From the speech of Comrade Ikramov. February 26, 1937

Questions of history, 1992, No. 11-12, pp. 14-19

Andreev (presiding). I give the floor to Comrade Ikramov.

Ikramov.

Comrades, the materials of the investigation fully confirm that the right-wing elements, headed by Bukharin and Rykov, were carrying on counter-revolutionary, sabotage and terrorist work. We were all convinced of their participation in counter-revolutionary activities from the materials presented to us by the Politburo of the Central Committee, the materials of the investigation. I was especially convinced of their disgusting work when I listened to their speeches and read Bukharin's libelous note. They are here trying to deny all this and do not present any data, any documents or materials refuting this accusation. They have their own "reasons".

The first argument: when here, at the plenum, concrete facts are pressed, then Rykov says “I don’t remember,” “I don’t remember,” and Bukharin says, “I have a failure in my memory,” while he himself establishes in what numbers what happened. This casuistic tactic has long been known to the Party and has long been exposed. Even at the 16th Party Congress, Comrade Kirov spoke about "Ivanovichs who do not remember!" (Laughter. Voroshilov. Ivans who do not remember kinship!) This is their first argument, this is argument number one.

The second argument: if someone testifies against them, then they call these people either crazy or people who are angry against them. And I believe and am convinced that some of these people turned out to be more honest than their teachers and leaders. And some of them were already in such an environment, they were covered with documents, facts and confrontations and they had nowhere to go. These are two categories of people who have made a confession. I think that these leaders of the Rights, both Bukharin and Rykov, apparently belong to the second category. They honestly do not want to admit, and therefore they need to be given the same setting, the same confrontations, then they admit. I am convinced that this is exactly what should be done.

The third reason: these are threats. This argument is both in the note and in the speeches. The first is the accusations of the NKVD, the accusation of the investigators that they asked unified questions, as it is written in Bukharin's note. But imagine, when a counterrevolutionary, a saboteur, a terrorist came to the investigator, that the investigator had to ask: "How did you drink or hunt tea at Bukharin's or Rykov's?" What is he, a chatterbox, or what, this investigator? When he has the facts, any of us will ask the way the investigators asked. But, comrades, we felt the result of the work of these investigators at this plenum. Indeed, through the work of investigators, these people have now shown many other things that they did not recognize at the last plenum and which they recognized at this plenum.

At the last plenum, Bukharin said that since 1929 he had no connection with his group. And take the materials of the investigation, what is written here? I won't read everything, but here is Bukharin's first conversation in 1932 with Kulikov about terror. Is it a fact or not a fact? And he denied it at the last plenum. The second point is the discussion of the Ryutin platform. Did Rykov deny at the last plenum? Denied. Did he admit it now? Admitted. Ugarov was carried out and there were political conversations. What went or went, that is not the point. Have you met Schmidt? Terrorist. Was there a conversation? Was. Bukharin also had a meeting with Kamenev and Pyatakov. But the most important thing: 1929-1932, did they have a permanent connection or not? The materials of the investigation confirmed, and they themselves were forced to admit.

What does this mean? All these facts that we read here, what are they talking about? Ryutinskaya platform in 1932. Conference of Bukharinites headed by Slepkov in 1932. And what, aren't all these facts? When Bukharin called just this time, that it was a transitional period for him to become obsolete. I believe Bukharin that it was a "transitional period," but that he should tell someone else to get rid of it. It was just a transitional period from the system of work that was before, to terror, to sabotage, to active struggle, just such a transitional period was. Isn't this a testimony from people? We established a number of facts, although there were no unified issues here, but on the contrary, we must praise our comrades who are involved in the investigation that they helped the party to identify these Jesuits. If they had admitted these facts at the last plenum,

Fourth: we hear threats from Bukharin, outright extortion. Bukharin says that the investigator is using inaccurate data, that the investigator is asking about some kind of counter-revolutionary archive. Bukharin says that the investigator called the resolution of the Sixth Congress of the Comintern counter-revolutionary. It was not the investigator who said this, but your student from your school, your accomplices, the counterrevolutionaries, called it counterrevolutionary. I think that in essence it will be necessary to sort it out. If one examines in essence the resolution of the VI Congress of the Comintern, there are no special secrets in it, they were published by Gosizdat and you can get them in any library. And what Bukharin retains there is interesting. As a member of the delegation of the CPSU (b) of the VI Congress of the Comintern, I recall, for example, the draft presented by Bukharin. What is this project? It was a non-Bolshevik document. Bukharin refers to the fact that there was some kind of error in the investigation. I think there is no mistake. But what about the essence? If you will allow me, I will credit several points of the draft proposed by Bukharin and Comrade Stalin's amendments.

In the draft of the theses proposed by Bukharin, in the introduction it is written: “The first period, the highest point of which is 1921, ended with a series of heavy defeats of the proletariat. The final link of this period is the defeat of the German proletariat in 1923, and this defeat serves as the starting point of the second period, the period of gradually emerging partial stabilization of the capitalist system, the restoration process of the capitalist economy, etc. " Not a word about the victory of the proletarian socialist revolution in the USSR, victory over the interventionists and internal counter-revolution.

And Comrade Stalin makes the following proposal: “The first period, the period of the most acute crisis of the capitalist system, the period of direct revolutionary actions of the proletariat, the period whose highest point of development is 1921, ended, on the one hand, with the victory of the USSR over the forces of intervention and internal counter-revolution, the consolidation of the proletarian dictatorship and the organization of the Communist International, on the other hand, a series of severe defeats of the West European proletariat and the beginning of a general offensive of the bourgeoisie.The final link of this period is the defeat of the German proletariat in 1923. This defeat serves as the starting point for the second period, the period of the gradually emerging partial stabilization of the capitalist system, the "recovery" process of the capitalist economy,

Bukharin also did not have this point about the second and third periods: I don’t believe it would be simply forgotten - about the growth of socialist forms of economy and successes in socialist construction. Comrade Stalin introduces the following amendment: “On the other hand, this period (that is, the second. - A. I.)is a period of the rapid restoration process in the USSR and the most serious successes in socialist construction, as well as the growth of the political influence of the communist parties on the broad masses of the proletariat. Finally, the third period is basically the period when the economy of capitalism went beyond the pre-war level and almost simultaneously went beyond this level of the economy of the USSR (the beginning of the so-called reconstruction period, further growth of socialist forms of economy based on new technology). This correction can hardly be called accidental.

And here are the amendments made by the Bureau of the delegation of the CPSU (b) - Comrade Stalin. (Voice from the spot. Good amendments!) The victorious march of socialism in the USSR is also "forgotten", he does not have it. (Postyshev. Gap in memory.) Gap in memory, comrades, that's right. The victorious building of socialism and the revolutionary role of the USSR were also denied.

In the fourth paragraph of this draft, Comrade Stalin made the following correction: "The development of the USSR as a revolutionizing class of all countries and the working masses of the colonies as a counterbalance to the world capitalist system - all these contradictions cannot but lead ultimately to their new explosion." Is this a coincidence? I think not by chance. Bukharin's draft did not contain the question of fascism and the fascist oppression of the working masses. In Clause 16, Comrade Stalin introduces the following amendment: "But at the same time they reflect a general sharpening of class contradictions and a particular sharpening of all forms and methods of class struggle, which is expressed more and more in the use of fascist methods of oppression by the bourgeoisie." Then he had a "blackout" on the question of the revolutionary and organizing role of the party.

In the paragraph that speaks of repressions by the imperialist states against the revolutionary detachments of the proletariat, Comrade Stalin introduced the following amendment: "Especially against the communist parties, the only parties that organize and wage the revolutionary struggle of the working class against imperialist wars and growing exploitation." In Clause 21, Bukharin had a "lapse in memory" about the treacherous role of the "Left" leaders of the Social Democracy. Comrade Stalin introduced the following amendment: "The so-called 'left' leaders of the Social Democracy play a particularly shameful role in the schismatic campaign of reformism, who in words advocate unity, but in deeds again and again unconditionally support the criminal, splitting methods of the Second International and the Amsterdamites." And further on, about the betrayal of the Social Democracy, such major amendments and corrections were introduced by Comrade Stalin that if you read all this, it will take a very long time. Look (shows) three whole pages. Is this a coincidence? I think not by chance.

This also applies to the issue of fascism, the fight against fascism and other important issues. On the issue of fascism, Comrade Stalin introduced the following amendment: “In the sphere of international relations, fascism pursues a policy of violence, militarization, and the fascization of Poland and Italy, and is showing more and more aggressive tendencies. This is tantamount to a constant threat to peace, the threat of military adventures, wars for the proletarian countries, "etc. The same great amendments were made on the question of imperialism, the Chinese revolution and other questions.

Then there are very interesting, so-called at first glance, editorial amendments by Comrade Stalin. Bukharin said: "Germany is turning against the USSR." Comrade Stalin corrects: "The German bourgeoisie ..." Here is the class approach. He further writes that "the Social Democracy theoretically goes over to the side of the bourgeoisie." Comrade Stalin simply struck out “theoretically” and “goes over” and simply suggested writing “went over”. Here, comrades, is your attitude towards Social Democracy, towards fascism and towards the bourgeoisie. All these questions, both in the USSR and in international politics and tactics, were corrected by the delegation of the CPSU (b) under the leadership of Comrade Stalin.

Now it is clear that if Tsetlin was talking about the archive and referred to this document, then it means that Bukharin specifically keeps his original draft, hoping that someday he will pull it out in order to show all his friends - Trotskyists, Social Democrats, the Nazis, that he did not want to aggravate the issue against them, and this was aggravated by the delegation of the CPSU (b) headed by Stalin, "so they did some tricks against you." Only for this he could have kept this document on purpose, there is no other way to explain it, so he holds it like a stone in his bosom to strike at our party. All this is a struggle against our party, against our state. Comrade Stalin introduced 57 amendments and corrections. From this anti-party project of Bukharin only "horns and legs" remained, and the VI Congress of the Comintern adopted a real Bolshevik resolution.

So, I think that to this accusation, which he tried to bring, we must answer: "You slander again, at least once you would honestly say about your anti-party tricks." I deliberately took the most authoritative party decisions of the Sixth Congress. The rest of what he refers to is no better than this, at least. (Mezhlauk. Exactly the same).

Now for the fifth reason: the threat. The hunger strike is, comrades, a real extortionate, petty morale system. (Laughter.) Look, I want to give an analogy here: the faithful Muslims hold (their posts) a little more conscientiously than Bukharin, who went on a hunger strike here. (Laughter.) At least they don't eat from sunrise to sunset ... (Laughter), but he, on the contrary, doesn't eat from sunset to sunrise. (Laughter.) Comrades have already quoted about this threat of his. I want to quote another part of it. This is what he writes: "So that there is not even the appearance of a struggle with you, with the party, I do not tell anyone about this aside." He's lying. Because it reached Tashkent. The day before my departure a rumor was spread, of course, by their people that Bukharin had committed suicide, Bukharin had declared a hunger strike. All this was accompanied by slander directed against the party, against our Central Committee. (Voice from the seat. Yes.) To this very fifth "argument", I think that our answer is simply a threat, Jesuit extortion against the party.

Now how does he defend himself? When we read his note, we were surprised how he was desperately attacking the Trotskyists, but against his own people somehow, so it goes. Why is this so? I was given two responsible comrades - the secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Uzbekistan, Comrade Tseher and the deputy. People's Commissar for Internal Affairs of Uzbekistan Leonov that when he arrived from the Pamirs to Tashkent, when they talked to him, he was very excited when he learned that the Trotskyists had shown him as an accomplice. But he became even more agitated when he heard that Radek had also hit, said: “What, Carlos? Can not be. I can vouch for him with my head. It cannot be that Carlos was there. " (Stalin. For some reason, he often went to the Pamirs.) That's right, it happens with us ... (Voice from the place. He even began to drink water. Laughter.).

Why, comrades, does he do this? Carlos could not stand it, Carlos told everything, Carlos spoke openly and more sharply. I have such a conviction that he does not speak against his own people, because, probably, those people have something that has not been said, but it will spill out abruptly, something will surely pour out. This disease, that not everything has yet been revealed, and here it must be said that it is in relation to his own that he approaches his comrades in a very comradely manner.

Further, comrades, about their past activities - Bukharin and Rykov. We all know that their struggle before the revolution and after the revolution was against Lenin, and therefore in Lenin's writings it is said well enough about this, we have read and know about it, and many of us have been fighting them directly for 10 years. I think that about their tricks yesterday, comrades. Molotov and Kaganovich spoke very well, and I do not want to stop, because I completely agree with them. So I want to pose another question: the question of his "school" and the upbringing of people. From such a "school", with such a political attitude, what kind of students should come out?

First: this is the preference of the "organized economy" of the God-seeker Bogdanov over the "dialectical materialism of Marx-Lenin." Here is the basis for the worldview of the God-seeker Bogdanov against Marx - Lenin. When we read Bukharin's book "The Economy of the Transition Period", I remember, after reading this book, VI Lenin wrote in the margin: "Bukharin understands nothing in dialectics." I wondered if this person really did not understand or did this person never take the positions of Marx, Lenin? But when he himself is not convinced, then nothing will come of it. If there is no inner conviction on any issue, then the task will never be correctly solved, the matter will not be carried out. This is the first thing.

The second, comrades, is the education of the schoolchildren against Lenin. Vyacheslav Mikhailovich spoke about this yesterday regarding that, and Comrade Stalin made a reply. He, Bukharin, taught that he was right in the struggle against Lenin, but at the same time he was defeated because he had no cadres. If this is the basis for educating people against Lenin and against the Party, what kind of disciples will they be? This was not only Bukharin's teaching, but also a slogan for uniting around him. Yesterday comrade Kosarev brilliantly described what united people were around Bukharin, but, say, comrades, are they all hopeless? In this respect, I doubt, maybe there were people who could be re-educated, but their upbringing was not on the party line, but against the party. I, comrades, are convinced that when Lenin fell ill, and especially when Lenin died, these people were very happy from the point of view that these people would come to power. We have a saying: "Solomon died, the devil rejoiced." These devils thought that now they would come to power and turn our socialist construction back to the bourgeois-democratic system, but the party was strong, the leadership was Leninist, and it was led by Comrade Stalin, and they did not succeed. That is why they can never be ours.

Third: organizational struggle against enemies. Astrov shows that when we were at the editorial office of Pravda in 1927, a connection was established between the Trotskyists and the White Guards, we resisted, spoke out against the publication of this. What's this? This is the desire to fence off your like-minded people. And I think that if they had a newspaper now, they would hardly have published and would have said that Trotsky is connected through Hess with Hitler. Wouldn't have written, I'm convinced. We know that the party is a union of like-minded people. What is their unanimity with us both on organizational issues and on ideological issues, what kind of connection do they have, what kind of connection do they have? No.

Now, if we add here the uprising of Bukharin, Rykov and the rightists in general against collectivization, against the liquidation of the kulaks as a class, against industrialization, plus the slogan of enrichment, here is a platform for you, here is the basis for both the Ryutin platform and the "democratic party" that they tried to organize , this is the backbone of all their platforms. That is why it can already be established that Rykov read and edited the Ryutin platform, and not that he did not know about it and did not participate in its compilation. Isn't this the basis of the foundations of this very counter-revolutionary document, the libel, which we already have in our hands? Isn't this a platform for the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries and all kinds of other anti-Soviet elements? All this goes against our line, against our cause and against our struggle. Terror and sabotage is a practical struggle for these ideas and for this program.

Further, the palace coup. Isn't this the Socialist-Revolutionary ideology: to take and carry out terror against one or two of our leaders - the leaders? As if the country, the party, the working class, the collective farm masses would be indifferent to this. We all know that the party brought up by Lenin and Stalin, cemented in the struggle against the right, with these bastards - the Trotskyists, with the left - is strengthening every day and will never allow them to come to power. It’s the trick that they think they’ll come to power by terror. Not only the party organization, the working class, but even the collective farmers are yesterday's malnourished, yesterday's hungry peasant, and today a prosperous one who lives a satisfying and cultured life, he will no longer follow them. They can only lead the kulaks. They applied new methods. Comrade Mikoyan said well here that that in the party they were double-dealing with the Trotskyists and instilled disbelief in the party comrades. Previously, with a party document, you could go wherever you want, but now you cannot go to the regional and republican party organizations without a special pass. Why? Because they destroyed this faith. Sometimes workers ask: "Should I believe this party member or not?" What a shame it is! For this alone, for an attempt to disintegrate our Party, for sowing such mistrust within our Party, only for that alone should they be judged! This is only the worst enemy can do. The most treasure for us, the most precious for us, is our party. And the rightists, together with the Trotskyists, instilled double-dealing in the party. We, the party organizations, did not immediately disclose this, showed rotozyism, did not immediately expose the double-dealing. I think now we get it.

What else have they planted inside our country? Together with the Trotskyists, they taught the enemies of our party, the kulaks, the nationalists, such methods of struggle as terror, sabotage, espionage. (Postyshev. Right!) A number of nationalist organizations and groups are now exposed in Uzbekistan. Their program is directly copied from the program of the Trotskyists and the Rights: terror, primarily against Comrade Stalin and other party leaders. (Postyshev. Wrecking.) In Uzbekistan, a spy connected with the Polish counterintelligence has now been caught by the NKVD. Didn't they plant all this in our party? It is for this that they must be judged, they must be destroyed. (Voices from the localities. That's right!) Here Zhukov said that the Politburo was covering them up. I believe he made a mistake, it is wrong. The Central Committee never covers such anti-party ideas, never covers anti-party elements. The Central Committee very patiently and very attentively wanted to lead them on the right path, to correct them, but they abused it. The strength of our party, especially its Central Committee, lies in the fact that the Central Committee never covers up such enemies.

Now about the conclusions. I think we should, first, say what it is. It seems to me that this can be qualified as an uprising against the Party, against Soviet power. And any uprising must be suppressed. I remember that back in 1926 Comrade Dzerzhinsky said in relation to Zinoviev: "You have rebelled against the Party, and we will crush you." I think that these words of Dzerzhinsky fully refer to these renegades. There should be only one conclusion in relation to them: the trial and such isolation of them, especially the leaders, so that they could never and with no one be able to conduct their anti-Soviet, counter-revolutionary conversations.

Andreyev: Comrades, there has been a proposal to close the debate. After the closure of the debate, the words will still be given to Bukharin and Rykov, and then the closing remarks to Comrade Yezhov. Now a break is announced for 10 minutes.