On the Topics of the Day

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

I. A "Bloc" with the Rights and Nonsense in General

The final lines of my discussion with a "well-meaning party member" quite unexpectedly provoked confusion and almost even indignation in some comrades, living, it is true, in one and the same colony. It seemed to them that the final lines of the discussion could be understood as laying the basis for a "bloc" with the rights. No more and no less. These comrades even began to send telegrams of appeal to other colonies.

At first it seemed to me – I beg forgiveness – that here we were confronted with certain indications that comrades were imagining things. This kind of disorder is caused, as everyone knows, by monotony in nature and monolithism in human life.

Our declaration to the Sixth Congress, written long before the struggle of the centrists with the rights came into the open, states: "Can the Opposition support the rights against the centrists, who formally hold power – in order to help overthrow them, to 'avenge ourselves' on them for the odious persecution, the rudeness and disloyalty, the 'Wrangel officer,' Article 58, and other deliberately vicious deeds? There have been such combinations between the left and the right in [past] revolutions. Such combinations have also ruined revolutions. In our party the right represents the link which the bourgeois classes secretly hold onto, to drag the revolution onto the path of Thermidor. At the present moment, the center is trying to resist, or half-resist. It is clear: the Opposition cannot have anything in common with such combinationist adventurism, counting on the aid of the right to overthrow the center" [see "Declaration to the Sixth Comintern Congress" in this volume, page 142].

Even now our declaration retains all its force in spite of certain hasty voices which pronounced the declaration "obsolete" after the July plenum and thought the situation was saved only by the postscript ["The July Plenum and the Right Danger"]. The incorrectness of such an evaluation is quite clear. The postscript reacted to a definite, very significant episode in the struggle of the centrists with the rights, and it reacted correctly. It, together with other documents and statements of our cothinkers, undoubtedly accelerated the crisis of the right-centrist bloc, explaining to rather wide circles exactly what the situation was. It is possible to say – and this will not at all be conceit on the part of the Opposition – that documents of this sort facilitated the "victory" of the centrists over the right (while not taking upon ourselves even a shade of responsibility for the centrists), for we called people and things by their right names, which is quite inadmissible to the tongue-tied centrist. Whereas the postscript dealt with a certain moment in the reciprocal relations of the centrists and the rights, the declaration was intended for a more extended period. This is why it retains all its force even now, when the campaign against the rights has taken an open form and a broad apparatus scale. Read through it now and compare it with the exercise drills of the Democratic Centralists. The comparison is not even worth discussing. It goes without saying that the passage cited above which rejects in advance "combinationist adventurism" which would try to "overthrow the center with the help of the rights" also retains its significance.

In some letters comrades have asked, "Are there really any such people?" I had no one in our circles in mind personally. But the logic of struggle can create such attitudes in certain elements. The warning was especially necessary because, in regard to the Zinovievists at any rate, we were never able to be sure of them, and we can't be now. It was not by chance that Bukharin, on behalf of the trio [Rykov, Tomsky, Bukharin], entered into official negotiations with Kamenev. And it was not accidental that Kamenev and Company did not inform the party about these discussions, leaving this other road open for themselves. Here, then, a clear and distinct dividing line had to be drawn in advance, and that was done in the declaration. Perhaps some valiant Democratic Centralist will ask, "Do you really have to answer for the Zinovievists?" No, we aren't answering for them. But we live the life of the party and actively intervene in all its internal relations.

The postscript cites the words of Rykov: "The main task of the Trotskyists is to prevent the triumph of the right wing." How remarkable those words sound now when Rykov and Uglanov cast their votes "monolithically" for resolutions which declare that their, Rykov's and Uglanov's, "main task is to prevent the triumph of the right wing." This "Trotskyism" has really come a long way. Quite a career it's made for itself in such a short time. Here the November plenum has monolithically adopted "the main task of the Trotskyists." Nevertheless, we are not flattering ourselves. Our heads are not spinning. We remember the German saying: "when two different people say the same thing, it is not at all the same thing." These words apply even more to different political groups. However, there is a benefit. Now even the backward party member will have to use his brains: How is it that from July to November Rykov managed to become a Trotskyist, i.e., an ardent "fighter" against the right deviation?

In full accordance with the declaration to the Sixth Congress, the postscript confirmed Rykov's threatening accusation: "Precisely correct. The victory of the right wing would be the last step leading to Thermidor. Rykov is right. Our main task now is to prevent the triumph of the right wing" [see "The July Plenum and the Right Danger"].

Thus, we took a quite timely, clear, and distinct position on this question, leaving no room for any false interpretations. What, then, is the source of the sudden alarm felt by some comrades, who, according to the French expression of Leo Tolstoy, in the heat of the moment even "made the telegraph dance." The alarm arose from the last few lines of the "Heart-to-Heart Talk." We take this opportunity to consider the question in the more concrete light in which it stands before us at the present, more developed stage.

The comrades mentioned above do not try to deny that the whole "Talk" was directed against the right wing's banal philistinism (one of its central features). In that case what do the final lines mean? Do they really stand in such flagrant contradiction not only to the declaration and the postscript but also to the rest of the "Heart-to-Heart Talk"? No, there is not even a trace of a contradiction. These lines only need to be approached with a living and vital political attitude, free from pedantry.

The fact is that the "Heart-to-Heart Talk" reduces all questions to questions of the party regime, i.e., "the regime of the Yaroslavskys," who have "great resources in their hands, not in the domain of ideas, of course, but resources that in their own way are also effective, at least for now. They will try to strangle you [the rights], while in essence carrying out your policies, although only by installments," and so on. My correspondent whined about everything that is going on in the party and plaintively urged me to return to the fold. That means that right-wing Communists of this type exist. In general we must keep in mind-let me note in passing – the extreme diversity of the internal composition of both the right and the centrist groups as a result of the underground-apparatus forms of party life. There will still be all sorts of migrations and realignments. That, in the final analysis, is, of course, what our politics in relation to the party are based on. That is why the clear and essentially finished characterization of the rights and centrists must be supplemented in practice, i.e., in agitation and propaganda, with great flexibility in addressing the living human material constituting these groups. One language with Rykov or Uglanov, another with the type of rank-and-file member or even cadre element who appeals to us with a letter on his own initiative and tearfully implores the Oppositionists to return to the party.

Another tone, another language – but of course the line has to be one. And I did not violate this line of ours to even the slightest degree. I only developed it, concretized it, and pushed it slightly further. I say to this well-meaning and confused Rykovist: You weep over the state of the party? You are afraid of a split? You are right [to be concerned]. The dangers are terribly great. It is impossible to speak frankly and honestly in the party. Self-criticism means simply that everyone is now ordered to "self-criticize" Uglanov. Most dangerous, because it is the most immediate of all dangers, is the party regime. What is the way out? To bring the party out of this underground, illegal situation [in regard to its political life]. Decrease to one-twentieth of its present size, i.e., reduce to five or six million rubles, the party budget, which has become the basis of bureaucratic arbitrariness.

Give party members the chance to vote secretly. Prepare the Sixteenth Congress honestly, i.e., so that the whole party can listen to representatives of all three tendencies with full freedom. Of course, for this it would be necessary to return the Opposition to the party. After enumerating these demands, the "Heart-to-Heart Talk" concludes: "These are strictly practical proposals. On the basis of these proposals we would even be willing to negotiate with the rights, because the implementation of these elementary preconditions of party principle would give the proletarian core the opportunity to really call to account not only the rights but also the centrists, i.e., the main support and protection for opportunism in the party."

These are the lines, then, that provoked the confusion. This is what, I am told, could be interpreted as a bloc with the rights against the center. No, dear comrades, you did not think this question through to the end. You did not try to conceive of the currently developing situation in a concrete way. And apparently you did not think enough about what a bloc is. We had a bloc with the Zinovievists. For the sake of this bloc we made isolated, partial concessions. Most often these were concessions to some of our closest cothinkers who gravitated toward the Zinovievists politically or tactically. In isolated cases these concessions obviously went too far and temporarily produced negative results which we firmly kept in mind for the future. But in all fundamental respects the bloc was formed on the basis of the ideas of the proletarian left, i.e., on our ground.

What kind of bloc could there be with the rights? On what ground? Is such a bloc conceivable? Is it possible in general, even for one minute, to speak or think seriously about a common platform with them? In the negotiations with Kamenev, Bukharin put matters this way: "We will conclude a bloc against Stalin and afterwards we will write a positive platform together" [see appendix to this volume]. Literally! But only died-in-the-wool horse traders or totally confused, lost, and bankrupt Balabolkins could pose the question this way. What can we have in common with these two "categories" (to use the philosophical language of the "theoretician" Stalin)?

In that case what does the phrase mean which says "on the basis of these proposals we would even be willing to negotiate with the rights"? It means precisely what it says. Concretely speaking, it responds to the well-meaning party member this way: Instead of whining and whimpering, demand as a first step the return of the Opposition from exile. We will have complete "agreement" with you on this. Demand further the honest convening of a party congress. And what do I promise the rights as compensation? The answer is given in these very lines: "to really call to account not only the rights but also the centrists, i.e., the main support and protection for opportunism in the party." Where is the bloc in this? Where is the hint of a bloc? Where is the shade of a hint? Or even the shade of a shade? No, without hallucinating you couldn't have come up with this. The final passage of the "Heart-to-Heart Talk" resounds with the bitterest mockery toward the rights: You have come to grief, you say, dear friends. You're in trouble. The apparatus is pressing you too hard. Wouldn't you like to feast on a little democracy? Try some, try some. And we will support you – as a rope supports a hanging man. There you have the meaning of the final lines. Only perhaps the malicious glee in them is veiled slightly, because after all this is a talk with a well-meaning party member.

But besides the taunting of the rights, these lines contain a more serious meaning intended for our cothinkers in the party. Is the possibility excluded that the rights are going to fall into opposition to the apparatus on questions of the party regime and repeat our elementary demands on this score? No, such a possibility is not excluded. It is very likely, and, given the development of the struggle, it is even inevitable. Even at the November plenum, with all its monolithism, we heard some voices of protest against the fact that the Moscow secretaries were replaced through the system of "self-criticism," that is, without a conference and without the masses (see the newspaper report on Stalin's speech [in Stalin's Works, vol. 11, pp. 299-300]). Just what should our cothinkers do in these cases as members of party cells? Should they expose the usurpationist system of elections? Should they demand that conferences be correctly prepared and convened? Yes, they should. But here they will "coincide" with the rights, won't they? Actually, it is not they who will coincide with the rights, but the rights who in this area will sometimes "coincide" with us, shamefacedly renouncing their theory and practices of yesterday and thus helping us to expose both themselves and the entire party regime. What is so terrible about such a "coincidence" as long as we don't make even the smallest concession in the process, but continue to develop our principled line with redoubled force? The above-quoted final lines of my "Heart-to-Heart Talk" were written precisely with the foreknowledge that this sort of "coincidence" or "half-coincidence" of votes or statements on questions of party legality is possible, even inevitable.

If a comparison is permitted from a sphere which is entirely different and completely alien to us, I would take the example of a duel. This example is a very useful way of elucidating the question we are concerned with. A duel is a barbarous, "knightly," and extremely vile form of resolving personal conflicts: here the aim of each participant is simply to cut the other's throat. However, before every duel the "civilized" adversaries enter into an "agreement" with each other, directly or through seconds, concerning such details as the distance between them, the type of revolver each will use to fire on the other, etc. Can one say in reference to this "agreement" that the opponents concluded a bloc? It would seem not. How the devil can there be a bloc when the aim is mutual destruction? But in "civilized" society even mutual destruction is carried out not from ambush but according to certain norms which require preliminary "agreement."

The party statutes represent certain fixed norms for discussion and collective decision and action, as well as for internal ideological battle. Inasmuch as we, the Opposition, want to return to the party and since most of us actually belong to it (see Stalin's speech [ibid., p. 289]), we also recognize the statutes as the regulator of party life. But this also means the regulator of our struggle with the rights and centrists. The statutes constitute a ready-made [duelists'] agreement. But they have been trampled on, crushed, and destroyed. We are prepared to conclude an "agreement" with any section of the party in any place, on any particular matter, for even a partial restoration of the party statutes. In relation to the rights and centrists as political factions, this means that we are ready to conclude an agreement with them about the conditions for an irreconcilable struggle. That's all.

In his poor excuse for a speech [at the] November [plenum], which we will have to discuss separately [see "Crisis in the Right-Center Bloc"], Stalin already talks about a bloc of the lefts with the rights – either as a fact or as a possibility [Works, vol. 11, pp. 291-93]. On the one hand, he is obviously alluding here to Bukharin's discussions with Kamenev (even here we are helping the centrists struggle against the rights, exposing what the centrists are afraid to call by name); on the other hand, he is giving the apparatchiks "the line" in the event of possible coincidences in the statements or votes of the rights and lefts on questions of elementary party rights. Stalin wants to scare both us and the rights by this. But we are not afraid. This is also the more serious meaning of the final lines of my "Heart-to-Heart Talk." Let the rights expose the usurpation which they helped to create and even today totally support. From us they will receive only principled blows which are far more serious than the organizational pinching practiced by the Stalinists. And let the centrists, "monolithically" sitting with the leaders of the rights in a monolithic Politburo, accuse us of being in a bloc with the rights – on the grounds, don't you see, that we so generously allow the rights to demand the abolition of Article 58. Truly, this is a scene fit to amuse the gods on Olympus or to appear in Krokodil, if that beast with the threatening name had even one tooth left in its mouth.