Main NI Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
From The Militant, Vol. VI No. 21, 1 April 1933, pp. 1 & 3.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
Moscow. – The most important fact here is the arrest of former Left Oppositionists, this time not rank and filers, but leaders ... You probably already know about the arrests of I.N. Smirnov, Preobrazhensky, Ufimtzev, Ter-Vaganyan, Lifshitz, Gruenstein, Mrachkovsky, Pereverzev. and many others. In Leningrad, Olga, Ravich was arrested. In Kharkov – Karetny, the wife of the People’s Commissar of Agriculture of Ukraine, who himself, it is said, had and has no connection whatever with the Opposition. Mrachkovsky and Pereverzev were arrested in the Far East and they are being brought to Moscow. Many arrests were made in the Foreign Trade Department (in particular, the above-named Lifshitz). All told about a hundred people were arrested who at one time or another belonged to the cadres of the Left Opposition. The chief arrests were made in Moscow, Leningrad and Kharkov. [1]
As you know, the repressions in the party have been going on at full speed for the last few months, and are continually on the increase. But nevertheless the arrests of Smirnov, Preobrazhensky and the others have made a tremendous impression, not only because old party members with great reputations are involved but chiefly because those concerned are former Opposition and made the attempt at reconciliation with the Stalinist bureaucracy. The political connection between these arrests and the exile of Zinoviev and Kamenev is self-evident. Old revolutionists, experienced politicians made the attempt to find a common language with the apparatus. The experiment endured about four years and led to a break. In its own time, it was explained, in all the nuclei in the party, that “all the old Bolsheviks have broken with the Left Opposition” and that this fact alone meant its finish. It is indubitable that this declaration created a great impression upon wide party circles. At present the arrests of former Left Oppositionists create even a greater impression. But this time just to the contrary. Many say, “This proves that the Left Opposition has shown its correctness, since all those are now returning to it who had broken off.” From mouth to mouth there is now being passed the statement presumably made by Ziinoviev prior to his departure for exile, “The greatest historical mistake we made was our leaving the Opposition in 1927”. It is reputed that Kamenev too joined in with him in so saying. I have no means of verifying this fact at its source. But the report in itself is quite characteristic of the circles with which Zinoviev and Kamenev were connected.
The sympathy for the Left Opposition has grown greatly, even within the apparatus circles, especially among old party members, who know and remember the past. “The Lefts have a program, real men, real character, and leaders”. One chances to hear such remarks very often, sometimes where one would least expect them. However, among the apparatus functionaries, who were educated during the last period, there is considerable fear of the Left Opposition; should it come to power it would deal harshly with all those who in their own time took charge of Stalinist reprisals. It goes without saying that all such doubts and fears are carefully encouraged from above.
In the course of the last few months, arrests on a large scale have been made in factories. More than a hundred workers were arrested in the “Amo” factory, where Opposition circulars were distributed. A few dozen workers were nabbed in Sharkopodshipnik. There were arrests in the “Calibre” factory (30 to 40 workers) and in the Baltic factory in Leningrad. A circular, set up locally, was distributed at a factory in Kovrov; indubitably similar facts could be obtained in many other places. I send only those reports that have reached me.
I have already informed you that during the October days, at a brake-producing plant a portrait of Stalin was so drawn that the next morning it turned into a portrait of Trotsky. There was a great to-do about this; many were arrested but the offenders were not caught. From time to time “misunderstandings” of this type occur in other enterprises. At the factory “Proletarian Labor”, on the 22nd of January, the leading article of the wall newspaper, dedicated to Lenin’s anniversary, turned out to be completely composed of excerpts from Trotsky’s articles on Lenin. A terrible rumpus! Many of the participants were excluded from the party.
The workers in factories are sullen, dissatisfied and irritable. The authorities are taking advantage of the passport system primarily in order to ship out of Moscow all the undesirable and even the least suspicious elements, in a political sense; among them all those Left Oppositionists who had repented at diverse times. The purpose behind this is clear; toward Spring stormy times are expected in factories and all those are being liquidated beforehand who have any chance of of serving as leaders in these agitations. This measure, just as many others, serves as a means of self-defense for the apparatus to the detriment of the party, for it is quite self-evident that the Left Oppositionists in whom the workers trust would have striven to lead every movement into Soviet channels.
In factories there spring up odd opposition groups which function with their own means and forces. During arrests there is found “Trotskyist” literature, chiefly home-made circulars, theses, extracts, etc. From out of My Life comrades have selected material for propaganda. On this ground, three Oppositionists were arrested. In many cases, the ideas of the Opposition get abroad intuitively. Workers are drawn to our slogans by different paths. At present the questions that are posed most acutely are those that deal with suppression, bureaucratic despotism, and unbearable conditions in factories and in the party. Recently, the party apparatus issued a secret circular with instructions to double the watch over hectographs and other multigraphing machines in offices; evidently, the Opposition utilizes these machines in order to publish its documents.
In January, at a Moscow party session, Kaganovich said, “in the Istrinsk region (near Moscow) for five months all the nuclei were in the hands of Trotskyists. And what happened? The apparatus proceeded to enter into a discussion with them instead of dealing with the Trotskyists as they ought to be dealt with.” The same Kaganovich reported, “Khichkov, a woman worker in Leningrad, took the floor in her nucleus to announce that she did not believe in Zinoviev’s counter-revolutionism. She was, of course, expelled immediately.”
Arrests among the workers, especially among the young Communists, take place continually. The majority of these arrests pass unnoticed. Party circles become acquainted with mass arrests only when the latter are connected with individuals more or less well-known. Thus, for instance, the following is current in connection with the arrest of the group of Nemchenko, a trade union functionary: first, a group of YCLers was arrested, among them Nemchenko’s son. They were confronted with the indictment charging them with conspiring terroristic acts (!) and they were harshly cross-examined to make them divulge how they, the youngsters, had come to such ideas. Nemchenko’s son is reported to have replied, “There’s continual talk at home that the Chief is ruining the country.” In this manner they got at Nemchenko and his friends.
It is, of course, possible that within some circle or other of the youth, which are deprived of leadership and of the possibility to discuss and criticize, there is actual talk going on about terroristic acts. But most probably, what is involved in the above matter and the like is provocation for the purpose of intimidating and vilifying “liberal” parents. The struggle against those elements in the apparatus which are inclined toward the Opposition proceeds not only by means of arrests but with slander as well. Those who criticize are smeared with filth, being charged with embezzlement, graft, nepotism, etc., etc. This facilitates liquidation.
The following method is widely applied. During all sorts of authoritative conferences, particularly those connected with collectivization, industrialization, inflation, the conditions of the workers and other burning questions, the chairman proposes that the discussion proceed in the spirit of forthright frankness, presumably to give the “leaders” an opportunity to elucidate all sides of the question. Concurrently, every critical statement, particularly, if there seems to be behind it considerable reflection, serves invariably as a reason for inquiry and surveillance, and for ferreting out connections; and not infrequently it leads to the arrest of individual groups. It is said that Smilga suffered for his “critical” speech at a conference where the most touchy questions of rural economy were discussed. It is indubitable that Smilga, in any event, did not represent any Oppositionist or semi-Oppositonist group. But, nevertheless, he paid for his attempt to speak out upon the peasant policies of Stalin in the very intimate and super-authoritative circle.
From well informed sources the following is related about the manner in which the group of Eismont, Tolmachev and others was liquidated. While recruiting supporters, Eismont shared his viewis with a close intimate of his Nikolsky, speaking of the situation in the country and, in particular, of the necessity to get rid of Stalin. This confidant “shared” Eismont’s views with functionaries from the Central Control Commission. Eismont was ordered to report there. “What are your relations with Nikolsky?” “The best.” You trust him?” “Yes.” Thereupon Eismont was shown Nikolsky’s testimony; and that was immediately followed up with an indictment charging preparation of ... terroristic acts. Obviously, this indictment was in reference to this words about the necessity of “getting rid of Stalin”. Eismont could not withstand the pressure and betrayed Tolmachev, and said that Rykov and Tomsky knew about his point of view. It is possible, of course, that Eismont merely referred to Tolmachev, Rykov and Tomsky as witnesses who could testify that while he, Eismont, spoke out critically about Stalin’s policies, he was much too far away from any idea of terrorism. A reference of this sort to authoritative witnesses could and must have become transformed, under the given conditions, into “betrayal”, and have called for a charge being brought against Rykov and Tomsky, of their being informed, and their failing to report. As is well known, in its own time, the charge against Zinoviev and Kameiiev in relation to Riutin and Sliepkov reduced itself to precisely the same thing.
In connection with the affair of the Eismont group, the word was carefully passed around among the party tops, that not only Rykov and Tomsky knew about “the conspirators” but also one member of the Politbueau; a delicate hint at Kalinin. There is no doubt that Kalinin is heart and soul with the Rights. It is also possible that in a super-cautious manner he is taking out insurance “to the Right.”
At the Plenum of the CEC Voroshilov said, turning to Tomsky, “You cut out thinking that you are a leader. That’s all over now. You want to deport yourself as a leader but you are just an ordinary party member. Begin working as a rank and file Communist in the nucleus; work in the wall newspaper; produce proof that you are deserving of trust”
Rykov unburdened himself at the Plenum in the following manner, “How can I prove my devotion to party, working only among the letter-carriers? Give me the opportunity to step out before the masses. Now, for example, I was refused permission by the district committee chairman when I wanted to make an address during a jubilee at the Park of Culture and Rest, where 30,000 participated.” The same Voroshilov replied to Rykov at the Plenum, “And he was right in refusing – who knows what you would have said, and what line you might have defended. You learn how to work among the letter-carriers.” At present, Voroshilov, at any rate, is not a rank and file member of the party, but a “leader”.
One must not think, of course, that after the complete capitulation of the Right leaders, the attitude towards them has been radically changed. At the meeting of the Moscow Party militants, Kaganovich while reporting on the Plenum, spoke with great animosity not only about Rykov and Tomsky but also Bukharin. The latter, however, because the least dangerous, has been slightly pardoned.
Among the Rights there is great confusion. They are strong in moods but not in organization or ideas. They are now without central leaders. However, the arrests among the Rights continue. Recently there were important arrests in the People’s Commissariat of Agriculture. A “wrecking” organization was discovered there, embracing many super-authoritative workers. At its head presumably were the chief of this commissariat, Konor, and his colleagues Kovarsky and Wolff. They are accused of having maintained connections with Petlura organizations in the Ukraine and in Kuban, and of even keeping in touch with the Petlura center in Poland. It is possible, of course, that there were isolated class enemies in the apparatus of the Commissariat, but the entire case as a whole represents an obvious amalgam. So far as I know, Konor was born in Galicia, joined the Bolsheviks during the imperialist war, or shortly thereafter; he participated in the Civil War, and I think he sympathized with the Left Opposition a few years ago. Of his later history I know nothing ... Notwithstanding the curt and detailed character of the accusations, no one believes in their validity. Everybody is of the opinion that the “chief” is simply preparing for an instructive trial of those supposedly guilty of the collapse of rural economy.
The situation in Kazakstan is extremely onerous – the population has turned nomad ... “Faithful” Goloshchekin, who brought Kazakstan to the outermost limits of disaster, has finally been replaced. However, there has been appointed in his stead the no less “faithful” Mirzoyan, former secretary of Baku. The matter goes no further than this shuffling of personalities. On the soil of economic and other difficulties there are sprouting diverse hostile movements, among them nationalistic movements, in particular in Crimea, where many authoritative workers were arrested – Tartars.
Grain collections, as well as other rural operations, are taking place under fearful pressure in North Caucasus and the Ukraine. Merciless repressions encompass ever wider circles of peasantry, local Communists among them. The leadership has completely taken to the course of administrative force. No trace has been left of the former “idealization” of the peasant, in practice, at any rate. At present the Stalinist upper crust considers that it is possible to get out of the difficulties only by way of new and extremely enforced methods of subjection. All work is being undertaken in this spirit, especially since the last Plenum of the CEC. About 50,000 authoritative workers are being mobilized in the cities in order to put through the “decisive” policies in villages. They will be placed there in the Political sections, in machine and tractor stations, in commissions for sowing and harvesting, in produce tax commissions, etc., etc. Their chief task is to break down the “’softness” of the local Communists.
At the restricted and closed party militants meeting in Leningrad, Kirov said, “We will deal mercilessly not only with party members who carry on counter-revolutionary (i.e., Opposition) activities but with all those who shillyshally in factories or in villages, who do not fulfill the plans, etc. ... 400 members of the party have been already sent to Solovsky for failure to fulfill the plans.” All this is being said for purposes of intimidation.
Dejection and depression are rife even among the highest circles of the apparatus. If anything, there are even fewer anecdotes being told, just as much because anecdotes are being punished (in cases of party members it has been decreed: there has been enough anecdotes; from now on anecdotes mean expulsion), as well as because the situation in the party and the country is not conducive to anecdotes. The revolutionary elements in the party seek out each other. The connections are established by psychological guesswork – is he a Communist or no? By “Communist” is understood the honest party member, not a careerist, not an informer, not an agent of the apparatus. In other words, the word “Communist” is gradually becoming equivalent to the word “oppositionist” (conscious or unconscious). In order to discern one another, the comrades make use of the most diverse methods. Here is one of them: one of the interlocutors begins cursing Trotsky, not in the lofty official tones, but offhand, as if “casually”. This alone serves as a sufficient token and affords the possibility to turn the conversation into proper channels.
I wish to write to you particularly about the exiles and their harsh situation. “Harsh” will hardly do. Their situation is horrible. Our comrades are literally thrown to the mercy of starvation and of the elements. They are given no work. They are deprived of rations; there is a scarcity of warm clothing; they cannot get out of the sufferings caused by cold and hunger. Opportunely enough, I received a letter yesterday from V. “They think to starve us out. We shan’t repent. We are right. We shall starve to death, but we shall not repent.”
We take up collections, but here this is tied up with the greatest risks. Helping an Oppositionist with a Chervonetz means placing yourself in the lists of the enemies, and running the chance of being exiled. And even money does not help, because nothing can be bought for it in the sections of exile, and practically nothing can be sent out of here. What is needed are coupons from the Torgsin, and foreign currency.
Do what you can abroad. Start a campaign for the benefit qf the exiled Oppositionists. What is involved is the physical annihilation of our comrades, sincere and devoted revolutionists. Many of them have proved by decades of work their loyalty to the revolution, to Bolshevism and to the Soviet Government.
Just this moment there has arrived news of L.S. Sosnovsky’s death in exile. Can this possibly be true? The news comes from among his relatives. The report has not been verified. More than once during the past few years, there have arrived dark reports about the deaths of comrades in exile, beginning with Rakovsky. But in many instances they turned out untrue. In such rumors there is expressed the alarm for old friends and leaders. I firmly hope that the report of Leon Semenovitch’s death is untrue. I cannot bring myself to believe this rumor.
N.I. Muralov is now at Taganrog, ailing. From among the Democratic Centralists, V.M. Smirnov is still in Suzdalsk, in solitary confinement. Sapronov is in Theodosia. Politically nothing is heard about the Democratic Centralists, nor about the Workers’ Opposition.
|
February 1933 |
|
1. I.N. Smirnov and Preobrazhensky – Bolsheviks from the day the party was founded; they belonged to the center of the Left Opposition from the day it was organized. Ufimtzev one of the leading Ural Bolsheviks and Oppositionists, in his own time he was sent to Vienna, as chairman of the trade bureau. Ter-Vaganyan – old Bolshevik, founder and editor of the magazine Under the Banner of Marxism, author of books on Plekhanov, on the national question, etc. Gruenstein – Lettish Bolshevik, spent many years sentenced to hard labor, hero of the Civil War, former chief of a Red Division, subsequently head of an aviation school. Mrachkovsky – Bolshevik from the foundation of the party, leading figure in the Urals, hero of the Civil War, subsequently in command of a military district. Pereverzev – old Bolshevik, one of the leaders of the Ukrainian Opposition, subsequently was sent to Berlin; Trotsky’s letter to Pereverzev was intercepted and published in the press by the Stalinists on the eve of Trotsky’s deportation to Alma Ata. O. Ravich – old Bolshevik, intimately connected with Lenin during the emigration period, member of the Petrograd Party Committee, etc. – Editor
Main Militant Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
Last updated on 23 October 2015