On the Legend of “Trotskyism”

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

Dear Comrades!

After a long pause, Comrades Zinoviev and Kamenev and their closest friends are again beginning with the legend of “Trotskyism”. For the last two years they went with us, together with us they worked out the most important documents of the Opposition, among them also the Platform. At that time there was no “Trotskyism”. But when difficulties arose in the struggle to carry out the line of the Opposition under the assault of world reaction and attacks at home, comrades Zinoviev and Kamenev turned back to the bugbear of “Trotskyism”. For this reason I would like to establish a few facts.

When the so-called “literary discussion” (in 1924) was kindled, a number of comrades close to our group declared that the publication of The Lessons of October was a tactical error because it gave the then majority of the Political Bureau the possibility to open up the “literary discussion”. On my part, I maintained that the “literary discussion” would have come in any case, on one ground or another. The essence of the “literary discussion” consisted in hunting up as many facts and quotations as possible against me and – by outraging the perspectives and historical truth – to spread them among the uninformed Party masses. The “literary discussion” had no connection at all with The Lessons of October. Any one of my books and any of my speeches could have served as the occasion to begin the hunt against “Trotskyism" in the Party. That was my reply to those comrades who were inclined to view the publication of The Lessons of October as a tactical error.

After our bloc with the Leningrad Group had taken place, I put approximately the following question in a discussion with comrade Zinoviev: “Tell me, please, if I had not published The Lessons of October would the so-called literary discussion against Trotskyism have taken place in spite of that or not?”

Without hesitation, Zinoviev answered:

“Naturally The Lessons of October was only a pretext, otherwise something else would have been the motive; the forms of the discussion would have become somewhat different, nothing more.”

2. In the July declaration signed by Zinoviev and Kamenev, it says: “There can no longer be any doubt that, as the development of the present leading faction has shown, the Opposition of 1923 correctly warned against the dangers of the departure from the proletarian line and the menacing growth of the apparatus regime. Yet dozens and hundreds of leaders of the 1923 Opposition, among them many workers, old Bolsheviks, steeled in the struggle and alien to careerism and servility, are kept away from all Party work despite their submission to all discipline.”

3. At the joint plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission of July 14 to July 23, 1926, Zinoviev said:

“I have made many mistakes. But I consider two mistakes as my most important ones. My first mistake of 1917 is known to all.... The second mistake I consider more dangerous, since the first was made under Lenin, and was made good by us after a few days even if it is was done with help of Lenin, but my mistake of 1923 consisted in …”

Ordjonikidse: “That you wanted to make the Party believe something?”

Zinoviev: “We say, there can no longer be any doubts now that the kernel of the 1923 Opposition, as the development of the leading faction has shown, correctly warned against the departure from the proletarian line and against the menacing growth of the apparatus regime.... In the question of deterioration and in the question of bureaucracy – Trotskyism was right in the end against you.” (Stenogram, Volume IV, Page 33.)

In this manner Zinoviev admitted his mistake of 1923 in the struggle against Trotsky, and even characterized it as more dangerous than that of 1917.

4. This acknowledgment of comrade Zinoviev called forth astonishment among many Leningrad Oppositionists who had sincerely believed in the legend of “Trotskyism.” Comrade Zinoviev told me repeatedly:

“In Leningrad we hammered it into the consciousness of the comrades more deeply than anywhere else and it is therefore more difficult to learn anew there.”

Shortly before the departure of comrade Lashkevitch to the Chinese Easters Railway (I cannot remember the exact date) two members of the Opposition came from Leningrad to Moscow to exercise pressure on the 1923 Group in the question of “Trotskyism”. They repeated all the stock phrases about the “permanent revolution”, about the insufficient estimation of the peasantry and so forth.

Comrade Zinoviev asked me, together with the other leading comrades of the 1923 Group, to participate in a discussion that was to take place, at comrade Kamenev’s home. The discussion assumed a rather violent character, mainly between Zinoviev and Lashevitch on the one side and the comrades who had come from Leningrad on the other.

I recall quite accurately the words that Lashevitch shouted out to the Leningraders:

“Don’t stand the matter on its head. We invented 'Trotskyism' together with you in the struggle against Trotsky. Why won’t you understand this? You are only helping Stalin!” And so forth

Comrade Zinoviev said.

“We must acknowledge what happened. It was a struggle for power. The trick was to combine the old differences of opinion with new questions. For this ‘Trotskyism’ was invented… ”

This conversation made a deep impression upon us, the members of the 1923 Group, even though we had already perceived the mechanics of the struggle against “Trotskyism” before. On the way back we exchanged impressions and repeated the crassest expressions of Lashevitch and Zinoviev. Besides that, I reported the discussion the same day to a few close comrades who had not participated in the conference. That is why many formulations of Zinoviev and Lashevitch have remained so well fixed in my memory.

Now that comrades Kamenev and Zinoviev are again trying to make use of the same “trick”, that is, to combine old differences of opinion with entirely new questions of capitulation, I ask that you remember, what I or an other participant in these proceedings reported to you on the expressions of Lashevitch and Zinoviev. The exact establishment of these facts now has a great political significance and can be useful in dimming up the results of “Lessons of December” (1927).

With Communist greetings,

L. Trotsky.

Letter from Preobrazhensky

I confirm everything brought out in this document. Only Lashevitch said: “We invented Trotskyism’” - without the words “together with you.” The two Leningrad comrades who are mentioned here were quite sincerely worried about “Trotskyism”. The meeting took place at Comrade Kamenev's about the 16th of October 1926, perhaps a few days before or after – I cannot recall exactly. December 29, 1927.

E. A. Preobrazhensky.

Letter from Piatakov

You ask me to inform you what I know about the speeches of Lashevitch and Zinoviev on the occasion of a discussion with Leningrad comrades, on “Trotskyism" which took place in Kamenev’s home. I no longer remember all that was said. But since I have always followed the question of so-called “Trotskyism” with the greatest attention, and since the position of the Opposition, of 1925-26 was of the greatest political interest for me, I remember quite clearly what comrades Zinoviev and Lashevitch said. The sense of their words was the following: “Trotskyism” had been invented so as to replace the real differences of opinion with alleged differences, that is, to utilize historical differences of opinion that had no relation to the present, for definite purposes mentioned above. This was told the comrades from Leningrad who hesitated on the question of “Trotskyism” and they wanted to explain to them who had invented “Trotskyism" and to what end.

Moscow, January 2. 1928.

G. Piatakov.

Letter from Elzin

Dear Leo Davidovitch!

I remember very exactly an episode that occurred in Kamenev’s home on the eve of the declaration of October 16th, during a debate on the “literary discussion” and The Lessons of October. On your question, as to whether the discussion on “Trotskyism”, would have taken place even if The Lessons of October had not appeared, Zinoviev then answered: “Certainly it would have taken place, for the plan to open up this discussion was already in existence and we only lay in wait for a pretext.” None of the supporters of the 1925 Group who were present expressed any disagreement with this; everyone received this information of Zinoviev as a generally well known fact.

January 2, 1928.

E. Elzin.

Letter from Radek

I was not present at the first conversation but I heard about it after it took place from L. D. [Trotsky].

I was present at the conversation with comrade Kamenev when L. B. [Kamenev] said he would openly declare at the Plenum of the Central Committee how they, that is, Kamenev and Zinoviev, together with Stalin decided to utilize old differences of opinion between Trotsky and Lenin so as to keep Trotsky from the leadership, of the Party – after Lenin’s death. Besides this – I heard repeatedly from the mouth of Zinoviev and Kamenev how they invented “Trotskyism” as an actual slogan.

December 27, 1927.

Karl Radek.

Radek here recalls a striking incident that is not mentioned in my letter. During the July Plenum in 1927, Zinoviev and Kamenev were driven into a hail of quotations out of their own writings against “Trotskyism”. Since Kamenev hoped to get the floor again on the question of the Opposition, he wanted to take the bull by the horns and declare openly before the Plenum how and why the Trotskyist danger was invented. But the speakers list was closed and Kamenev did not get the floor again.

L. Trotsky.