Speech at the Joint Plenum of the CC

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

Protest on Abridgment of the Statement of the Thirteen

Trotsky: Comrade Ordzhonikidze has explained that there is a direct order by the plenum … [Commotion in the hall.]… that there is a direct order obliging us to separate the two parts of our statement.If there is a direct order, then as in any such case, we will comply with the direct order.

Voice from the floor: There is a proposal by the plenum.

Trotsky: To the plenum’s proposal we replied that it was unacceptable to us and explained why it was unacceptable. It is unacceptable because complete clarity and precision are necessary on these questions. To a decision voted by the plenum, which obliges us to separate the parts of the statement, we can only reply in the way we would to any decision of the plenum. But in so doing, we reserve not only our right but our duty, wherever we may be …

Voice from the floor: On every street comer.

Voice from the floor: At the Yaroslavl station.

Trotsky: … everywhere and anywhere permissible under the party rules, where normal conditions of party life allow it, to explain that the commitments made in the first part of our declaration, artificially separated from the second part by your decision, can only offer the hope of serious progress, even if not rapid progress, on the condition that our efforts not be one-sided; if no weapons are held in reserve for a future attack on us by the comrades who, to a far greater extent than the minority, i.e., the Opposition, are guiding the fate of our party. For if Comrade Stalin expressed the thought here that the majority has no reason to take the Opposition at its word, because the Opposition might hold a weapon in reserve for a future attack on the party, he is not the only one with the right to make such a statement. [Uproar.] The very fact of the struggle will leave its mark on the party for a prolonged period, and this legacy can be eliminated only through good will on both sides.

Voice from the floor: What is this, a contract?

Voice from the floor: What about the party? There is the party, remember!

Voice from the floor. There aren’t two sides; there is the party.

Trotsky: — No, this is not a “contract”; we are talking about good will on both sides. [ Uproar.]

It is absolutely correct that there is the party. But if the Opposition did not exist as a fact, find not as some “contracting party,” all the questions we have been talking about would not exist and you would not have had to raise the question of the Opposition. The Opposition is not trying to negotiate a deal, but is responding to questions put to it and expressing its views. It is only within this context that I speak of the majority and minority sides.

And so, we absolutely and completely remain on the standpoint we expressed in our statement — that the two parts of our declaration are a single whole. When you asked us whether we agree to separating one part from the other we answered through Comrade Kamenev, “No, we cannot do that, because we do not want the party to have illusions and we do not want to lead the party astray.” Despite the clear and precise character of our statement, you find it appropriate to pass a resolution obliging us to separate the two parts. In the face of the decision voted by the joint plenum, obliging us to make such a separation, we have no recourse but to submit to this decision. [Uproar.]