The Murder of Jakob Blumkin

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

Although the above letter from Moscow still does not give a full picture of the arrest and shooting of Blumkin, it does, nevertheless, throw enough light on the most important aspects of the tragedy. The immediate reason for the death of this revolutionist — so exceptional for his devotion and courage — lies in two circumstances: his own idealistic confidence in people and the complete degeneration of the man to whom he turned. It is also possible that Radek himself did not sufficiently appreciate the consequences of his own actions because he, in his turn, idealized — Stalin.

In Radek’s personal fate is uncovered with maximum clarity the wretched fate of capitulators. The first stage of capitulation: “After all, centrism is not as bad as we had thought.” The second stage: “We must draw closer to the centrists to help them in their struggle against the Right.” The third stage: “We must pay for the right to struggle against the Right by recognizing the correctness of centrism.” Then the last stage: the capitulator delivers a Bolshevik Oppositionist into the hands of the GPU, dooming him to extermination.

And LN. Smirnov? And Preobrazhensky? Their personal roles in the Blumkin tragedy are unknown to us. Is it possible that Radek did not act in concert with them on the attitude to take in this delicate matter? But in the last resort that is of no importance. They have taken responsibility on themselves before the party and the international proletariat for all the rottenness of the Stalinist bureaucracy. As a result, they cannot be free of responsibility in this case.

Now, on the other side of the question: the shooting of Blumkin took place a significant interval of time after the declaration of Rakovsky, Okudzhava, and Kossior was sent out. The bourgeois and social democratic press has tried, as we know, to present the declaration as a capitulation, i.e., as our refusal to defend our ideas, with the aim of earning the goodwill of the apparatus. The despicable sheet of the Russian Mensheviks too, naturally, wrote in the same spirit. Through Le Populaire an insignificant hireling from the same camp, a certain Rosenfeld, announced to the French petty bourgeoisie that the former red ambassador, Rakovsky, had given up his views in order to win back for himself some important post. All these human vermin judge revolutionists by themselves and measure them by their own yardstick.

But it is truly shameful to recall that in the ranks of the Opposition there were to be found, or at least there counted themselves, elements who found nothing better to do than to evaluate the declaration of the Russian Opposition in the same spirit, i.e., as a step toward ideological capitulation. Naturally, Urbahns, who lets slip no chance for compromising the Leninbund, was the first to raise an accusing voice against the genuine revolutionists, after having reprinted for months, without comment, the shameful articles of the capitulators (Radek, Smilga, Preobrazhensky).

So that nothing be missing from the picture, here comes an old warrior covered with wounds — Maurice Paz, in the role of a Cato of the revolution with his lofty “platform” (where is this platform?). There exists a species of communist dilettante who prowls around the bonfire of revolution but who is primarily concerned with not getting his fingers burned. A portion of these kinds of “communists” had in the past belonged to the Opposition in the hope that this would free them from party discipline and would bestow on them great renown without imposing on them at the same time any sacrifice. And such armchair “revolutionists” would give lessons in firmness to Rakovsky, Sosnovsky, Muralov, Kote Tsintsadze, Okudzhava, V. Kasparova, Budu Mdivani, and many others who have behind them decades of revolutionary struggle, prison, clandestine work, deportation, and who show their fidelity to the proletariat today, too, in the Altai Mountains, in the prisons of Chelyabinsk and Tobolsk, and not in the rooms of the Palais de Justice of Paris.

Blumkin was shot because he was attached to the cause of the Russian Opposition, the same who signed the declaration of Rakovsky and the others. And these harsh denouncers — this must be said out loud! — did not even lift a finger to help the Russian Oppositionists who are imprisoned and in exile. On the contrary, in the person of Urbahns, they did everything to make this help impossible.

The Bolshevik-Leninist revolutionary detachment does not need false friends, still less traitors. Before us are still many difficulties and trials. “Better less, but better.” From a tiny grouping we have twice in the past (1905 and 1917) become the decisive historic force. We are not tired. We know our road. Forward!