Speech by V.M. Molotov
Molotov.I think that we have a question about a new opposition, this group, is of great political importance in the given conditions. The fact that only a month ago we had to deal with one grouping of party members, Ryutin alone turned out to be not a party member, and even then a former party member and even a candidate for the Central Committee. It means, too, not just a member of the party, but now we, without looking, again came across a vile political case of the opposition type. This fact alone speaks for the fact that this case has great political significance. Of course, all these jokes and attempts to divert to the frivolous side of the matter, this whole question is a bad method, in any case, a method not for smart people and not for members of the Central Committee and not for the party, but for some convenient company. We now know well enough what a five-year plan is and we know that we have something to be proud of, during these four years of the implementation of the five-year plan. During the five-year plan we had two very acute moments in the part of the village. The first period when we directly approached the five-year plan in 28-29 was a very acute period of the struggle against the kulak for bread, now again an acute period of the struggle for bread. Due to my duties as a grain procurer, I had to speak decently on this issue. Why is the question of bread so political in our country? Not just because we need bread, you cannot live without bread. Of course, this is the most important premise, but it does not exhaust everything. It seems to me that the matter cannot be examined, if one does not take into account the fact that grain procurements - take our NEP, when there was a tax in kind, then we too could not refuse the tax in kind at the beginning of the NEP ... During the five-year plan we had two very acute moments in the part of the village. The first period when we directly approached the five-year plan in 28-29 was a very acute period of the struggle against the kulak for bread, now again an acute period of the struggle for bread. Due to my duties as a grain procurer, I had to speak decently on this issue. Why is the question of bread so political in our country? Not just because we need bread, you cannot live without bread. Of course, this is the most important premise, but it does not exhaust everything. It seems to me that the matter cannot be examined, if one does not take into account the fact that grain procurements - take our NEP, when there was a tax in kind, then we too could not refuse the tax in kind at the beginning of the NEP ... During the five-year plan we had two very acute moments in the part of the village. The first period when we directly approached the five-year plan in 28-29 was a very acute period of the struggle against the kulak for bread, now again an acute period of the struggle for bread. Due to my duties as a grain procurer, I had to speak decently on this issue. Why is the question of bread so political in our country? Not just because we need bread, you cannot live without bread. Of course, this is the most important premise, but it does not exhaust everything. It seems to me that the matter cannot be examined, if one does not take into account the fact that grain procurements - take our NEP, when there was a tax in kind, then we too could not refuse the tax in kind at the beginning of the NEP ... now again the acute period of the struggle for bread. Due to my duties as a grain procurer, I had to speak decently on this issue. Why is the question of bread so political in our country? Not just because we need bread, you cannot live without bread. Of course, this is the most important premise, but it does not exhaust everything. It seems to me that the matter cannot be examined, if one does not take into account the fact that grain procurements - take our NEP, when there was a tax in kind, then we too could not refuse the tax in kind at the beginning of the NEP ... now again the acute period of the struggle for bread. Due to my duties as a grain procurer, I had to speak decently on this issue. Why is the question of bread so political in our country? Not just because we need bread, you cannot live without bread. Of course, this is the most important premise, but it does not exhaust everything. It seems to me that the matter cannot be examined, if one does not take into account the fact that grain procurements - take our NEP, when there was a tax in kind, then we too could not refuse the tax in kind at the beginning of the NEP ...
We needed 300 million poods of grain to restore industry at that time. In order to start the business of turning the industry, after the end of the civil war, it was necessary to have a grain base of 300 million poods.
Antipov. 400 - Lenin spoke.
Molotov. In fact, we had more than 300-350. I'm talking about what we really had. There was a struggle around this. At that time, we could not do without a tax in kind, because Lenin passed this decision, the whole party supported this decision. This was an absolutely necessary minimum that we had to take in order to get the economic work on its feet, as it was required for this period.
Take the period immediately preceding the five-year plan, 1928-29. What was the struggle around then? Again bread, bread, the kulak resisted us, the kulak grew a little fat in the first years of the NEP, and tried to organize sabotage of the procurements. We tackled this matter closely. What were we fighting for, for what specific practical tasks? We fought in that period for 700 million poods of grain. Take the 1928-29 grain program. and you will see that this program was approximately 700 million poods.
Of course, we could have done differently, take a program of 500 million poods. I do not say 350, as it was at the beginning of the NEP. If we had taken a smaller program, we could have lived for another year or a year and a half without this fight with a fist for the middle peasant, which we fought in 1928-1929, starting from the end of 27, the entire 28 and 29 years. We have achieved these 700 million poods. And I think none of us will regret that we received them then.
If you put the question this way, it might not be worth starting such a fight at that time. At that moment right-wingers emerged within the party. The right-wing opposition found its members of the Politburo at that time, found its members of the Central Committee outside the party in a number of organizations. We fought quite a lot. This struggle captured the top of the Moscow organization. These are all well-known facts.
The question was not just about bread, the question was being solved fundamentally, whether the solution of those economic and political tasks that we set ourselves, fighting for the preparation of the five-year plan, will provide us. We solved this problem successfully, despite the devilish resistance of our fist. We have solved this problem successfully, having advanced in the conquest of the masses, conducting tremendous mass work in the countryside, despite the cloud of repression against the kulak. We carried out tremendous mass work in the countryside and only thanks to this, only relying on all our previous work in the countryside, did we achieve that already in the middle of 1929 the majority of the middle peasant turned to socialism. We fought for grain and achieved a turn towards collectivization of the middle peasant masses in the countryside. These are things that are inextricably linked with each other.
It was clear even then that if we had made concessions to the Rights on this fundamental question, we would have renounced the real Bolshevik struggle for collective and state farms and the struggle against the kulak. It's a fact. This is the meaning of the struggle against the Rights, this is the meaning of the fact that having won this struggle, we ensured for ourselves the opportunity not only to feed the workers and the Red Army with bread, not only to smash the kulak in all its decisive sectors, where he resisted in grain procurements, but and lead the bulk of the countryside along the path of collectivization, not only the poor, but also the bulk of the middle peasants.
What is the question now about? The question is about one billion three or four hundred million poods of grain. This is not the beginning of the NEP, this is not even the beginning of the five-year plan. And we took the task and within 30-31 years carried it out in the amount of about 1.400 million poods. of bread. The task is big, the task is very difficult, although ...
Although we seem to be waging a struggle around bread again, the words are the same, but in essence the task is a new, much larger task. We want twice as much grain to supply our industry, to supply our Red Army and those supplies that are needed in case of international events. Fulfilling this task of the grain plan in the amount of 1.3-1.4 billion poods, we could again pose the question in such a way as to abandon this great task and take the plan not one and four tenths of a pood, but one billion poods. This, of course, is much easier to do, it could have been done without much resistance from the kulak and what is dragging along behind him in the collective farm village, in the state farms and MTS. We could do it much easier. But the point is that the Bolsheviks then turn out to be Bolsheviks, when they solve these big questions despite the desperate resistance of class enemies. We are not just fighting for bread and marking time in one place. No, we are fighting on an ever expanding basis to ensure all our socialist work.
I think that this is of tremendous importance, and in fulfilling this task, we are fighting not only to secure grain procurements, but also to take possession of the entire collective farm and individual peasantry. After all, there are still such collective farms where the peasants stand for Soviet power, but there are also such collective farms where the peasant collective farmers stagger between us and the kulaks. There are collective farms where the peasants stand for us, but where the kulaks have their agents in the person of the chairmen of the management board, in the person of the board members who are carrying out an entirely kulak policy against us. And if you take this side politically, it is clear that the question is about a very serious matter and it seems to me that these innocent conversations are completely wrong, that, they say, this opposition, which over a bottle of vodka or over a glass of tea leads seemingly innocent conversations about the North Caucasus and etc. The fact, that all these questions that we face, they have acute political significance. And to say that this is a simple discussion of concrete questions of the practical work of the Party, that do you see individual particular questions of the practical work of the Party, is absolutely wrong to say so. All this looks not so simple, but much more serious. I think that from the point of view of solving the main tasks in the first five-year plan, in the struggle against the bourgeois elements in the country, their appendages and all sorts of remnants, in the struggle for the organization of the masses, for the building of socialism, all these questions are of fundamental importance. It is clear that without resistance, without meeting here with oppositions, when difficulties are aggravated, when a number of moments accumulate that make everything more intense, it is clear that we cannot do without oppositions, historically and politically. Here they come out from Ryutin, here they come out from Smirnov or Eismont, I don't know what to call them. I think that someone else may be offended here, not only Smirnov. It's not just about Smirnov. I completely agree with Comrade Stalin that they are more like Tomskists than Smirnovists, these people who participate in this group. But I will talk about Smirnovites. We have facts, and we will talk about them. We must investigate these facts to the end. And this is the question. I think that after we finished the first five-year plan and undermined the roots of our class enemies everywhere, where there were pests, Nepman, White Guards, they broke a lot of their sides, now that we are approaching the implementation of the program for the third year in 1.3-1, 4 billion poods ... I think that someone else may be offended here, not only Smirnov. It's not just about Smirnov. I completely agree with Comrade Stalin that they are more like Tomskists than Smirnovists, these people who participate in this group. But I will talk about Smirnovites. We have facts, and we will talk about them. We must investigate these facts to the end. And this is the question. I think that after we finished the first five-year plan and undermined the roots of our class enemies everywhere, where there were pests, Nepman, White Guards, they broke a lot of their sides, now that we are approaching the implementation of the program for the third year in 1.3-1, 4 billion poods ... I think that someone else may be offended here, not only Smirnov. It's not just about Smirnov. I completely agree with Comrade Stalin that they are more like Tomskists than Smirnovists, these people who participate in this group. But I will talk about Smirnovites. We have facts, and we will talk about them. We must investigate these facts to the end. And this is the question. I think that after we finished the first five-year plan and undermined the roots of our class enemies everywhere, where there were pests, Nepman, White Guards, they broke a lot of their sides, now that we are approaching the implementation of the program for the third year in 1.3-1, 4 billion poods ... than the Smirnovites, these people who participate in this group. But I will talk about Smirnovites. We have facts, and we will talk about them. We must investigate these facts to the end. And this is the question. I think that after we finished the first five-year plan and undermined the roots of our class enemies wherever there were pests, nepman, White Guards, they broke their sides a lot, now that we are approaching the implementation of the program for the third year in 1.3-1, 4 billion poods ... than the Smirnovites, these people who participate in this group. But I will talk about Smirnovites. We have facts, and we will talk about them. We must investigate these facts to the end. And this is the question. I think that after we finished the first five-year plan and undermined the roots of our class enemies wherever there were pests, nepman, White Guards, they broke their sides a lot, now that we are approaching the implementation of the program for the third year in 1.3-1, 4 billion poods ...
... and we must carry it out through the struggle against the collective and non-collective farm kulak and other singers who have crawled into all the cracks with the Petliurites in the Ukraine, with the Denikinites in the North Caucasus, who are sitting somewhere with us. After all, we now have a socialist sector everywhere, our socialist sector dominates, we have a socialist economy everywhere, not only in the city, but also in the countryside, where did our enemy go. You never know, we pressed them and irritated them. Of course, during these years of fulfilling the five-year plan, we, as a workers' party, reaped great pressure on them, annoyed them, we have very, very many thousands of these enemies, but they are silent, because they do not have a newspaper, they have no parliament, they will create a party they cannot, but the fact that they had so much disgraced, that they did not want to accept it, they had open opposition even in the party. At the beginning of NEP, they had open opposition, now they cannot do it. And now they are sitting in the collective farms, because we have two hundred thousand collective farms, because we cannot see all the cracks where they are huddled, we do not see at the enterprises, we do not know where they are sitting. Are there not enough kulaks on our state farms? A large number of. There are also many of them in enterprises and mines, and in the apparatus from top to bottom. A huge amount. They sit in the overwhelming mass somewhere with us, they work. We cannot say that they have become quiet, reconciled. Therefore, it seems to me that everything that is happening now is very clear. They don't have the opportunity to speak openly. They have no ground to speak with them in the party. But, of course, the fragments of the bourgeois past sit somewhere, exist somewhere, they have not disappeared. We have smashed our class enemy strongly and very much, both in the city and in the countryside. But to say that we have reconciled him with ourselves - we cannot. To say that he is going forward with us is nonsense, it would be the most stupid and ridiculous calculation.
I will say more. If we did not have state and collective farms, we would certainly not be able to raise the question of a billion 300 million, and in general we would not be able to talk about a five-year plan. We could not carry out the five-year plan like this if we did not have state and collective farms, for all their weakness, despite the fact that they are poorly managed, despite the fact that we have many enemies, yet without them we could not talk about 1.400 million
KALININ. Without them, we could hardly collect 700-800 million.
MOLOTOV. 700 million each with difficulty, and now last year we prepared 1.400 million, the year before last, too, about that, and now it is true we will have less, but still the struggle is around this figure. We are on the rise, we are on a systematic basis. But, of course, we have enormous difficulties, and only relying on state and collective farms and, of course, not only on agriculture, but also on our industry, which we have raised and are developing upward, and above all relying on it and the working class, we we can accomplish this task.
But with all these successes, the ground for opposition is great. Where is this opposition growing from now? When you look at the current opposition groups, you see that this is a new type of opposition grouping. And what does this mean, a new type? We have no open opposition now. It's so easy to come to the masses and apply, go to the Aviapribor cell, or somewhere else and make some noise - this thing is over, there is no such hope for any oppositionist where to go to Aviapribor to openly fight against the party line. This time has passed one hundred percent. And what kind of oppositionists are they without the masses, without workers, without collective farmers? These are miserable people, our current oppositionists, all these Ryutins and others.
STALIN. Then there were fewer hunters, it seems, in the old days, in the old oppositions.
ORDZHONIKIDZE. Then one was a hunter (laughter).
MOLOTOV. Now the hunters are starting to hunt.
STALIN. This is also new (laughter).
MOLOTOV. But where do the oppositionists come from? First of all, from the old oppositionists. There is a base in the face of the old oppositionists.
ANTSELOVICH. Frames.
MOLOTOV. No, these are not personnel, these are leaders.
STALIN. And the army is new, say, Poponin (laughter).
MOLOTOV. Old oppositionists, such as Ryutin, are now leading the group. Of course, it is not necessary for every old oppositionist to be in the new opposition. It's not obligatory. We have the best old oppositionists who switched to party positions. We know of very large cases, for example, during the period of War Communism we had a very large opposition. If we began to call the old oppositionists, say, those who were against the Brest-Litovsk Peace, it would be wrong, some of them, most of them work great. These are those who in recent years have shown themselves in the struggle against the kulak, in the struggle for the reconstruction of the countryside.
... such opposition sentiments, but our business is not finished, etc. Stalin revealed what a difficult struggle is going on in the countryside for our collective farms, so that they do not hang out between ours and yours, but there are such collective farms that are not led by us. So if you take the current situation, it is clear that those who stumbled four years ago will now stumble more easily and have such facts that if they do not switch to an active struggle for the party line, they will stumble.
STALIN. Especially if he drinks.
MOLOTOV. They say - I didn't get a permit, hunting is not prohibited. I was at the plenum, and yet I had the right to hunt. Of course, you need to perform on vouchers, that's right and you need to hunt if you're a hunter. Of course, not everyone is obliged to be a hunter, but why not shoot.
STALIN. Still, you shouldn't stumble.
ORDZHONIKIDZE. Moreover, Lenin loved hunting.
KAGANOVICH. But he did not leave the plenum.
MOLOTOV. ... but it is not necessary that the plenum replace hunting. Well, even if the accident did not make it to the plenum, underestimated the plenum, in the end, this is even, in my opinion, a secondary issue.
KAGANOVICH. This is a characteristic.
MOLOTOV. We do not pose the question formally. I was not at the plenum, but at the previous plenum, why did not speak. If you are a former oppositionist yourself, you must show an active fight against oppositionists. If you have not joined the active struggle with the opportunists, with the opposition, then you are helping the opportunists. There is no other way to remain neutral. You even argued, Comrade Tomsky, that there can be no neutral trade unions. Moreover, there can be no neutral members of the Central Committee.
TOMSKY. Right.
MOLOTOV. It is this correct idea that the party members want to somehow check how it is applicable to individual members of the party, the Central Committee. It turns out that when you use it, it doesn't fit. It is necessary that some members of the Central Committee fulfill elementary duties in terms of the active struggle for the Central Committee, so that they do not wait for a ticket, but look for enemies, pursue enemies, defend the party line. This should be noted in the first place. When there is no struggle, it is a breeding ground for the opposition of the current type.
The second audience, in my opinion, is very characteristic, these are bureaucrats, who are decent. This is a very common group of people.
KAGANOVICH. Profession.
MOLOTOV. Thank God, the Soviet power exists decently, it is rather difficult not to become bureaucratic. If we talk about this special phenomenon, about the fact that there are bureaucrats who are rotten in the dealership, then you can be a Soviet or trade union businessman for a year, carry out resolutions, write papers, etc., but if you are only a businessman, then a year passes, five years , then you turn into a bureaucrat, like Eismont or Tolmachev, but into a bureaucrat.
But this audience is very inclined towards opportunism, an opposition of a special type, without masses. If she is without masses, then she must believe in something else. And if this is a bureaucrat, besides, offended, if he is only rotten in his institution, but also corrupted by dachas, health resorts, then this is already a corrupted bureaucrat who is a breeding ground for opportunism. And add to this one more thing - I myself say that they have no masses, there are no organized masses, but they have their own mass. Back to grain procurement again. I was engaged in this business a lot, therefore I had a lot of meetings, conversations, conversations, meetings in the village: you come to an organization, if you take an agricultural region of a thousand people, a procurer, and 40-45-50% of grain procurements are completed. You ask what you think, how do you tolerate such a situation. Something else begins. See they are disorganized They do not see the elementary methods of the kulak, you say, you cannot be like that, you have to fight theft, theft, check the personnel, put the inspectors on the threshing floor. "We are all doing this" - they answer, but in fact, complete passivity and disorganization. When you tell them, you are not fighting a fist, if you are left alone, the next day the fist will devour you. You hold on with your calmness and complacency only because there is a party, there is a working class, there are factories and plants, there is a Red Army. Only because you can, without doing a damn thing, not perish. If we do not pay attention to you, you can rot, you will not be Bolsheviks, not organizers of the masses in the countryside ... "We are all doing this" - they answer, but in fact, complete passivity and disorganization. When you tell them, you are not fighting a fist, if you are left alone, the next day the fist will devour you. You hold on with your calmness and complacency only because there is a party, there is a working class, there are factories and plants, there is a Red Army. Only because you can, without doing a damn thing, not perish. If we do not pay attention to you, you can rot, you will not be Bolsheviks, not organizers of the masses in the countryside ... "We are all doing this" - they answer, but in fact, complete passivity and disorganization. When you tell them, you are not fighting a fist, if you are left alone, the next day the fist will devour you. You hold on with your calmness and complacency only because there is a party, there is a working class, there are factories and plants, there is a Red Army. Only because you can, without doing a damn thing, not perish. If we do not pay attention to you, you can rot, you will not be Bolsheviks, not organizers of the masses in the countryside ... Only because you can, without doing a damn thing, not perish. If we do not pay attention to you, you can rot, you will not be Bolsheviks, not organizers of the masses in the countryside ... Only because you can, without doing a damn thing, not perish. If we do not pay attention to you, you can rot, you will not be Bolsheviks, not organizers of the masses in the countryside ...
STALIN. That you are picking up an army for them.
MOLOTOV. This is their army, it has nothing to do with the party, with the working class, with the masses, or in any case had once, when the enemy hit in the face, and now has lost all sense. There are such Bolsheviks and their quiet place to be officials in all bodies and institutions. This is what our opposition grows out of. Upstairs they keep quiet, more resolutions are adopted there.
STALIN. For the general line.
MOLOTOV. We see that the Ryutin group is also hiding behind the general line of the party. If you do not check them at work, but judge by their words, they are for the general line of the party, but in reality elements are alien to the party, who do not want to really work in the party. A characteristic feature is that the "left" is similar to the right. The Ryutin group showed this. But it is characteristic that since our people are accustomed to power, to position, to dignity and offended, they do not disdain any bastards and do not disdain to talk about such things that are not worthy to say to a Bolshevik, but more suitable for the Socialist-Revolutionary era. The fact that we see individual facts, we have not yet investigated them, about military workers, such formulations when they say "remove from the Central Committee", all these formulations, or, as the Ryutin group says, "do not allow counter-revolutionaries to use, but we must go to the overthrow of this manuals ", not on the basis of the masses, but how to achieve it, and in any case everything is sharpened around one person, capable of terrorist things, of Socialist-Revolutionaryism, of such heroism in quotation marks, of such a capable one person. And if you don't pay attention to these elements, don't be vigilant, here Sergo is right, in the person of these elements we have the most dangerous enemy, and out of all this shushari, rubbish, you can get a person with a party card who can inflict a severe blow on us. These are small facts that are of enormous importance and are very dangerous. We should not smear this danger and jokes will not help here, you will not be fooled, and all these attempts that were made in this respect by various opposition groups, they should alert us. It is no coincidence now that these things are going on in our party - a certain share not only below,
ORDZHONIKIDZE. Vileness can do.
MOLOTOV. Not by their hands, but by the hands of others. That's what this is about.
Take Smirnov, what did he say here? It is a shame for a Bolshevik that he did twist - whether the question was posed as Eismont says.
... it is necessary not to remove, but to change the leadership and, above all, Stalin. No, he was for the general line, although he knows that we will never believe him, that he was for this party line. But we were not afraid that he would disagree with us on something. Now his allies, his troika, this new opposition is something like an organizing bureau with a member of the (inaudible) organizing bureau, with members of the real party, with his adjutants Eismont and Tolmachev - my pupil, as he characterizes him, whom we know as a real rightist not dangerous for us. We gave him ranks, gave him the opportunity to work, but we know him as right. Is this a secret for any of you here? Rykov says about Eismont that he is an honest, devoted worker, but we know him as a person of little party, half party, as a Soviet official and nothing more. Here they are all these people, but for the time being Smirnov does not want to lose his cadres, these adjutants who are sitting in the GPU according to merit, there is no other place for them, and they speak a slightly different language there. It is clear that Smirnov and his group are present. He talks about what needs to be checked. Let's check it out of course. I vote for this to check this issue, but I will say in advance that if we are Bolsheviks, and we are not lawyers, I personally have complete doubt about what Smirnov was talking about here. It is necessary to check, but I have a legitimate distrust based on facts and on all of his behavior. that if we are Bolsheviks, and we are not lawyers, I personally have complete doubt about what Smirnov said here. It is necessary to check, but I have a legitimate distrust based on facts and on all of his behavior. that if we are Bolsheviks, and we are not lawyers, I personally have complete doubt about what Smirnov was talking about here. It is necessary to check, but I have a legitimate distrust based on facts and on all of his behavior.
Let's take Tomsky. He was on the sidelines, hunting wild boars, going about his most peaceful affairs. But I must say that this business is not without Tomsky. Why do I personally have this opinion? Not legally proven, no documents. The point in this respect is that there is nothing here, there is no need to talk about documents. But I have the right, as a convinced, at least one who has very big doubts on this point and legitimate doubts about Comrade Tomsky, to say this. And here's why: I consider his responsibility to be very great in this matter. Recently Smirnov, Schmidt and Tomsky were together. Did they really only talk about wild boars when they hunted, walked, drank. It is unfortunate, of course, that we have such members of the Central Committee. But I have no doubt, of course, that they talked not only about boars, or about the quality of wines, but also talked about political matters. I have no doubt that, if Tomsky understood his duties as a Bolshevik, he could save Smirnov, keep him, help him, not push him to the edge. And Tomsky, on the contrary, pushed him to the edge. Either he had to hide this sore, help Smirnov hold on, because we know not the first year of his mood, or he had to lead another line, i.e. push it to the edge. It so happened that politically, not legally, of course, a very lousy situation. He pushed Smirnov to the edge, did not help him, did not hold him back. that politically, not legally, of course, it's a very lousy situation. He pushed Smirnov to the edge, did not help him, did not hold him back. that politically, not legally, of course, it's a very lousy situation. He pushed Smirnov to the edge, did not help him, did not hold him back.
And Rykov is the same. He says that he tried to speak and so on. Comrade Rykov, what prevented you from speaking. I would like to come here and tell you how you feel about the main events of the party, how you feel about the events that we are now discussing. What to say about the fact that it needs to be investigated, checked, etc. Of course, we must give all the legal guarantees to our comrades, they have the right to do so. But this is not the root of the matter ...
And the root is that instead of keeping his comrades in the former opposition who are close to you at the present time - no one can object to a close relationship - instead, in order to keep, correct, direct to the Bolshevik true path, you did nothing, you were silent. How could people as close as Eismont agree on such things, but you didn't notice? How did you not notice, but everyone noticed? If you want to reduce the whole matter to a legal point, then we must say that you will not get off with legal clauses here. Here elementary Bolshevik honesty should have been shown in relation to the Party, but this elementary honesty in relation to the Party and its Central Committee was not shown, you either turn it all into a joke, or go sideways. If you want to speak Bolshevik,
.jpg)
No comments