately, however, we have a second version of this point in Blucher’s speech which undermines all our confidence in the whole report. In the journal, Rabotchi, which is the daily organ of the Central Committee of the White Russian Communist Party, the quotation from Blucher’s speech is reported as follows:
“We can proudly report to you that) we had no defections nor a single deserter to the camp of the enemy. We have only two dark, shameful stains: two qualified recruits who were to serve for a period of nine months went over to the enemy. Both of them turned out to be Trotskyists.”
The words we underlined are completely absent from the Pravda report. Were they spoken by Blucher or not? If we are to judge by the text we would have to conclude that these words were arbitrarily and incongruously inserted into the report after it was made, as a result of which we have an obvious absurdity. At first it says that there was not “a single deserter” and then it is reported that there were two of them. Obviously, there is something foul here: If there is not a single one, then where did the two come from? And if there really were two deserters then how can one say “not a single one”? But let us assume that it was not Blucher himself who made the ends meet: In the speech unfortunately, there is generally more ardor than sense. But then why did the Pravda report omit such tempting information about two deserters? Why did Pravda conceal the counter-revolutionary betrayals of the “Trotskyists”? If Pravda did not conceal anything, if Blucher did not even say this, then how is it that these words appear on the same day in the Minsk Rabotchi?
We know well enough how all the information about the Congress is edited. Not a single line leaves the boundaries of the Congress without a visa from the Press Commission. This means that the information about the Trotskyist-deserters could never have been invented in Minsk. It had to be sent from Moscow with the seal of the Congress Press Commission. But then, once more, why were these lines omitted from Pravda? That is the first question.
There is also a second question. “Two qualified recruits went over to the enemy,” we are told by Blucher or by somebody supplementing him. “Both of them turned out to be Trotskyists.” These words are printed in the Minsk journal in bold face type. Naturally! But here is what is incomprehensible. Between the Fifteenth and the Sixteenth Congresses, according to the words of Blucher, the army was completely purged of the remnants of Trotskyism. Why wasn’t it purged of these two also? Evidently they were not known until the moment of their flight. How did Blucher find out that they were “Trotskyists”, after they had fled? “Both of them turned out (?) to be Trotskyists.” What does he mean “turned out”? How and on what point? The water is dark, so dark that it looks like a stagnant pool. And it also looks as though someone had been splashing around in that pool.
And finally there is a third question: Why did the “Trotskyism” have to flee to the camp of the Chinese counter-revolution? At its head stands Chang Kai-Shek. He was never our ally. He was the ally of Stalin. He came to Stalin for negotiations, A week prior to the bloody coup d’état of Chiang Kai Shek in April 1927, Stalin in the Hall of the Columns vouched for the loyalty of Chiang Kai-Shek. Chiang Kai-Shek’s party belonged to the Comintern with a consultative vote. The Opposition fought against this intransigently. Stalin and Rykov exchanged photographs with Chiang Kai-Shek in April 1927, Stalin received a protrait of Chiang Kai-Shek from the office of the Comintern with the request that he give his own portrait to Chiang Kai-Shek in exchange. Trotsky returned the portrait and refused to give his own. Stalin taught that Chiang Kai-Shek’s Kuo Min Tang is a substitute for Soviets. The Opposition revealed the alliance between Stalin and Chiang Kai-Shek as a betrayal of the revolution. What grounds, then, could the “Trotskyists” have had for fleeing to the camp of Chiang Kai-Shek? And would it not be better for you, my good sirs, to remain silent about this?
We do not know who fell into this fit of babbling: Blucher, or the editor of his speech, or both of them. But it is clear that somebody here fell into a fit of babbling exceeding the most exceptional norms of verisimilitude. That is why Pravda refused to print these words. It was decided there, and not without cause, that this is too stupid. But at the same time the Press Commission of the Congress was reluctant to throw them out: maybe somebody will find some use for them. And really – such an alluring morsel: On the one hand, not a single deserter, which is such an excellent testimonial to the army. On the other hand, fully two deserters, and both of them “Trotskyists”; and this is still better, for it reveals the direct connection between the Opposition and Chiang Kai-Shek. A pity to throw it out: Perhaps it will come in handy in Minsk.
In conclusion, there still remains to take a look at the composition of the Press Commission. It includes the former Social Revolutionists, Berdnikov, who is prepared for any service; Stalin’s former secretary, Nazaretian, who has quite a distinct and well-earned reputation; the former Menshevik, Popov, who supplements Berdnikov; the chief cook of the Bureau of Party History, Saviliev; and Stalin’s former secretary, Tovstukha. This ought to be enough for anybody.
The Sermon on Cockroaches[edit source]
In his concluding remarks, Stalin spoke about how Rykov, Bucharin and Tomsky becames frightened as soon as “a cockroach stirred somewhere, before it even crawled out of its hole” ... The speech evidently referred to the dissatisfied Kulaks and middle peasants. Further on, however, the above-mentioned cockroach turns out to be “feeble” and moribund”. This complicates matters somewhat. It may be that a feeble cockroach can stir, but so far as a moribund cockroach is concerned – we would say frankly that we have our doubts. We are quite in accord with the moral that even live cockroaches should not be feared. But on the other hand we assume that under no circumstances should a cockroach be called a raisin, as an economical father once did when a baked cockroach was discovered in his bread. Nevertheless, some people – “economists” if not “economical” – believed and taught others, beginning with 1924, that the Kulak is a myth altogether, that socialism can very well be reconciled with that “powerful middle peasant” – in a word, for four years they ardently converted the cockroach into the raisin of national socialism. This too should have been avoided.
A Self-Portrait of Yaroslavsky[edit source]
The irreplaceable colleague, Yaroslavsky, in the interests of self-criticism, read at the Congress a description of a Communist given by a certain organization in a forsaken locality: “Consistent, politically literate, has no firm convictions of his own. Awaits what other will say.” The report records “laughter”. But if one stops to think, it is not at all a laughing matter. It is only too true. And maybe this is precisely why it is so ludricious. The province has hit the mark, describing not a man but a type.
Yes, even if we take this same Yaroslavsky. In 1923, he wrote panegyrics to Trotsky. In 1925, he wrote agreeing with Zinoviev’s Leninism, which was directed entirely against Stalin. In 1927, he wrote that Bucharin has no deviations whatever and that he is educating the youth in the spirit of Leninism.
But can it be said that Yaroslavsky is inconsistent? Nobody will say that. He is quite consistent, even too consistent. Politically illiterate? No, of course not. At worst – he is semi-literate. Has he his own firm convictions? It appears that he has not. But why should convictions be firm? They are not metallic. But how is it that Yaroslavsky, without firm convictions, maintains himself at the top? Very simple. He “awaits what others will say”.
No, the Congress laughed for nothing. The description fits perfectly.