copy of the letter L.D. Trotsky and G.E. Zinoviev dated 30.08.27

Copy of the letter L.D. Trotsky and G.E. Zinoviev dated 30.08.27 on the Urbans-Maslov group and the answer of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks to this letter. September 1, 1927

RGASPI F.82, Op.2, D.188 L.6-46

Proletarians of all countries, unite!

STRICTLY SECRET.

ALL-UNION COMMUNIST PARTY (BOLSHEVIK).

CENTRAL COMMITTEE.

No. 13056/s. September 1, 1927

TO MEMBERS AND CANDIDATES OF THE CC, TO MEMBERS OF THE CC 

PRESIDIUM OF THE ECCI.

To. MOLOTOV.

On behalf of Comrade Stalin sent you for your information a letter from comrades Trotsky and Zinoviev dated 30.VIII. with and the answer of the Politburo to this letter.

APPENDIX: copy. No. 36 on 38 sheets.

Pom. Secretary of the Central Committee: [signature]

* * *

Ex. No. 36

Ref. No. 13056/s.

Copy.

Secret.

30.VIII. 27

No. 98/s.

To the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks.

Copies: To all members and candidates of the Central Committee, Central Control Commission, Presidium of the ECCI.

We are replying to your letter of August 23 with some delay, since the quotations contained in your letter from the organ of the Urbahns group seemed doubtful to us from the very beginning, which necessitated the collection and review of the entire set of publications of this group. The results of this check are important: they show that those quotations that seemed to us doubtful are in fact false quotations. This fact may seem incredible, but it is a fact nonetheless. In order to accuse the opposition, in order to bring its views closer to truly defeatist views, the authors of the letter, signed by the highest institution of our Party, did not hesitate to refer to false quotations.

The Politburo letter reads:

“What is the “point of view” of the Maslov-Ruth Fischer-Urbahns group, this can be seen at least from the following well-known statements of these gentlemen on the pages of their organs:

1) “From the moment a new economic basis was created in Russia, from the moment the party in power introduced capitalism in order to maintain the monopoly of power, the Russian proletariat must treat this power in the same way as any capitalist state ” ("Mittailungsblatt" No. 28).

2) “In fact, the Bolsheviks are the managers, they are the executive body of the propertied classes, who, thanks to the introduction of capitalism, came to power in a bloodless way ” (ibid.).

Only these two quotations are significant for characterizing the really defeatist, really counter-revolutionary, really renegade views of the authors of the above lines.

The two following quotations, even in the artificially truncated form in which they are given in the Politburo letter, are by no means proof of the counter-revolutionary views of their authors: the third and fourth quotations contain sharp oppositional criticism of the current leadership of the CPSU. In the third and fourth quotations, Stalin and Bukharin are accused of the fact that, thanks to their false policy, the counter-revolution is gaining legal positions, the USSR is weakened, Chamberlain's work is facilitated, etc. In these quotations, for all their harshness, which is explained, of course, by the fact Urbanis’s group is unscrupulously persecuted in our press as “renegades”, “Chamberlain’s agents”, etc., it is impossible to find a hostile attitude towards the CPSU and the USSR, if one does not mix criticism against Stalin and Bukharin with a hostile attitude towards the CPSU and the USSR . On the contrary, if we take as a whole those articlesa workers ' state, the property of the international proletariat, and that its defense is the first duty of every honest revolutionary.

Thus, between the third and fourth quotations and between the first two there is nothing in common either in content or in spirit. The third and fourth quotations acquire a suspicious connotation only because they follow immediately after the first and second, which are really hostile to our party and our state. Thus, the four quotations cited in the Politburo's letter of August 23, 1927, are arranged as if the policy of Stalin-Bukharin is being declared worthless by the same persons who declare the USSR a capitalist state. It was this skillful arrangement of citations that aroused our suspicion and prompted us to collect in Moscow the publications of the Urbahns group in order to make sure that in these publications there were no quotations attributed to Urbahns, Maslov, Ruth Fisher.

At the same time, we turned to the Secretariat of the Central Committee with a request to send us the cited publications. We have received No. 13 and No. 14 of the edition of the Urbahns group Die Fane des Communismus and No. 28 of the Mitteilungsblatt edition of October 2, 1926. The third and fourth quotations directed against the policy of Stalin-Bukharin are indeed borrowed, although with very peculiar truncations - from the organs of Urbahns. As for the first two quotations declaring our state capitalist and our party bourgeois, both of these quotations are borrowed from the organs of Ivan Katz , who has nothing in common with the Urbahns-Maslov group. It may seem completely unbelievable, but it is a fact!

How could such a change be made?

True, the organ of the Urbanist group until May of this year was also called "Mitteilungsblatt", which means an information leaflet. Under this name, numerous publications are published in Germany, which differ from each other in the name of the group and the name of the publisher. All information leaflets of the Urbahns group bear the heading in large letters: “Left Opposition of the KKE. Publisher: Hugo Urbahns, Berlin. As for the information leaflet of the Katz group, the place of publication is Hanover, and at the end of the 4th page there is a signature: “responsible publisher and editor Ivan Katz, Hanover”.

How could such a "mixing" come about? After all, the Politburo was involved in the expulsion of the Urbahns-Maslov group from the party. This group later raised the question of her return to the party. The Politburo expresses quite categorical judgments about this group, calling it renegade and counter-revolutionary. Obviously, the Politburo can base these judgments only on familiarity with the activities of the Urbahns-Maslov group. Its main activity is expressed precisely in the publication, first of an information leaflet, then of a weekly magazine. It turns out, at best, that not a single member of the Politburo distinguishes between the publication of the real renegade Ivan Katz and the publication of the Urbahns group. But what significance, what weight, can the Politburo's judgments about the Urbahns-Maslov group have if these judgments are based on a mixture of two different bodies, two different groups,

During the enlarged Plenum of the Executive Committee, in the amendments introduced by Comrade Comrades Trotsky and Vujovic to the resolution on the struggle against war, it was said:

“The cutting off of such elements as Katz, Korsh, Schwartz is a cleansing of the ranks of the Comintern. But it is fundamentally wrong to confuse and identify with them the Urbahns group.

This is not our opinion formed yesterday. Anyone who really follows the life of the German Party and the German working class, and does not simply rely on the reports of unprincipled and irresponsible officials, knows that it is possible to confuse the Hanoverian information leaflet of Ivan Katz with the Berlin information leaflet of Urbahns either because of complete ignorance of the question, or because evil will. Once upon a time, the Social-Democrats Leader Ebert could not distinguish between the "leaflets" published abroad by the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. For him, they were all the same "groups", between which there was almost no difference. But we cannot follow this path.

The same amendments by Trotsky and Vujovic (of May 21) state:

"The most important criterion for the actual revolutionary nature of individual workers' organizations and groups is their attitude towards the USSR, their readiness and ability to repulse capitalist and social democratic slander and persecution, and then a military offensive."

Thus, we did not wait for the slander about our "conditional defencism" or "defeatism" in order to put forward on an international scale the most important criterion, which - if correctly and honestly applied - can really help to determine on which side of the barricade this or that group in labor movement. The quotations given by the Politburo from the Katz organ (disguised as the organ of Urbahns) show that this group is indeed standing on the other side of the barricade. We didn't doubt it at all. That is why we said at the Eighth Plenum of the ECCI: "Cutting off such elements as Katz, Korsh, Schwarz is a cleansing of the ranks of the Comintern." But we immediately warned that it was fundamentally wrong to mix with Katz and Co.the Urbahns group. Meanwhile, the entire letter to the Politburo is built on this confusion. If even one of the members of the Politburo had followed this publication, or even had any clear idea of ​​​​the political physiognomy of both groups, he would not have allowed this scandalous story with false quotations in a letter from the highest organ of the party. We repeat again: what weight do the accusations of the Politburo have about our unanimity with an allegedly counter-revolutionary and allegedly renegade group, if the Politburo - as has now been proven with complete indisputability - has no idea about this group?

Yes, the Urbahns group cruelly criticizes the Stalin-Bukharin line as false, not Leninist, not giving a proper rebuff to the Thermidorian forces in the country and by its mistakes weakening the USSR in relation to foreign imperialism. If Stalin is identified with the CPSU, the USSR and the Comintern, then the criticism of the Urbahns-Maslov group is "liquidationist", "renegade", etc. But the Urbahns group does not make such an identification. And in this she is absolutely right. What is its attitude towards the defense of the USSR? This is stated at least on the first page of the same No. 13 of Znamya Kommunizma, from which the Politburo quotes its fourth quotation. The editorial on Voikov's assassination reads:

“Hands off Soviet Russia – that’s easy to say. This cry obliges to hard and feverish, international, propaganda and organizational work, which has not even begun, despite the fact that it has long been clear how the conflicts will escalate.

We Left Communists are repeating in these crucial hours the proposals and demands that we made on March 1 regarding Chamberlain's note: to immediately restore the unity of the Comintern... Immediate international rallying of transport workers, military and chemical plants under the slogan: not a single ship, not a single train with soldiers, weapons or ammunition against Soviet Russia; not a single soldier, not a cannon, not a gas, not a plane against Soviet Russia; immediate revolutionary propaganda, imbued with the Leninist offensive spirit against imperialism, against the war, while ruthlessly exposing what is, that is, the inactivity of all the left reformist "friends" of Soviet Russia, and by organizing a revolutionary rebuff. Hands off Soviet Russia."

Such articles, statements, appeals are available literally in every issue of publications of the Urbahns group. Everyone can verify this. We omit further quotations here so as not to clutter up the letters. Such statements constitute the line of the Urbahns group. The assertion that this group is waging a renegade struggle against the Soviet Union, declaring it a bourgeois state, is simply a lie, which no class-conscious worker in Germany believes. In its statement to the 11th Congress of the German Communist Party, the Urbahns group wrote (just at the moment when it was unfairly expelled from the party under pressure from Stalin and Bukharin):

"We will certainly stand for Soviet Russia with all our strength - in a completely different way than" friends "from the reformist camp."

In an open letter to the last Congress of the German Communist Party, the Urbahns-Maslov-Ruth Fischer group wrote:

“In the same way, we reject the false, non-communist views developed on the Russian question, for example, by Katz, Korsh or Schwartz.

We see in Soviet Russia the first proletarian state in the world and we reject all talk about the "bourgeois" character of the Russian revolution (Korsch), or about the preparation of a "real proletarian revolution" in Russia (Schwartz), as liquidationist. Support for proletarian Russia against every imperialist attack and against the slanderous campaign of the Mensheviks, we consider, as always, the duty of every communist for granted.

Thus, the open letter of Urbahns-Maslov dated March 1, 1927 (No. 5-6 of the information leaflet) contains a clear and categorical disassociation from "false non-communist views developed in the Russian question by Katz, Korsh or Schwartz." This dissociation was made by representatives of the Urbahns-Maslov group both from the rostrum of parliament and at a number of open workers' meetings, where it reached the most bitter struggle between the Urbahns group and the supporters of Katz, Korsch and Schwartz, precisely because of the question of attitude towards the USSR. Anyone who has at least some idea of ​​the groupings in the German working-class movement knows that it was precisely on the question of the attitude towards the USSR that the main dividing line between the Urbahns group and the Katz group was drawn. The Urbahns group declared the Katz group non-communist. The Urbahns group broke with Rosenberg a year and a half ago, the former "ultra-left", predicting that he would go over to the Social-Democrats. As early as during the Sixth Enlarged Plenum of the ECCI, Stalin and Bukharin, with great difficulty, “won” this Rosenberg to their side, who then, a few months later, actually migrated to the Social-Democrats.

We, in our turn, declared the cutting off of the group of Katz, Korsch, Schwarz a necessary cleansing of the Comintern. Now, in order to prove that the Urbahns-Maslov group is a "renegade" group, now the Politburo cites the writings of Ivan Katz, passing them off as the writings of Hugo Urbahns! It is hard to imagine a more outrageous injustice and political sloppiness. Meanwhile, in the hands of our Politburo, in fact, the fate of many groups of the Comintern.

The letter from the PB of August 23 showers the leaders of the Urbahns group with personal abuse, such as "swindler" and so on.

In view of this, the following must be remembered:

1. Urbahns is an old revolutionary, leader of the Hamburg uprising. He, admittedly, heroically behaved in court and received hard labor. More than once, under Lenin, he participated in the congresses of the Comintern, where he enjoyed full respect, was elected to the most responsible posts, etc.

2. After 1921, unfavorable rumors spread about Maslov. These rumors (as well as Maslov's entire biography) were analyzed at the same time by a special commission of representatives of 7 parties. From the CPSU included Stalin, Unshlikht, Pyatnitsky. Stalin was the chairman of this commission. The commission, after calling a number of witnesses, thoroughly checking all the rumors, etc., acquitted Maslov and sent him back to Germany as a recognized leader of the KKE for the most responsible leadership work. Telman and his group were Maslov's most ardent defenders. In 1925, Stalin wrote Maslov very flattering for the last letter. The persecution against Maslov began only when he sided with the opposition.

3. Ruth Fischer was elected at the V Congress unanimously in the CI Executive Committee. No personal charges were brought against her. The devotion to her labor movement is undeniable. When she was in Moscow, Stalin, Bukharin, Manuilsky tried with all their might to recruit her to their side against the opposition.

The real "swindlers" and simply adventurers are types like Heinz Neumann, who served both Brandler and Ruth Fischer, who betrayed both the right and the left, types who have nothing in their souls, whom not a single worker in Germany believes, but who in Pravda is presented as "representatives" of the German proletariat.

The other part of the Politburo letter, concerning the publication by the Urbahns group of documents of the opposition to the CPSU, is just as unfounded and disloyal, although in a different respect. The Urbahns group published some of the documents on the Chinese question that were distributed during the last VIII Plenum of the Executive Committee in dozens of copies in three languages. This fact was already known before the last Joint Plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission. A number of documents, prior to their appearance in the form of a collection, were printed on the pages of Urbahn's weekly Znamya Kommunizma. The announcement of the forthcoming issue of the collection preceded the Joint Plenum and commented on it. Thus, the publication of the previously announced collection does not add a single new fact to what was known to the Joint Plenum. The question of our attitude towards the Urbahns group played a major role in the discussion of the fourth item on the agenda. The plenum posed a specific question to us with respect to the Urbahns group. We gave a definite answer to this question in our statement of 8 August. What has been added since then? Why and for what purpose is the question raised again?

At the Plenum, deliberately false information was given about the Urbahns group, which we could not immediately verify and refute on the spot. We waited for the publication of the verbatim record of the Plenum in order to prove in one form or another to the members of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission and to the entire Party in general that Pravda was deliberately giving false information about the Urbahns group. The false quotations in the letter to the Politburo now reveal this completely and completely. We refused at the Joint Plenum to recognize the Urbahns-Maslovan group, on the basis of false quotations and false information, as a counter-revolutionary and renegade group. On the contrary, we believe that this group includes hundreds and thousands of excellent proletarian elements. Sympathy for this group within the KKE is growing rapidly. We stated this at the Plenum. Of course inasmuch as the Urbahns group has been excluded—to great harm to the German Communist Party and the Comintern—we are compelled to reckon with this and, subject to discipline, are compelled to refrain from organizational ties with it. The Politburo, however, acts fundamentally wrong when, shortly after the Plenum, without citing a single new fact or circumstance—for false quotations cannot be recognized as a new fact—it demands from us a statement that we did not and could not give at the United Plenum, because it would be contrary to the facts and our views. What is the purpose of all this? — because false quotations cannot be recognized as a new fact — demands from us such a statement, which we did not and could not give at the Joint Plenum, because it would contradict the facts and our views. What is the purpose of all this? — because false quotations cannot be recognized as a new fact — demands from us such a statement, which we did not and could not give at the Joint Plenum, because it would contradict the facts and our views. What is the purpose of all this?

Equally wrong is the demand addressed to us to "protest against the publication of our articles and speeches that are not subject to publication" and "to prevent further printing" of them. The fact of their publication was known to the Plenum. It is precisely those documents that were distributed at the Plenum, both by us and by the apparatus of the Comintern, that have been published. So, the transcripts of our speeches delivered at the Comintern were not included in the collection. This alone points to the ways in which the material could reach the Urbahns group. The group itself stated in the press that it had received these materials in French from one of the persons present at the VIII Plenum of the ECCI. To “not allow” the publication of our statements, documents, etc., would mean in the present situation to refuse to distribute these documents at the Plenums of the Central Committee, at the Plenums of the Executive Committee of the Comintern, etc. We are not going to give up this inalienable right of ours in the slightest. Of course, it is profoundly abnormal that documents not published in our Party press are being published by the Urbahns group. But any serious acquaintance with these documents shows that the responsibility for this abnormal fact lies entirely with the policy of the Politburo of the Central Committee.

After the unprecedented bankruptcy of the Stalin-Bukharin line in the Chinese revolution and in the Anglo-Russian Committee, all thinking, all revolutionary, all honest elements of our Party and the Comintern are waiting and demanding a Marxist analysis of events and mistakes made instead of the rotten rot that is presented to the world in Pravda. and in the publications of the Comintern, in the writings of Martynov, Slepkov, Goldenberg, Pepper, D. Petrovsky, Manuilsky and others. on which the fate of the world proletariat and the national revolutionary movement depends, is in full swing. Menshevik dullards like Martynov vomit sour wisdom condemned by the experience of three revolutions. Absolute silence is demanded of the opposition, under the utterly false pretext that it is a matter of great state secrets. This link is doubly shameful and unworthy: firstly, during the raid on our institutions in China, many secret documents were seized, not to mention the fact that these secrets are known to our "friends" Chiang Kai-Shek, Feng-Yu-Xiang and Wang -Ting-Wei, for all communications went through them; secondly, because we, the oppositionists, have not, with a single word or a single sound, touched and are not going to touch on those secrets that, as it was said, are already known to the whole world. 

In all our documents and speeches, the matter concerns exclusively questions of the political line. It is a matter of defending Bolshevism against Martynovism; it is a question of criticizing the Stalin-Bukharin line, which Dan fully supports on the fundamental questions of the Chinese revolution. By a false policy, the Chinese revolution was doomed to failure. But there are no and cannot be any means that would prevent the proletarian vanguard from understanding, discussing and evaluating the causes of defeat in order to prepare itself for victories. The CPSU, the Chinese Communist Party, the Comintern as a whole must find out the truth and they will find out. which would prevent the proletarian vanguard from understanding, discussing and evaluating the reasons for the defeat in order to prepare itself for victories. The CPSU, the Chinese Communist Party, the Comintern as a whole must find out the truth and they will find out. which would prevent the proletarian vanguard from understanding, discussing and evaluating the reasons for the defeat in order to prepare itself for victories. The CPSU, the Chinese Communist Party, the Comintern as a whole must find out the truth and they will find out.

Let's summarize:

1. The Politburo letter bases its characterization of the Urbahns group on false quotations.

2. The demand addressed to us is based, on the one hand, on precisely these false quotations, and on the other hand, on the facts and circumstances on which we gave an answer before the Joint Plenum in our statement of August 8.

3. Instead of requiring us to dissociate ourselves from the supposedly "renegade" and "counter-revolutionary" Urbahns group, the Politburo should have changed its characterization of this group, based on ignorance and false quotations slipped by someone.

4. Instead of demanding that we suspend the dissemination of our views at the Plenums of the Central Committee, conferences, expanded executive committees of the Comintern, etc., the Politburo itself must publish for the information of the entire Party and give all other parties the opportunity to publish our basic documents on the questions of the Chinese revolution, Anglo - The Russian Committee, the internal situation in the USSR, in a word, on all those questions on which the Stalin group has shaken the Party and the Comintern in recent years with an uninterrupted discussion, the main elements of which are false information, baiting and gagging.

August 30, 1927 ZINOVEV.

L. TROTSKY.

Sermuks.

Correct copy: [signature].

* * *

Top secret.

TO ALL MEMBERS AND CANDIDATES OF THE CC, CCC AND THE PRESIDIUM OF THE ECCI.

(Regarding the letter from Comrades Trotsky and Zinoviev about the group Urbans-Maslov of August 30, 1927).

1. Separate remarks.

First of all, the Central Committee notes the unacceptable anti-Party tone of the entire letter of comrades Trotsky and Zinoviev, pointed against the leading bodies of the Comintern and the CPSU and individual workers in these organizations. The authors of the letter obviously want to turn this correspondence on the most important question of the fate of the German Communist Party into an empty and quarrelsome squabble with the Central Committee, thus trying to gloss over the essence of the issue. The Central Committee brushes aside this unworthy method of polemic and ignores with contempt those petty "pricks", antics and attacks with which Comrade Trotsky and Zinoviev's letter is filled.

The Central Committee also does not find it necessary to go into an analysis of the ridiculous assertions of the authors of the letter, such as that “after the unprecedented bankruptcy of the Stalin-Bukharin line in the Chinese revolution and in the Anglo-Russian Committee, all thinking, all revolutionary, all honest elements of our Party and the Comintern go and demand Marxist analysis of events”, which analysis is allegedly presented in the factional writings of comrades Trotsky and Zinoviev. If we consider that the Comintern and the CPSU, and not the Mensheviks Dan and Abramovich, are the supreme judge in these matters, then it must be admitted that it was precisely comrades Trotsky and Zinoviev, who were convicted several times by both the Comintern and the leading bodies of the CPSU , in retirement from Leninismin questions of international politics, in questions of the Chinese revolution, the Anglo-Russian Committee, etc. Comrade Comrade Trotsky and Zinoviev obviously think differently, believing that the supreme judge in these questions is not the Comintern and the CPSU, but the Mensheviks Dan and Abramovich, after whom they willingly repeat false phrases about the "failure" of the Bolshevik policy, about the "collapse" of the line of the Comintern, etc., etc.

It is also not worth dwelling on the completely unexpected statement by Comrades Comrades Zinoviev and Trotsky that “Stalin’s group has shaken the Party and the Comintern in recent years with an uninterrupted discussion”, a statement representing the “highest example” of buffoonery and clownery. The "persuasiveness" of this clownish statement could be established at least on the basis of the well-known decisions of the XIII, XIV, XV conferences of the CPSU, XIII and XIV congresses of the party and from such facts as the "incidents" at Aviapribor, at Krasny Putilovets, where each time the opposition, headed by Comrade. Trotsky turned out to be the side that imposed "continuous discussion" on the party, and the party found itself forced to beat the opposition for this. We are no longer talking about the fact that only 9 months ago, in October 1926, the opposition itself, headed by Comrade Comrade Trotsky and Zinoviev, was forced to admit that it is she who is responsible for the incessant discussions in our Party. Here is what she said in her statement of October 16, 1926: “At the same time, we recognize that with our speeches in Moscow and Leningrad in October weviolated the decision of the Central Committee on the inadmissibility of an all-Union discussion, starting it contrary to the decisions of the Central Committee.

There is also no need to analyze the statement of comrades Trotsky and Zinoviev, taken from the ultra-left renegades, that “the Urbahns group cruelly criticizes the Stalin-Bukharin line as false, not Leninist, not giving a proper rebuff to the Thermidorian forces of the country and weakening the USSR with its mistakes against foreign imperialism." If, nevertheless, we mention this statement by comrades Trotsky and Zinoviev, it is only to emphasize the following circumstance. There is only one group in our Party which really repulses the pressure of the Thermidorian forces on the dictatorship of the proletariat, which actually unleashes the anti-Soviet forces by its splitting and anti-Party work, breeds and shelters real degenerates like Ossovsky-Dashkovsky, Maslov-Ruth Fischer, and so on. and thereby "weakens the USSR in relation to foreign imperialism." This group is Trotsky's faction. It is possible that the Central Committee did not always give a “proper rebuff” to Trotsky’s group, which “objectively becomes the center around which anti-Party and anti-Soviet forces gather and on whose corrupting activity the counter-revolution at home and abroad is already counting” (see the resolution of the Joint Plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission in August 1927). In any case, there is no reason to doubt that the Party will take this gap into account in the work of the Central Committee in the future.

The Central Committee cannot ignore a number of completely unacceptable and clearly anti-Party tricks of comrades Trotsky and Zinoviev against the Comintern and the CPSU, aimed at replacingThe Comintern and its decisions by the "Bukharin-Stalin line", the Central Committee of the CPSU and its decisions by the "Stalin group", "the Bukharin-Stalin line". The Central Committee considers that these anti-Party antics, which run like a red thread through all the factional writings of comrades Trotsky and Zinoviev in recent times, are intended to hush up and ignore the decisions of the Communist International and the CPSU, to depict these decisions not as decisions of the Comintern and the CPSU, but as the individual line of individual comrades and thereby facilitate the splitting policy of undermining and violating these decisions. Not daring to openly and honestly criticize the decisions of the Comintern and the CPSU, cowardly dodging the analysis of the decisions of these organizations, comrades Trotsky and Zinoviev are actually conducting systematic anti-Party work to undermine the authority of the Comintern - CPSU and frustrate their decisions under the guise of attacks on the “Stalin line - Bukharin, knowing full well that there is no “Stalin-Bukharin line”, but there is the line of the Comintern and the CPSU, which is defended and carried out by Stalin and Bukharin. Stigmatizing this cowardly and Menshevik method of "criticism" of the line of the leading bodies of the Comintern and the CPSU, which is trying ("criticism") to replace the principled struggle with the struggle of individuals, the Central Committee considers that only the complete ideological bankruptcy of Trotsky's group and the unscrupulousness of its leaders could dictate to them such methods of struggle, completely out of place for party members, but characteristic of groundless solitary intellectuals.

2. "Left communists" in Germany and their Russian lawyers.

The Central Committee considers the statements of comrades Trotsky and Zinoviev about “false quotations” from the printed organ of the “Left Communists”, about the “ignorance” of the Central Committee about the shades and trends among the “Left Communists”, about “political slovenliness” to be completely false, calculated to deceive the Party. etc. In fact, the first two quotations in our letter of August 23 are taken from the printed organ of one group of "Left Communists" (the Katz group), which Comrade Trotsky and Comrade Zinoviev are forced to admit in their letter, while the second two the quotations are taken from the press organ of another group of “Left Communists” (the Maslov-Urbans group), which Comrade Trotsky and Comrade Zinoviev are also forced to admit, moreover, as we will show below, between these groups in their struggle against the Comintern and the CPSU there is no fundamentaldifference. T. t. Trotsky and Zinoviev rant about the “watershed” between various groups and trends among the “Left Communists” (the Katz group, the Maslov-Urbahns group, the Korsch group, the Schwarz group, etc.), arguing that shades and shades between these anti-communist groups can be of great fundamental importance. But only formalist bureaucrats, who view these groups not from the point of view of the interests of communism, but from the point of view of their advocacy against the Comintern and the CPSU, can view the matter in this way. It may very well be that for the factional interests of Comrade Trotsky the difference between one anti-communist group, say, the Katz group or the Korsch group, and between another anti-communist group, say Maslov or Schwarz, can be of "great significance". For the Comintern and its sections in Germany, however, the difference between these groups pales and fades before the common interests of all these anti-communist groups, which is expressed in the joint splitting work of all these groups against the Comintern and the KKE. It is quite understandable, therefore, that for the Comintern all these groups represent one common anti-communist gang, one common anti-communist camp, the members of which, it is true, squabble among themselves over their "internal" affairs, but which always come outunited front when it comes to the fight against the "main enemy", against the Comintern and the CPSU.

We have quoted the first two quotations (see our letter of August 23) from the organ of one group of "Left Communists", the Katz group, because Katz is the most consistent and vivid spokesman for the counter-revolutionary views of the entire collective camp of "Left Communists". We have quoted precisely these quotations because what the Maslov-Urbahns group says in a diplomatically veiled form is openly and without embellishment expressed by the Katz group. Katz says (see the first two quotations in our letter) that the CPSU introduced capitalism in Russia, and therefore the current government in Russia must be treated as capitalist power. This is clear and definite. Another group of "Left Communists", the Korsch group, which is "in hostile relations" with the Katz group, says the same thing, but not so openly, although quite definitely,against the class forces of capitalist reaction , which in the USSR and in the CPSU economically, socially, politically and ideologically come forward with tremendous force ” (“Kommun. Politik”, No. 15–16, September 1926). The third group of "Left Communists", Maslov's group - Ruth Fischer, which sometimes verbally "dissociates itself" from other "Left Communists", says, in fact, the same thing., but in a more diplomatically veiled form, arguing that "the entire Russian policy of the current leaders of the USSR is growing counter-revolution", that the current leaders of the USSR "in a short time will go so far along their counter-revolutionary path that they will already be thinking about ... purely Thermidorian acts” (see the second two quotations in our letter of August 23 from Fane des Communismus, 3 13-14).

Isn't it clear that the "watershed" between these anti-communist groups exists only in the imagination of Trotsky and Zinoviev?

Trotsky and Zinoviev assure that “between the third and fourth quotations and between the first two there is nothing in common either in content or in spirit”, that in the last two quotations “for all their harshness ... it is by no means possible to find a hostile attitude to the CPSU and the USSR, if one does not confuse criticism of Stalin and Bukharin with hostile attitudes towards the CPSU and the USSR.

But only petty lawyers who are deeply hostile to the whole spirit of the Communist International and the dictatorship of the proletariat can speak like that. In the first place, since when did members of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of the Soviet Union begin to assert in our country that the phrase of the counter-revolutionary puppy Maslov: “the entire Russian policy of the present leaders of the USSR breeds counter-revolution” does notice an expression of “hostile attitudes towards the CPSU and the USSR, that the countless number of the same and worse qualifications of the Maslov group - Ruth Fischer in relation to the Comintern, the CPSU and the Soviet power are an expression of a “sympathetic” attitude, and not obvious hatred towards these organizations? 

Why, then, did Trotsky and Zinoviev dare not repeat such "sympathetic" qualifications in their statement of August 8? Secondly, how can one pursue a counter-revolutionary policy and cultivate counter-revolution in the USSR without restoring capitalism and the bourgeois system against socialism and the proletarian dictatorship, without introducing capitalism instead of socialism? The Katz group in its organ says exactly that, that the Bolsheviks introduced capitalism, and therefore the attitude of the workers to the Bolshevik power should be the same as the attitude to the capitalist power. And what does Maslov's group say? The Maslov group expresses the same idea in other words, saying that the current government in the USSR is carrying out a counter-revolutionary policy, therefore, it is reviving capitalism against socialism, for only under this last condition can one speak of a counter-revolutionary policy of the current government in the USSR. Where is the "watershed" between the Katz group and the Maslov group? Isn't it clear that the quotations from Maslov's organ are a retelling of what is contained in the quotations from Katz's organ, that these quotations are logically connected with each other, speak about the same thing and hit the same target, declaring the existing party and the Soviet leadership is anti-proletarian, counter-revolutionary, restoring, therefore, capitalism against socialism.

In order to advocate for the Maslov-Ruth Fischer group and justify their anti-communist struggle against the Comintern, Trotsky and Zinoviev diligently look for a "watershed" between this group and other groups of "left communists", arguing that the Maslov-Ruth Fischer group "dissociated itself" from the Katz groups , Korsch, Schwarz, etc., that it could not be otherwise, since they, Trotsky and Zinoviev, consider the views of Katz and Korsch "really defeatist", "really counter-revolutionary", really renegade", since Trotsky and Vujovic consider "the cutting off of such elements as Katz, Korsch, Schwartz as a cleansing of the ranks of the Comintern", since they, Trotsky and Zinoviev, assert that "this group (Katz's group) really stands on the other side of the barricade." That the "left" communist groups in Germany such as Katz, Korsch, Schwartz, etc. are counter-revolutionary groupings, that they stand on the other side of the barricade—we have been talking about this for a long time, long before the current leaders of the opposition even doubted their counter-revolutionary nature. The trouble with our opposition is that it artificially creates a non-existent "watershed" between these groups and the Maslov-Ruth Fischer group, being afraid to admit that all these groups, including the Maslov-Ruth Fischer group, constitute one counter-revolutionary camp against the Comintern and the CPSU. Is it not a fact that the Maslov-Ruth Fischer group itself prefers to remain in the same camp with these counter-revolutionary groups, refusing contrary to their verbal statements calculated to deceive the Comintern, to regard them as groups standing on the other side of the barricade.

Judge for yourself.

If the groups of Katz, Korsch, Schwarz are considered “really counter-revolutionary”, “standing on the other side of the barricade”, then how to explain the fact that in mid-March 1927, representatives of the Maslov group - Ruth Fischer, listing all the “Left Communists” expelled from the party, including Katz, Korsch, Schwartz, and others , demanded (at the Essen Congress of the KKE) that “the expelled, who stand on the platform of communism and demand a return admission with the immediate abolition of their unjust exclusion, again receive their full rights as party members?" Is it not known that both Katz and Korsh and Schwartz consider themselves "standing on the platform of communism"? How can one demand the restoration of the rights of Party members to people who are “truly counter-revolutionary”, “standing on the other side of the barricade”, people whose exclusion Trotsky and Zinoviev noisily declare “cleansing the ranks of the Comintern” and whose views Trotsky and Zinoviev consider “really defeatist”, "really counter-revolutionary", really renegade"? Is it not clear from this that the so-called "dissociation" of the Maslov-Urbahns group from Katz, Korsch, Schwartz cannot be regarded otherwise than as a swindling ploy calculated to deceive the German workers and the Comintern.

If the groups of Katz, Korsch, Schwartz are considered “really counter-revolutionary”, “standing on the other side of the barricade”, then how can one explain the fact that the Maslov-Ruth Fischer group considered and continues to consider not Korsch, Katz, Schwartz as the “main enemy” in their work and other counter-revolutionaries, but the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Germany. Here is the statement of Scholem and Ruth Fischer at the meeting of the commission of the VII enlarged plenum of the ECCI in December 1926: “ Meyer : From this phrase it follows quite clearly that the group of appealers (i.e. Ruth Fischer, Urbahns, Scholem) is not fighting against Korsch, but against the Central Committee. Ruth Fischer : Of course! Scholem: ...Of course, our main enemy was not Korsh, which represents a completely small group and which, in general, only thanks to the Central Committee and its wrong policy, has gained importance ... The main enemy is the present Central Committee of the KKE ... To fight against such a Central Committee, as long as it has the official leadership of the party, is the main task of every oppositionist”. (See minutes of the commission). How to call people who declare the main enemies in their work not Korsch, Schwarz, Katz, etc., who are "really counter-revolutionary" and "really renegades", but the leading body of the KKE, representing a section of the Comintern? Trotsky and Zinoviev call such people "beautiful revolutionaries." And we think that it would be more correct to call them counter-revolutionaries. "Watershed" really exists here. But this "watershed" does not pass between the Urbahns-Maslov group, on the one hand, and the Korsch group, on the other hand,

If the groups of Katz, Korsch, Schwarz, and others are considered "really counter-revolutionary", "really renegade" and "defeatist", "standing on the other side of the barricade", then how can one explain the fact that the leaders of all these groups have united with the Maslov-Ruth group? Fischer into one parliamentary faction in the Reichstag and lead a common attack against the German Communist Party and the Comintern. Here is the composition of this parliamentary faction of the "Left Communists" in the Reichstag: Katz - the head of the Spartak Union; Korsh and Shlyagevert - the Communist Politics group; Schwartz - "resolute leftist"; Ruth Fisher , Urbahns , Scholem, Schwan, Schutz, Kenzler, Paula, Firat, Schlecht - Maslov group - RutFischer; Tidt - expelled for publishing a pornographic tabloid organ. How to explain this association of allegedly “having nothing in common” “leaders” with each other into one parliamentary faction that opposes itselfThe Communist faction of the German Communist Party in the Reichstag? What unites them, if not hatred for the German Communist Party and the Comintern? Is it not clear from this fact that all the groupings of "Left Communism" in Germany represent one common gang, one common camp of renegades and enemies of communism against the German Communist Party, against the Comintern, against the USSR? It cannot be denied that we have here a kind of "watershed" fact. But the misfortune of Trotsky and Zinoviev lies in the fact that this "watershed" does not pass within the common camp of the "Left Communists", but between the Communist Party of Germany and between the renegades of communism from Katz to Maslov.

Judge now whether it is possible for even one minute to believe the "declarations" of the anti-communist group of Maslov - Ruth Fischer about its "dissociation" from all these Kats, Schwartz and similar rubbish, now happily found in the same parliamentary group with Maslov and Ruth Fischer.

In their advocacy zeal to whitewash the black and present Maslov's counter-revolutionary group, Ruth Fischer, as a revolutionary group, Trotsky and Zinoviev cite a fragment of a quotation from No. party the real attitude of this group to the question of the unconditional defense of the USSR. But they forget that they will not be able to deceive our Party. Firstly, what kind of defense of the USSR can there be on the part of the Maslov-Ruth Fischer group, if this group considers the current government of the USSR, as proved above, "counter-revolutionary", "Thermidorian"? Secondly, who, except for deceivers, can consider people who assert that “hands off Soviet Russia, you need to shout not only against the imperialists,but also against those who claim to lead Soviet Russia " ("The Banner of Communism", No. 14). Why do Trotsky and Zinoviev hide from the party these and similar counter-revolutionary views of the Ruth Fischer-Maslov group? Is it not because they themselves stand on the basis of these views?

No, Russian lawyers from the ranks of our opposition are positively unlucky.

3. The Comintern and the German Communist Party on  Maslov's group - Ruth Fischer.

How does the Comintern and its leading bodies view this group?

Let us take the period of the VI extended plenum of the ECCI (February-March 1926), when the Maslov-Ruth Fischer group first emerged as a group that had taken shape, and when Comrade was still the chairman of the Comintern. Zinoviev. Here is what the special resolution of the 6th enlarged plenum of the ECCI says about the "Maslov-Ruth Fischer group":

“The Ruth Fischer group is the most vacillating and empty element in the KKE. The ideological basis of this group is disbelief in the Communist Party, the labor movement and the proletarian revolution. On this basis, Maslov presents the development of the German revolution as a process that will drag on for whole decades, and even tried to prove (see his testimony at the trial) that such a prospect excludes the possibility of accusing him of "high treason" ...

... "This point of view (the point of view of Maslov - Ruth Fischer) expresses the decadent mood of the ruined petty bourgeoisie, and by no means the beginning rise of the German labor movement and the Communist Party" ...

... “Ruth Fischer is close to the views of Korsch in many important political issues, namely: in underestimating the German labor movement, in an anti-Bolshevik analysis of the Russian revolution and the international politics of the USSR, in supporting the corrupting legend of an imaginary “turn” to the right, i.e. about the opportunist degeneration of the KKE and the Comintern"...

... "In the interests of the healthy development, normalization and growth of the KKE, the speedy liquidation of the Ruth Fisher faction with its policy of "double bookkeeping" and the discrepancy between word and deed is necessary"...

... "The Ruth Fisher faction is bankrupt politically, organizationally and morally"...

... "The supporters of the Maslov-Ruth Fischer group must make a choice between the policy of the Central Committee and the methods of the unprincipled opposition."

We deliberately quoted these quotations from the resolution of the VI Plenum of the ECCI, adopted under the leadership of the then chairman of the ECCI, comrade. Zinoviev to show what Zinoviev was then and what he has become now.

Trotsky and Zinoviev now write in their letter of August 30 that "the persecution against Maslov began only when he sided with the opposition." These quotations show that Trotsky and Zinoviev are telling a clear lie, for the "harassment" of Maslov and Ruth Fischer, to use the words of Trotsky and Zinoviev, began long before these renegades went over to the side of the opposition.

Let us now take the period of the 7th enlarged plenum of the ECCI (November-December 1926). Here is what is said in the well-known resolution of the 7th enlarged plenum of the ECCI, called the resolution "On the exclusion of Maslov, Ruth Fischer, Urbahns and Schwan from the KKE":

“The political group of appellants (i.e., the Maslov-Ruth Fischer group, here called the group of appellants because it appealed to the Comintern in December 1926 for their readmission into the German Communist Party) had already several times been in a state of conflict with the Communist International. Not to mention the previous struggle, the current conflict was already discussed in a peculiar way by the commission appointed by the ECCI in the autumn of 1925, at the suggestion of which the ECCI addressed an open letter to all members and organizations of the KKE. Even then, representatives of the most important parties pointed out that the Maslov-Ruth Fischer group had embarked on the path of struggle against the Comintern. Incidentally, even Comrade Zinoviev said at the time about the leaders of this group that they were "enraged elements, some of whom will already find themselves on the other side of the barricade tomorrow." VI enlarged plenum, meeting in March 1926,

The developments carried out by the Maslov-Ruth Fischer group since the last enlarged plenum, in particular their speeches in the commission of the 7th enlarged plenum, fully supported this assertion. The appellants did not deviate in any point from their anti-communist views and from their actions hostile to the party. The commission stated that the appellants had made an attempt, through systematic factional work, to disorganize the party, hinder it in its revolutionary work and frustrate its campaigns among the masses (in connection with the plebiscite and in connection with the workers' congress). The Appellants, in political and organizational contact with the Korsch group, sought to split the KKE. After they were expelled from the KKE, the appellants, contrary to their promise, did not give up their deputy mandates, but stole them from the Communist Party in order to formally unite in parliament with Korsh, Schwartz and Katz into one faction under the false name of "Left Communists". The appearance of the appellants in the commission showed as clearly as possible that they are not communists and not fighters of the labor movement, but simply renegades of the proletarian revolution, systematically bringing down the most base attacks on the policies of the Comintern, the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of Germany. The appellants made an irresponsible statement to the commission that Maslov could not come to the USSR, because neither he nor they had any confidence in the organs of Soviet power ... systematically bringing down the basest attacks on the policies of the Comintern, the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of Germany. The appellants made an irresponsible statement to the commission that Maslov could not come to the USSR, because neither he nor they had any confidence in the organs of Soviet power ... systematically bringing down the basest attacks on the policies of the Comintern, the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of Germany. The appellants made an irresponsible statement to the commission that Maslov could not come to the USSR, because neither he nor they had any confidence in the organs of Soviet power ...

a) slander against the Soviet Union, whose policy it considers an expression of peasant-capitalist interests and a brake on the international proletarian revolution;

b) slander and struggle against the Comintern, which it accuses of "opportunism", of "liquidationism", of "constant adjustment to social democracy", of "decline and decay" (memorandum of Maslov's group);

c) slander and struggle against the Communist Party of Germany, an attempt to destroy, i.e., liquidate the party, and Korsch tries to do this by attacking from outside, and Ruth Fischer and Maslov - by decomposition from within ... "...

... “While its views differ only slightly, and then only in details, from the point of view of Korsch, this group officially dissociates itself from Korsch and all extreme currents in order to better obscure the anti-communist essence of its policy and not completely lose influence, to which she would inevitably be doomed if she openly revealed her anti-communist aspirations ...

... “To approve the expulsion of Maslov, Ruth Fischer, Urbahns, Scholem, and Schwan from the KPD and the Comintern; to call on all conscious members of the party devoted to the cause of communism to break off all political and organizational ties with these agents of the class enemy and to fight them as mercilessly as against all other social traitors .”

From this resolution of the 7th enlarged plenum of the ECCI it is clear, firstly, that the Comintern regards the Maslov-Ruth Fischer group as "agents of the class enemy", as an "anti-communist", "renegade", "social treacherous" group, in contrast to the our opposition, Zinoviev and Trotsky, who regard the Maslov-Ruth Fischer group as "excellent revolutionaries."

From this resolution it is clear, secondly, that Trotsky and Zinoviev, while supporting and praising Maslov's group - Ruth Fischer, are violating in the most rude and disloyal way the resolution of the 7th enlarged plenum of the ECCI, which obliges party members to "sever all political and organizational ties with these agents of the class enemy and fight them just as mercilessly as with all other social traitors.

Opinion of the Central Committee of the German Communist Party on the Maslov-Ruth Fischer group (August 6, 1927):

“The opposition openly and secretly, by all means and by all means, supports, strengthens and inspires the group expelled from our party, consisting of counter-revolutionary elements ., under the leadership of Maslow, Ruth Fischer and Urbahns. This group is waging a merciless struggle against our Party. Her whole policy consists of petty squabbles and partisan actions against the mass revolutionary work of the Communist Party of Germany. It is trying to disorganize the union of red front-line soldiers, the only militant organization of the German proletariat. Her newsletter, The Banner of Communism, is a collection of slander against the Soviet Union, a collection of base attacks on the Comintern, mockery and betrayal of all revolutionary movements in other countries (England, China, Austria, etc.). Having lost any influence whatsoever among the members of the party and having ensured that not a single communist worker follows them, the group of Ruth Fischer, Maslov and Urbahns turned into a composite, though insignificant,imperialist war against the USSR . This group survives only thanks to the support of two factors: on the one hand, thanks to its patronizing support by the bourgeois state, the judiciary and the police; argumentation that guides the tactics of this group and directs its agitation against our party” (see the statement of the delegation of the KKE at the joint plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission of the All-Union Communist Party of the Soviet Union on August 6, 1927 - Pravda of August 7, 1927).

In short, the Central Committee of the German Communist Party regards the Ruth Fischer-Maslov group as an anti-proletarian and counter-revolutionary group.

Opinion of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the German Communist Party on the Maslov-Ruth Fischer group (August 23, 1927):

“The Politburo of the German Communist Party resolutely rejects the very possibility of discussing the question of re-admission to the Party of people like Maslov and Ruth Fischer. These people are in the counter-revolutionary camp. The German Communist Party cannot negotiate with them; there is no way for them to be accepted back into the party.” (See "Pravda" of August 24, 1927).

Seems clear.

These are the facts.

Judge now who actually has “false information” and “ignorance” about the Maslov-Ruth Fischer group, Trotsky and Zinoviev, or the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of the Soviet Union?

What can our homegrown lawyers from the opposition, comrades Zinoviev and Trotsky, oppose to these facts and to the documents of the Communist International and the German Communist Party?

Carried away by their advocacy role, Zinoviev and Trotsky do not stop at sketching a biographical sketch of Maslov and praising him as a revolutionary, while referring to the decisions of individual commissions of the ECCI, which allegedly gave a favorable review of Maslov. Let us turn, however, to the documents. Maslov was tried in the Comintern twice: the first time in 1924 in a special commission chaired by Stalin, where Maslov was accused of provocateur in connection with his unseemly behavior during interrogation at the police department in Germany, and the second time in 1926 in the International Control Commission, where Maslov was accused of completely unacceptable behavior at a trial in Germany.

The decision of the Stalin Commission (1924):

“On the basis of the documents and testimonies of witnesses at the disposal of the commission, the commission decides:

1. The commission has no grounds for suspecting Comrade Maslov of being unreliable and declares that he is fully rehabilitated.

2. The Commission has no reason to further detain Comrade Maslov in Moscow.

3. At the same time, the commission takes into account the mistakes that Comrade Maslov made during interrogation at the Police Presidium, mistakes that are explained by the lack of necessary experience and revolutionary firmness of Comrade Maslov, and makes Comrade Maslov see the inadmissibility of such mistakes .

From this decision it is clear that the commission did not have documents proving Maslov's guilt in provocateurism, which is why they rehabilitated him. But it also shows that the commission emphasized the presence of Maslov's mistakes during the interrogation at the Police Presidium, explained by the lack of experience and revolutionary firmness, which is why they made him look at the inadmissibility of such mistakes.

The question is, what good is this for Maslov and what are Zinoviev and Trotsky rejoicing at, if Maslov's unacceptable and cowardly behavior during interrogation at the police department led a number of German comrades to think about Maslov's provocateurism?

Quotes from the decisions of the International Control Commission (1926):

“Maslov’s behavior (at the trial) was and remains unworthy of a member of the Communist Party and, especially, a leading comrade, which Maslov was then, for the following reasons:

It is unworthy for a communist to seek the mercy of a bourgeois class court, or even of the whole bourgeois society, or at least to ask this court for "equality in rights", because a bourgeois class court will always consider a class adversary as "an adversary of little worth".

It is unworthy before a bourgeois class court to refer to the contradictions in the party and to the opposition against the Central Committee of the party and the International, in order to deny or reduce one's own guilt through this "...

... “It is equally unworthy to invoke, for the purpose of exoneration from the charge of high treason, that in 1923 he did not believe in an immediate uprising, but that development should “take place more slowly” (in another place he said: “in 10 years”, etc.).

It is unworthy to report at a bourgeois class court about meetings of the Executive Committee and secret meetings of commissions in which he took part against his will and forcibly and as an oppositionist, all the more so since he does not give this testimony for the purpose of revolutionary agitation, but is completely obvious to in order to protect your own skin...

... "This behavior of Maslov in court caused extreme harm to the party and its authority even before the court" ...

... “The KIC refrained from collecting further material, because this can change absolutely nothing in its opinion, since it is based not on individual words or facts of a verbatim report, but on the entire behavior of comrade. Maslov, as a leading comrade, before the court.

We are no longer talking about the decision of the 7th enlarged plenum of the ECCI (December 1926) in the case of Maslov and his group, which confirmed Maslov's expulsion from the party, since this has already been discussed above.

Once again: what can be commendable for Maslov in these eloquent documents, which are now recalled with such aplomb by homegrown lawyers from the opposition?

Is it possible that, after all these facts and documents, Zinoviev and Trotsky will have enough "courage" to continue to defend suspicious types and crooks like Maslov and his friends?

4. "Loyal" Trotsky and Zinoviev and "disloyal" Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU.

Comrades Trotsky and Zinoviev are surprised that in their first letter the Politburo posed a number of questions about their attitude towards the Maslov-Ruth Fischer group. Moreover, they consider this a "disloyal" attitude on the part of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of the Soviet Union. They write: “The Plenum raised a certain question for us in relation to Urbahns. We answered this question in our statement of 8 August. What has been added since then? Why and for what purpose is the question raised again?”

It seems to us that Trotsky and Zinoviev are pretending to be surprised. In fact, they cannot fail to know that since the time of the joint plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission, in fact, after the appearance in German of a collection of unpublished articles and speeches by Trotsky and Zinoviev, the situation has changed. The Politburo already wrote in its first letter that in the "preface" to this collection, the counter-revolutionary group of Maslov and Ruth Fischer proclaimed the identity of their point of view with the point of view of the Russian opposition. These two facts are the fact of the appearance in German in the publication of the Maslov-Ruth Fischer group of unpublished articles and speeches by Trotsky and Zinoviev, and the fact of the proclamation of the identitythe views of this anti-communist group with the views of the Russian opposition, in the absence of any protest from Trotsky and Zinoviev, could not but change the situation. Previously, the situation was such that the opposition in the CPSU, without directly alienating the Maslov-Ruth Fischer group, nevertheless refused to identify with the anti-communist views of this group (see the statement of the opposition of October 16, 1926). Now, after the appearance of the aforementioned collection of articles in German, and especially the “Preface” to this collection, things have turned to the fact that the opposition in the CPSU is inclined to fully and completely identify with the anti-communist views of this group, for it does not protest with a single word or against the appearance of its own unpublished articles in the edition of this group, nor against proclaiming the identity of the views of the Ruth Fischer-Maslov group with the views of the Russian opposition. Hence the necessity of those questions with which the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party addressed Zinoviev and Trotsky. What is surprising here and how can one call, not wanting to make people laugh, this act of the Politburo an act of “disloyalty towards Trotsky and Zinoviev. Can it be tolerated that members of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of the Soviet Union fully and completely identify with the anti-communist and renegade views of the Maslov-Ruth Fischer group, branded by the decisions of the Comintern as a group of "social traitors" and "agents of the class enemy" of the proletariat?

Trotsky and Zinoviev's answer of August 30 fully confirmed the legitimacy of the questions that the Central Committee addressed to Comrade Trotsky and Zinoviev. In the statement of August 8, there is no direct evidence that Trotsky and Zinoviev fully and completely agree with the views of the Maslov group - Ruth Fischer. Now these data are available, because Zinoviev and Trotsky in their letter of August 30 justify and fully defend the anti-communist views of the Maslov group - Ruth Fischer and the counter-revolutionary views of this group against the Comintern, the CPSU and the Soviet power. The statement dated August 8 speaks of the inadmissibility of organizational ties with the Maslov-Ruth Fisher group. In their own letter of August 30, Trotsky and Zinoviev essentially confirm the existence of such links with this group. For the refusal of Trotsky and Zinoviev to openly protest against this kind of publication of their articles and speeches through the anti-communist group Ruth Fischer-Maslov, as well as the refusal to prevent such publication in the future, undoubtedly indicate that these articles and speeches appeared with the consent and with the assistance of Trotsky and Zinoviev, that such facts of unacceptable violation of party discipline will be repeated in the future. Trotsky and Zinoviev call this their "loyal" attitude towards the Central Committee of the CPSU! We are already talking about the fact that the attempt by Trotsky and Zinoviev to portray the legitimate demand of the Central Committee to refuse to distribute their articles and speeches through an anti-communist group, as a prohibition to distribute their speeches and articles among members of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the ECCI, is completely false and obviously hypocritical. We don't doubt

5. Conclusions.

We think that the following propositions can be considered proven:

1) the various groupings of the so-called "left communists" in Germany, including the Maslov-Ruth Fischer group, represent one common anti-communist camp, directed with its tip against the Comintern, the KKE and the CPSU;

2) shades and "internal" differences between these groups are of no essential importance in the face of their common front of struggle against the Comintern and its sections, which, by the way, explains the unification of these groupings into one common parliamentary group in the Reichstag.

3) Maslov's own group - Ruth Fischer and its leaders are qualified by the Comintern as "agents of the class enemy" of the proletariat, in view of which the Comintern obliges "all conscious members of the party devoted to the cause of communism to break off all political and organizational ties with these agents of the class enemy and fight them just as mercilessly as with all other social traitors”;

4) what is new in the relationship of the Trotsky group to the Ruth Fischer-Maslov group is, firstly, that the Trotsky group has moved from political support for the Ruth Fischer-Maslov group to a position of complete solidarity with the anti-communist views of the Ruth Fischer-Maslov group and, secondly, secondly, in the fact that by their refusal not to distribute their speeches and articles through this renegade group, Trotsky and Zinoviev confirmed the existence of organizational ties with the Maslov-Ruth Fischer group, thereby becoming in clear contradiction both with their own statement of August 8, and with the decisions of the Comintern and the CPSU.

All this suggests that Trotsky and Zinoviev have finally confused themselves by linking their fate with the fate of Maslov's social-traitor group - Ruth Fischer.

In order to extricate themselves from this situation, Trotsky and Zinoviev must make a choice between the Comintern and the CPSU, on the one hand, and the Maslov-Ruth Fischer group, on the other: either for the Comintern and the CPSU, or for the Maslov-Ruth Fischer group.

Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

1.IX.1927

https://istmat.org/node/60495