File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1997/marxism-general.9711, message 289


From: "Jay Miles" <detcom-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: M-G: The Trotskyist Opposition Before and Now - J.V. STALIN
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:52:48 PST


=========================================                   J. V. Stalin

            THE TROTSKYIST
 OPPOSITION BEFORE AND NOW


               Pravda, No. 251
              November 2, 1927 



          From J. V. Stalin, On the Opposition,
          Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1974

                    pp. 864-96. 


                 Based on J. V. Stalin, Works,
               Foreign Languages Publishing House,
                     Moscow, 1954

                   Vol. 10, pp. 177-211. 


  Prepared © for the Internet by David J. Romagnolo, djr-AT-cruzio.com
                    (August 1997)


                  PUBLISHER'S NOTE 

The articles and speeches by J. V. Stalin contained in English
edition of On the Opposition follow the order of the Russian
edition put out by the State Publishing House of the Soviet
Union in 1928. The English translation, including the notes at the
end of the book, is taken from Stalin's Works, Vols. 5-10, Foreign
Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1953-54, with some
technical changes. 

    References in Roman numerals to Lenin's Works mentioned in
    the text are to the third Russian edition. The English references
    are indicated by the publisher in footnotes. 

                                        
                                                     
page 864
   
       
     I.      Some Minor Questions
    II.      The Opposition's "Platform"
   III.      Lenin on Discussions and Oppositions in General
   IV.      The Opposition and the "Third Force"
    V.      How the Opposition Is "Preparing" for the Congress
   VI.      From Leninism to Trotskyism
  VII.      Some of the Most Important Results of the Party's
        Policy During the Past Few Years
 VIII.      Back to Axelrod

 NOTES

                 THE TROTSKYIST 
         OPPOSITION BEFORE AND NOW 


     Speech Delivered at a Meeting of the Joint Plenum of 
        the Central Committee and the Central Control 
             Commission of the C.P.S.U.(B.)[173]

                    October 23, 1927 


                           I

          SOME MINOR QUESTIONS 

     Comrades, I have not much time; I shall therefore deal
with separate questions. 

     First of all about the personal factor. You have heard
here how assiduously the oppositionists hurl abuse at
Stalin, abuse him with all their might. That does not
surprise me, comrades. The reason why the main attacks
were directed against Stalin is because Stalin knows all
the opposition's tricks better, perhaps, than some of our
comrades do, and it is not so easy, I dare say, to fool
him. So they strike their blows primarily at Stalin. Well,
let them hurl abuse to their heart's content. 

    And what is Stalin? Stalin is only a minor figure. Take
Lenin. Who does not know that at the time of the August
bloc the opposition, headed by Trotsky, waged an even
more scurrilous campaign of slander against Lenin? Listen
to Trotsky, for example: 

    "The wretched squabbling systematically provoked by Lenin,
that old hand at the game, that professional exploiter of all

that is backward in the Russian labour movement, seems like a
senseless obsession" (see "Trotsky's Letter to Chkheidze," April
1913). 

    Note the language, comrades! Note the language! It is
Trotsky writing. And writing about Lenin. 

    Is it surprising, then, that Trotsky, who wrote in such
an ill-mannered way about the great Lenin, whose
shoe-laces he was not worthy of tying, should now hurl
abuse at one of Lenin's numerous pupils -- Comrade
Stalin? 

    More than that. I think the opposition does me honour
by venting all its hatred against Stalin. That is as it should
be. I think it would be strange and offensive if the
opposition, which is trying to wreck the Party, were to
praise Stalin, who is defending the fundamentals of the
Leninist Party principle. 

    Now about Lenin's "will." The oppositionists shouted
here -- you heard them -- that the Central Committee of
the Party "concealed" Lenin's "will." We have discussed
this question several times at the plenum of the Central
Committee and Central Control Commission, you know
that. (A voice : "Scores of times.") It has been proved
and proved again that nobody has concealed anything,
that Lenin's "will" was addressed to the Thirteenth Party
Congress, that this "will" was read out at the congress
(Voices : "That's right!"), that the congress unanimously
decided not to publish it because, among other things,
Lenin himself did not want it to be published and did not
ask that it should be published. The opposition knows all this just as
well as we do.   Nevertheless, it has the audacity to declare that the
Central Committee is "concealing" the "will." 

    The question of Lenin's "will" was brought up, if I am
not mistaken, as far back as 1924. There is a certain
Eastman, a former American Communist who was later
expelled from the Party. This gentleman, who mixed with
the Trotskyists in Moscow, picked up some rumours and
gossip about Lenin's "will," went abroad and published a
book entitled After Lenin's Death, in which he did his
best to blacken the Party, the Central Committee and the
Soviet regime, and the gist of which was that the Central
Committee of our Party was "concealing" Lenin's "will." In
view of the fact that this Eastman had at one time been
connected with Trotsky, we, the members of the Political
Bureau, called upon Trotsky to dissociate himself from
Eastman who, clutching at Trotsky and referring to the
opposition, had made Trotsky responsible for the
slanderous statements against our Party about the "will."
Since the question was so obvious, Trotsky did, indeed,
publicly dissociate himself from Eastman in a statement he
made in the press. It was published in September 1925 in
Bolshevik, No. 16. 

    Permit me to read the passage in Trotsky's article in
which he deals with the question whether the Party and its
Central Committee was concealing Lenin's "will" or not. I
quote Trotsky's article: 

     "In several parts of his book Eastman says that the Central
Committee 'concealed' from the Party a number of exceptionally
important documents written by Lenin in the last period of his life
(it is a matter of letters on the national question, the so-called
'will,' and others); there can be no other name for this than
slander against the Central Committee of our Party.* From
what Eastman says it may be inferred that Vladimir 
lyich intended those letters, which bore the character of advice
on internal organisation, for the press. In point of fact, that is
absolutely untrue. During his illness Vladimir Ilyich often sent
proposals, letters, and so forth, to the Party's leading institutions
and to its congress. It goes without saying that all those letters
and proposals were always delivered to those for whom they
were intended, were brought to the knowledge of the delegates
at the Twelfth and Thirteenth Congresses, and always, of course,
exercised due influence upon the Party's decisions; and if not all
of those letters were published, it was because the author did not
intend them for the press. Vladimir Ilyich did not leave any 'will,'
and the very character of his attitude towards the Party, as well
as the character of the Party itself, precluded the possibility of
such a 'will.' What is usually referred to as a 'will' in the émigré
and foreign bourgeois and Menshevik press (in a manner garbled
beyond recognition) is one of Vladimir Ilyich's letters containing
advice on organisational matters. The Thirteenth Congress of the
Party paid the closest attention to that letter, as to all of the
others, and drew from it conclusions appropriate to the
conditions and circumstances of the time. All talk about
concealing or violating a 'will' is a malicious invention and is
entirely directed against Vladimir llyich's real will,[*] and
against the interests of the Party he created" (see Trotsky's
article "Concerning Eastman's Book After Lenin's Death,"
Bolshevik, No. 16, September 1, 1925, p. 68). 

    Clear, one would think. That was written by none
other than Trotsky. On what grounds, then, are Trotsky,
Zinoviev and Kamenev now spinning a yarn about the
Party and its Central Committee "concealing" Lenin's
"will"? It is "permissible" to spin yarns, but one should
know where to stop. 

    It is said that in that "will" Comrade Lenin suggested to
the congress that in view of Stalin's "rudeness" it should
consider the question of putting another comrade in
Stalin's place as General Secretary. That is quite true.
Yes, comrades, I am rude to those who grossly and
perfidiously wreck and split the Party. I have never
concealed this and do not conceal it now. Perhaps some
mildness is needed in the treatment of splitters, but I am
a bad hand at that. At the very first meeting of the
plenum of the Central Committee after the
Thirteenth Congress I asked the plenum of the Central
Committee to release me from my duties as General
Secretary. The congress itself discussed this question. It
was discussed by each delegation separately, and all the
delegations unanimously, including Trotsky, Kamenev and
Zinoviev, obliged Stalin to remain at his post. 

    What could I do? Desert my post? That is not in my
nature; I have never deserted any post, and I have no
right to do so, for that would be desertion. As I have
already said before, I am not a free agent, and when the
Party imposes an obligation upon me, I must obey. 

    A year later I again put in a request to the plenum to
release me, but I was again obliged to remain at my post. 

    What else could I do? 

    As regards publishing the "will," the congress decided
not to publish it, since it was addressed to the congress
and was not intended for publication. 

    We have the decision of a plenum of the Central
Committee and Central Control Commission in 1926 to
ask the Fifteenth Congress for permission to publish this
document. We have the decision of the same plenum of
the Central Committee and Central Control Commission
to publish other letters of Lenin's, in which he pointed out
the mistakes of Kamenev and Zinoviev just before the
October uprising and demanded their expulsion from the
Party.[174] 

    Obviously, talk about the Party concealing these
documents is infamous slander. Among these documents
are letters from Lenin urging the necessity of expelling
Zinoviev and Kamenev from the Party. The Bolshevik
Party, the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party,
have never feared the truth. The strength of the Bolshevik
Party lies precisely in the fact that it does not fear the
truth and looks the truth straight in the face. 

    The opposition is trying to use Lenin's "will" as a trump
card; but it is enough to read this "will" to see that it is not
a trump card for them at all. On the contrary, Lenin's
"will" is fatal to the present leaders of the opposition. 

    Indeed, it is a fact that in his "will" Lenin accuses
Trotsky of being guilty of "non-Bolshevism" and, as
regards the mistake Kamenev and Zinoviev made during
October, he says that that mistake was not "accidental."
What does that mean? It means that Trotsky, who suffers
from "non-Bolshevism," and Kamenev and Zinoviev,
whose mistakes are not "accidental" and can and certainly
will be repeated, cannot be politically trusted. 

    It is characteristic that there is not a word, not a hint in
the "will" about Stalin having made mistakes. It refers only
to Stalin's rudeness. But rudeness is not and cannot be
counted as a defect in Stalin's political line or position. 

    Here is the relevant passage in the "will": 

    "I shall not go on to characterise the personal qualities of the
other members of the Central Committee. I shall merely remind
you that the October episode with Zinoviev and Kamenev was,
of course, not accidental, but that they can be blamed for it
personally as little as Trotsky can be blamed for his
non-Bolshevism." 

    Clear, one would think. 



       THE OPPOSITION'S "PLATFORM" 

    Next question. Why did not the Central Committee
publish the opposition's "platform"? Zinoviev and Trotsky
say that it was because the Central Committee and the Party "fear"
the truth. Is that true? Of course not. More than that. It is
absurd to say that the Party or the Central Committee
fear the truth. We have the verbatim reports of the
plenums of the Central Committee and Central Control
Commission. Those reports have been printed in several
thousand copies and distributed among the members of
the Party. They contain the speeches of the oppositionists
as well as of the representatives of the Party line. They
are being read by tens and hundreds of thousands of
Party members. (Voices : "That's true!") If we feared the
truth we would not have circulated those documents. The
good thing about those documents is precisely that they
enable the members of the Party to compare the Central
Committee's position with the views of the opposition and
to make their decision. Is that fear of the truth? 

    In October 1926, the leaders of the opposition strutted
about and asserted, as they are asserting now, that the
Central Committee feared the truth, that it was hiding their
"platform," concealing it from the Party, and so forth. That
is why they went snooping among the Party units in
Moscow (recall the Aviapribor Factory), in Leningrad
(recall the Putilov Works), and other places. Well, what
happened? The communist workers gave our
oppositionists a good drubbing, such a drubbing indeed
that the leaders of the opposition were compelled to flee
from the battlefield. Why did they not at that time dare to
go farther, to all the Party units, to ascertain which of us
fears the truth -- the opposition or the Central
Committee? It was because they got cold feet, being
frightened by the real (and not imaginary) truth 

    And now? Speaking honestly, is not a discussion going
on now in the Party units? Point to at least one unit,
containing at least one oppositionist and where at least
one meeting has been held during the past three or four
months, in which representatives of the opposition have 
not spoken, in which there has been no discussion. Is it not
a fact that during the past three or four months the opposition has
been coming forward whenever it could in the Party units
with its counter-resolutions? (Voices : "Quite true!") Why,
then, do not Trotsky and Zinoviev try to go to the Party
units and expound their views? 

    A characteristic fact. In August this year, after the
plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control
Commission, Trotsky and Zinoviev sent in a statement
that they wanted to speak at a meeting of the Moscow
active if the Central Committee had no objection. To this
the Central Committee replied (and the reply was
circulated among the local organisations) that it had no
objection to Trotsky and Zinoviev speaking at such a
meeting, provided, however, that they, as members of the
Central Committee, did not speak against the decisions of
the Central Committee. What happened? They dropped
their request. (General laughter .) 

    Yes, comrades, somebody among us does fear the
truth, but it is not the Central Committee, and still less the
Party; it is the leaders of our opposition. 

    That being the case, why did not the Central
Committee publish the opposition's "platform"? 

    Firstly, because the Central Committee did not want
and had no right to legalise Trotsky's faction, or any
factional group. In the Tenth Congress resolution "On
Unity," Lenin said that the existence of a "platform" is one
of the principal signs of factionalism. In spite of that, the
opposition drew up a "platform" and demanded that it be
published, thereby violating the decision of the Tenth
Congress. Supposing the Central Committee had published
the opposition's "platform," what would it have meant? It
would have meant that the Central Committee was willing to
participate in the opposition's factional efforts to violate
the decisions of the Tenth Congress. Could the Central
Committee and the Central Control Commission agree to
do that? Obviously, no self-respecting Central Committee
could take that factional step. (Voices : "Quite true!") 

    Further. In this same Tenth Congress resolution "On
Unity," written by Lenin, it is said: "The congress orders
the immediate dissolution of all groups without exception
that have been formed on the basis of one platform or
another," that "non-observance of this decision of the
congress shall involve certain and immediate expulsion
from the Party." The directive is clear and definite.
Supposing the Central Committee and the Central
Control Commission had published the opposition's
"platform," could that have been called the dissolution of
all groups without exception formed on one "platform" or
another? Obviously not. On the contrary, it would have
meant that the Central Committee and the Central
Control Commission themselves were intending not to
dissolve, but to help to organise groups and factions on
the basis of the opposition's "platform." Could the Central
Committee and the Central Control Commission take that
step towards splitting the Party? Obviously, they could
not. 

    Finally, the opposition's "platform" contains slanders
against the Party which, if published, would do the Party
and our state irreparable harm. 

    In fact, it is stated in the opposition's "platform" that
our Party is willing to abolish the monopoly of foreign
trade and make payment on all debts, hence, also on the
war debts. 

Everybody knows that this is a disgusting slander against
our Party, against our working class, against our state.
Supposing we had published the "platform" containing this
slander against the Party and the state, what would have
happened? The only result would have been that the
international bourgeoisie would have begun to exert
greater pressure upon us, it would have demanded
concessions to which we could not agree at all (for
example, the abolition of the monopoly of foreign trade,
payments on the war debts, and so forth) and would have
threatened us with war. 

    When members of the Central Committee like Trotsky
and Zinoviev supply false reports about our Party to the
imperialists of all countries, assuring them that we are
ready to make the utmost concessions, including the
abolition of the monopoly of foreign trade, it can have
only one meaning: Messieurs the bourgeois, press harder
on the Bolshevik Party, threaten to go to war against
them; the Bolsheviks will agree to every concession if you
press hard enough. 

    False reports about our Party lodged with Messieurs
the imperialists by Zinoviev and Trotsky in order to
aggravate our difficulties in the sphere of foreign policy --
that is what the opposition's "platform" amounts to. 

    Whom does this harm? Obviously, it harms the
proletariat of the U.S.S.R., the Communist Party of the
U.S.S.R., our whole state. 

    Whom does it benefit? It benefits the imperialists of all
countries. 

    Now I ask you: could the Central Committee agree to
publish such filth in our press? Obviously, it could not. 

    Such are the considerations that compelled the Central
Committee to refuse to publish the opposition's
"platform." 


                     III

 LENIN ON DISCUSSIONS AND OPPOSITIONS 
               IN GENERAL 

    The next question. Zinoviev vehemently tried to prove
that Lenin was in favour of discussion always and at all
times. He referred to the discussion of various platforms
that took place before the Tenth Congress and at the
congress itself, but he "forgot" to mention that Lenin
regarded the discussion that took place before the Tenth
Congress as a mistake. He "forgot" to say that the Tenth
Congress resolution "On Party Unity," which was written
by Lenin and was a directive for the development of our
Party, ordered not the discussion of "platforms," but the
dissolution of all groups whatsoever formed on the basis
of one "platform" or another. He "forgot" that at the Tenth
Congress Lenin spoke in favour of the "prohibition" in
future of all oppositions in the Party. He "forgot" to say
that Lenin regarded the conversion of our Party into a
"debating society" as absolutely impermissible. 

    Here, for example, is Lenin's appraisal of the
discussion that took place prior to the Tenth Congress: 

    "I have already had occasion to speak about this today and, of
course, I could only cautiously observe that there can hardly be
many among you who do not regard this discussion as an
excessive luxury. I cannot refrain from adding that, speaking for
myself, I think that this luxury was indeed absolutely
impermissible, and that in permitting such a discussion we
undoubtedly made a mistake" (see Minutes of the Tenth
Congress, p. 16[175]). 

    And here is what Lenin said at the Tenth Congress
about any possible opposition after the Tenth Congress: 

   "Consolidation of the Party, prohibition of an opposition in the
Party -- such is the political conclusion to be drawn from the
present situation. . . ." "We do not want an opposition now, comrades.
And I think that the Party congress will have to draw this conclusion,
to draw the conclusion that we must now put an end to the
opposition, finish with it, we have had enough of oppositions
now!" (Ibid., pp. 61 and 63.[176]) 

    That is how Lenin regarded the question of discussion
and of opposition in general. 


                     IV

  THE OPPOSITION AND THE "THIRD FORCE" 

    The next question. What was the need for Comrade
Menzhinsky's statement about the whiteguards with
whom some of the "workers" at the Trotskyists' illegal,
anti-Party printing press are connected? 

    Firstly, in order to dispel the lie and slander that the
opposition is spreading in connection with this question in
its anti-Party sheets. The opposition assures everyone
that the report about whiteguards who are connected in
one way or another with allies of the opposition like
Shcherbakov, Tverskoy, and others, is fiction, an
invention, put into circulation for the purpose of
discrediting the opposition. Comrade Menzhinsky's
statement, with the depositions made by the people under
arrest, leaves no doubt whatever that a section of the
"workers" at the Trotskyists' illegal, anti-Party printing
press are connected, indubitably connected, with white
guard counter-revolutionary elements. Let the opposition
try to refute those facts and documents. 

    Secondly, in order to expose the lies now being spread
by Maslow's organ in Berlin (Die Fahne des Kommunismu
(end of page 96)
===============================================Read more of Stalin's writings at the Marx to Mao Website:
http://gate.cruzio.com/~marx2mao/Stalin/index.html
===============================================



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005