Molotov's speech. February 25, 1937
From Comrade Molotov's speech. February 25, 1937
Kaganovich (presiding). Comrade Molotov has the floor.
Molotov. [Speech is printed according to the text of the uncorrected transcript.]
Comrades, the fact that we are discussing here for the second time at a plenum of the Central Committee in the last two or three months the question of Bukharin and Rykov is one of the proofs of the greatest patience towards people who have long since turned their backs on our Party, or rather, their backs. For all the time of the struggle against mistakes, vols. Bukharin and Rykov, we remembered their merits, that they also had good deeds in the past, and did everything to straighten their line, straighten their behavior, give them the opportunity to enter the common road. But if we look at how they have behaved here and are still behaving, how they are acting here, how they treat the Central Committee of the Party and our entire Party, then for each of us who objectively looks at things, it is clear that this undisarmed enemies. (Voices from the seats. That's right.) These are the people who continue to attack the Party and the Central Committee of the Party.
Of course, it is in their position to come out and develop their bourgeois platform, as it is reflected in Ryutin's platform, to come out here and talk about the overthrow of the Soviet regime, as all their students and closest supporters call on, who surrendered, who were forced to tell the truth under all sorts of evidence that against them were in our hands, to come out here and declare that they are for the overthrow of Soviet power, for the restoration of capitalism, for terror against the leaders of the party, no one would have given them to come out with this and openly defend these things, and they know that they that's how you can now fight in the party. And they are waging it by other means, believing that their struggle is not over, and the minimum that is needed for the enemies of our Party is to show: those who are against the Party do not give up, hold on! (Mezhlauuk. That's right! Voices from the seats. That's right!) Those who have not yet given up, reach out, delay, hold back. Here are their tactics - Bukharin and Rykov. This is the tactic of people who say: those who have not yet been exposed - do not reveal yourself, those who undermine and fight against the party - lead it further, we are with you, we do not give up, we will deny everything. Bukharin, both in writing and here at the plenum, said: there will be a million testimonies, but I will not recognize them, say whatever you like, I will deny everything.
And Rykov, seeing that this is too hopeless a position, holds on to the same position, but with reservations, he admitted something here, since it would be clearly stupid to deny it. At the same time, he admits certain shadings in relation to Bukharin, so as not to be a copy of his behavior. But the behavior of both is not only the behavior of enemies who have not disarmed, which they have been in recent years, but it is the behavior of people who continue to fight against our Party, who are trying to hold on to their cadres, who hesitate to embarrass some of them, to influence others and to the maximum to maintain a line that is directed against the Central Committee, against the Soviet government, from what they have been doing in recent years.
But, comrades, we are discussing a very important question here when we talk about Bukharin and Rykov, and at the same time we understand that both Bukharin and Rykov, both of them in their present form, are nothing. (Interlauk. Right.) What they themselves can do is only what everyone can do from around the corner, on the sly, like a double-dealer, like a person who does something with his face hidden. (Voice from a place. Coward.) But we must take into account the fact that we have enemies. When they give a signal: hold on, fight, don't give up, renounce the truth, renounce the evidence, turn around, turn around - this still leaves someone in the positions of the enemies, not disarmed. Not only Rykov and Bukharin, they have other people, they were in our party, they still are. We cannot close our eyes to this. They appeal not only to their supporters in our Party, but also to those outside the Party. They give them a signal. It is clear from their policy at the present time that Bukharin and Rykov have departed much further from their former hesitations and mistakes, have gone far, are following their worst mistakes, are continuing their worst traditions of struggle against the Party.
About Bukharin. We all know quite well what Bukharin is for our party. We know that he wrote many articles, delivered many reports, made many speeches, but we know that during the whole period, as his party knows, from time to time he resumed the struggle against the party. During the war, this was a man who waged an open struggle against Lenin on fundamental issues, about the attitude towards the state. I remember in illegal times, in 1916, a letter from Lenin that we read in St. Petersburg, members of the Bureau of the Central Committee—I don’t know if it was published—where Lenin warned us that Bukharin and I had disagreements on the question of the state: he stands on the anarchist position of the destruction of the state and the negation of the state, I stand for the fact that the state, as a transitional form of the struggle of the working class for the complete liberation and for the complete triumph of communism, necessary in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. I have no doubt that this letter, if not published, has survived. And then in 1916, in the autumn of 1916, Lenin specifically warned Russian workers who worked illegally about this. (Stalin. It has been published, there is an article on this subject.) There is an article. And besides, there is a letter. I personally read it in 1916 at the end of November in St. Petersburg in an illegal situation in an illegal apartment, everything that is supposed to. This letter exists, Nadezhda Konstantinovna obviously knows about it. at the end of November in St. Petersburg in an illegal situation in an illegal apartment, everything that is supposed to. This letter exists, Nadezhda Konstantinovna obviously knows about it. at the end of November in St. Petersburg in an illegal situation in an illegal apartment, everything that is supposed to. This letter exists, Nadezhda Konstantinovna obviously knows about it.
Take further, subsequent events. Bukharin in the period of Brest is an ardent enemy of our party, a supporter of the possibility of surrendering the dictatorship of the working class, and [he] turns out, in the words of Lenin, not a Bolshevik, but a gentry, i.e., a petty-bourgeois hero who does not think about the interests of the party and revolution, but about keeping up with the petty-bourgeois masses, from all this Left Socialist-Revolutionary brethren who were against Brest. He and these Left Socialist-Revolutionary elements are in the same company against the party, against the Soviet regime, against Lenin. We know that nothing came of it. And the next stage is 1920 and 1921, when, in the words of Lenin, Bukharin "pours kerosene" into the discussion. (Voice from the presidium. Buffer kerosene.) He was engaged in fomenting Trotsky's struggle against Lenin, adding kerosene at a time when Lenin was talking about a crisis in the party, about the difficult situation in the party. And he played a treacherous role during this period, we know that very well.
A few more years passed. Lenin is no more. We are all rallying around Comrade Stalin. Bukharin seems to be with us. But it turns out that he collects his school of youth, all these assholes. (Voices from the seats. That's right. Laughter in the hall.) Slepkova, strangers, collects them in one company and says: "I personally learned about this only recently," and at the confrontation between Bukharin and Astrov, it turns out that that "I lost in the struggle against Lenin (Stalin. Although I was right), although I was essentially right, because I did not have my own cadres, and Lenin has his own cadres." (Voice from the floor. What a bastard.) “Essentially, in principle, the truth is on my side, but I turned out to be naive in the fight against a more experienced person. I also need to have my own staff.” Here is the start of school.
And we seem to be sitting in the same family, fighting against Zinoviev and Trotsky, smashing the Trotskyists and Zinovievites. True, we also receive quite decent blows from them of that time, on the sly. But still, it turns out that Bukharin, being in our company, has a stone in his bosom. You see, he has his own cadres of young people, he organizes his cadres. And not so easy. He thought not only about himself, he thought and hinted at something to Tomsky. Tomsky starts his cadres. He hints something to Rykov, Rykov turns on his people. Not only in its secretariat. Everyone knows that Rykov had some people not only in his secretariat, but tried to always have his own people among business executives. (Voices from the seats. That's right.) Being chairman of the Supreme Economic Council, he knew a lot of people and he has some organizational experience. He selected some of his shots. But what kind of footage? Unprincipled, who have no Leninism, nothing, who think very carefully about posts and discuss who was appointed correctly, who was wrong, who was offended, who was exalted.
Here at these various parties, supplied with snacks and drinks, in the company (Voices from the seats. Correct, correct.) attempts are made to add up their shots. Tomsky has the same unscrupulousness, the same snacks and drinks, but also his own cadres. Bukharin alone is smuggling in ideology, gathering Astrov, Slepkov, Maretsky, Tsetlin, Kuzmin, this very important ideologist. He now says that Marxism is no good, it will give a new ideology, more important and so on. Bukharin is trying to generalize all this rottenness which breaks with the Party on unprincipled grounds and finds its own ideologists and leaders. For the time being, he is supposedly in our common milieu, in our common main group, in the general bulk of the party, which at that period was fighting against Trotsky, and then against Trotsky and Zinoviev together.
But the point is that certain organizational forms had to be found for the new moods and for the new cadres. It turns out, Bukharin, that Astrov showed in more detail, and not only Astrov outlined a new type of party. He says that it is not the present Leninist Bolshevik Party that should exist. Under the present conditions, the party must be the basis, the organizational framework (Stalin. Not monolithic.), Not a monolithic united, Leninist party must be. He speaks of a party like the Labor Party, the Labor Party of England, where all currents fight freely, where there is no question of any Bolshevism. (Stalin. Federation of parties.) Here Comrade Stalin says exactly where it is a question of a federation of parties, where socialists and non-socialists coexist perfectly in one organization. But the party, which, of course, is not capable of any proletarian dictatorship, and it cannot even think about it, it does not want it.
He surreptitiously taught this idea, educating his group of young people on this, that it is necessary not to have a monolithic party of the present type, but a party like the Labor Party, where movements, groups, factions freely fight and where you can really show off as an ideologist with any bunch of ideas, with any tangle of principles, where it is possible to unite all these unprincipled ones - Rykov, Tomsky - perfectly well, because they are cramped within the framework of the Bolshevik Party, the principled Bolshevik Marxist Party. Therefore, the search for a broad freedom of influence for all movements and parties, these searches were already then in 1924–25. began to spread among their students, considering who they unite, why they unite and where they are doing business. It is clear that these were already all the prerequisites for the rejection of the Leninist party, of Leninism, of the Bolshevik party, from the dictatorship of the proletariat and from the Soviet power. (Voice from a place. That's right.) All the reasons were such that they gave a different situation, a different path, but at that time he did not dare to talk about it openly. He spoke more to his more devoted students, such as Slepkov, Astrov, Kuzmin, Tsetlin.
And so, comrades, it is certainly our good fortune that when an attempt was made by the right-wing deviationists in the person of Bukharin, Rykov, Tomsky, Uglanov and Schmidt to openly enter the arena, we were already alert enough to immediately launch a counteroffensive and smash their ideas. Organizationally, all attempts were aimed at letting our party down, breaking the party, destroying it, making it into another organization and directing it in another direction.
I will not now talk about what the Right deviation was. You all know this very well. You know that it was a line against socialist industrialization, against the collectivization of agriculture, it was a line towards a bourgeois-democratic deviation, towards surrendering the positions of socialism in favor of the kulak and capitalism. (Voice from the floor. Correct.) To the power of the bourgeoisie and to the restoration of capitalism. This has been sufficiently exposed by the Party. And in 1930, Bukharin, Rykov, Tomsky made a corresponding statement admitting their mistakes. But now, as we see, the recognition of these mistakes was made only to cover up their further struggle against the Party. You can, of course, now try to refute certain dates or places: that I did not go through the Spassky Gates, but through the Troitsky Gates, not with Kotov, that I could not pass through the Spassky Gates, that I did not walk,but drove a car, not could carry on political conversations that were impossible to conduct on foot.
None of this matters to us. For us it has a different meaning. If we find it necessary to investigate this case, we will investigate in full order. Tov. Vyshinsky will take an active part if Bukharin and Rykov seek it. Now it's not about the investigation. How can one treat such major facts as numerous testimonies, dozens of testimonies, not only of the Trotskyists, who were in a bloc with the Rights, who did the same thing, but the testimonies of friends Rykov, Bukharin, Tomsky, who lay out what they did in recent years, together with Rykov, Bukharin and others. How to treat it? Bukharin tried to prove that what concerns him personally is wrong, he cannot admit it, since he did not do it.
But it was difficult for Bukharin to say what to do with what people, these dozens of his closest comrades in the Right deviation, were showing about themselves when they said that they had participated in terrorist activities. And now Yakovlev, the former secretary of the Khamovniki district committee under Uglanov, shows in detail how he was engaged in sabotage at the Stalingrad plant. When he was transferred to Chelyabinsk, he was engaged in sabotage at a construction site, in production, poisoning water for workers and organizing an epidemic among workers. How is it to be understood that they talk in detail about what happened after we shot all 16 terrorists in the first trial, when in the second trial we sent all the wreckers who were directly related to this case to the same place? How to understand that they are forced to talk about it for themselves, that they were really engaged in both terror and sabotage? Bukharin says he does not know this. One can understand that they want to atone for their guilt, that these people want to disarm before the Party, to help the Party, and they even point out things that are not entirely accurate and not entirely correct. But these are the people who have already given up.
Finally, I will give you other testimonies, for example, the testimony of Kuzmin from the group of Bukharin, Rykov, Tomsky. Even now, during the interrogation on February 21, he said that he admits that Bukharin and he really carried on such a conversation, that he went against the Soviet regime, against the Party, that during the period when he was in Moscow, he met with his closest students and literally repeats what Slepkov and others said in their testimony, which was fully confirmed by Astrov, Tsetlin, Zaitsev and other young people from Bukharin, but at the same time he adds: “I,” he says, “must make you the following statement. I am your political enemy, the enemy of the existing system, which you call the dictatorship of the proletariat. I believe that the USSR is an all-Russian concentration camp directed against the revolution, that is, I am for an uprising, against Soviet power, I am for the overthrow of the existing system ... ”(Voices from the places. You bastard, bitch!) He says further:“ I am not disarming before you and I do not intend to capitulate. (Voice from a place. Who is this?) This is one of his closest students - Kuzmin. (Voices from the field. What a bitch!) He says: "I declare that I am a political enemy of the Communist Party, socialism and communism." This is one of the closest in Bukharin's group. (Stalin. Educated.)
Here is a man who does not say at all that he has disarmed. At the investigation four days ago he said: "I am your enemy, I am not disarming." Smilga accurately stated in his testimony: "I am your enemy, I am not disarming." (Voice from the spot. Here's a bitch.) Isn't Bukharin trying to encourage them? (Voices from the seats. Precisely theirs.) If he does not know that everyone shows the same thing, well, there are individual discrepancies in very small things, and there can be no complete coincidence, because some remembered one thing, others another, but there was If only the main thing is correctly stated by everyone, and they confirm the same thing. (Stalin. All these discrepancies within the framework of the confession.) Yes, within the framework of the recognition of all the other facts, but at what kind of trial do all the accused show exactly the same? This never happens and never can be. But we are not talking about the process, but about the legal side of the matter. What is this about? If you deny all this, say that I don’t know how this happens, then Radek said the same thing when he declared in his last speech: “Until I found out that I was the last one, until I found out who surrendered, until I established who gave up and who didn't, I didn't confess. And only when I found out that I was the last, did I begin to admit my crimes.
It is the same tactic, the same tactic of enemies who don't want to disarm, don't want to expose themselves, don't want to lay down their heads, who don't want to admit that "Yes, I am mistaken, I have entered into a criminal path, I am disarming." No, these people hold on to the end. These are the people who, with their tactics, can only inspire Kuzmin, who was part of the group, who says: “I am not surrendering, I am not disarming, I am against the party, I am against your socialism and communism, against Soviet power.” (Postyshev. "I am your enemy.") Yes: "I am your enemy." Bukharin and Rykov help these people, maintain their spirits, push them on to the struggle with all his behavior. (Voices from the seats. That's right.) Just such a thought. But it must be said, comrades, that no matter how surreptitiously they turn around, something obviously criminal and politically clear will come out somewhere.
We must not be so naive that Bukharin did not say anything against the Party during this time. This is not true. Not only at narrow meetings at home, not only at meetings here or there, he spoke against the Party. Here you take what he wrote in Izvestiya TsIK in 1934, it happened on May 12, 1934, and met Stetsky and Mekhlis in response, saying that it was impossible to silently ignore Bukharin’s article published in Izvestiya on May 12 34 under the heading "The Economy of the Soviet Country". Everyone can read it, I will not read this article and the objections of Stetsky and Mekhlis, I will read another - Comrade Stalin's remarks on this controversy between Bukharin and Stetsky. What do these remarks say? These remarks were sent to members of the Politburo, as well as to Bukharin and Stetsky.
These are the 4 remarks that Comrade Stalin had already made at that time about the article in Izvestia of the Central Executive Committee "The Economy of the Soviet Country". He says, sending this document to these members of the Politburo, as well as to Bukharin and Stetsky: “I consider it necessary to note that in the dispute between Comrades. Bukharin and Stetsky are right, Comrade Stetsky, not Comrade Bukharin. First, industrialization cannot be reduced to the creation of funds in general, as Bukharin does, since such a reduction obscures the difference between the funds of heavy industry, which is leading and reorganizing the entire national economy, and the funds of other branches of the national economy, which are neither leading nor reorganizing for our policy. The whole point is in this difference.” (Gamarnik. Right, right.)
“The second point is that it is impossible to make even a remote hint that our heavy industry developed allegedly by some or partial devouring of light industry or agriculture. It is impossible, because this does not correspond to reality, smacks of slander and discredits the policy of the party, and such, however, a distant hint, is certainly present in Comrade Bukharin's article. After all, he could not speak openly, but he decided to hint and carry out his own in 1934. (Postyshev. Yes, yes.) I omit additional remarks here and give an end to Comrade Stalin's conclusions. Quoting on three points, although I’d better read it in full for the sake of completeness: “In this regard, it should be noted that the former rightists sometimes try to reduce the difference in the attitudes of the party and the rightists to the fact that the party was going towards the goal allegedly by a frontal blow, while the rightists were going to the same goal in a roundabout, but less painful way, that if they had given the right an opportunity, they would have reached their goal with fewer sacrifices. There is no need to prove that such quoted theories have nothing in common with Marxism. In fact, the rightists were not moving towards the same goal, but into a trap set by the class enemy, and if the workers had obeyed the rightists, they would have been imprisoned.would be in a trap ... (Voices from the seats. Correct.) It seems to me that the remnants of precisely this counter-revolutionary "theory", from which Comrade Bukharin apparently has not yet freed himself, played a role in his article "The Economy of the Soviet Country". (Voices from the seats. Correct.) Here is Comrade Stalin's second remark on Bukharin's article.
Third remark: “The policy of collectivization cannot be reduced to the concept of an agrarian revolution, as Bukharin does. It is impossible, because such an "operation" obscures the main thing in which the policy of collectivization differs favorably from any other agrarian policy in relation to the peasantry. For our Party, the whole point lies precisely in this difference, i.e., in what Comrade Bukharin obscures. This, of course, is not a dispute about words, this is a question about the clarity and certainty of the wording. The Bolsheviks are strong in that they do not neglect the requirements of clarity and certainty. And the fourth remark: “One cannot speak of classical and non-classical NEP. You can't, because it confuses the question and can confuse people. New words are needed, but if they are caused by necessity, they create clarity, give a clear plus. They are harmful if they are not caused by necessity and smack of artificiality. The Bolsheviks do not need a game of new words. I. Stalin. (Voices from the seats. Correct.)
You see that in 1934 this sortie, which Bukharin decided to make not somewhere in his group among his students, or at Rykov's apartment, or when discussing the draft of the Ryutin platform, but in Izvestia of the Central Executive Committee, of which he was the editor , this is a sortie in defense of the views of the right at 100% only in a covert, more cautious form. No one could have allowed a more open defense of the views of the Rights in any of the organs of our Party. But that someone needs to be mobilized, tightened up, tightened up, brought back to fight against our party—Bukharin provided material for this. (Postyshev. He knew that his people were looking for.) This is for his people and for those who do not quite clearly understand the policy of the party. (Stalin. Roll call.) This is a mobilization of forces and an explanation: “Hold on, we do not give up, we continue to insist on our views in a different form, not like before, but we are fighting. That's what Bukharin was talking about. He did not lay down his weapons.
We treated the matter gently at the time. The matter came down to the fact that Stetsky wrote a couple of letters on this subject and Mekhlis one letter and assessed this case, Comrade Stalin, expressing the general opinion of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Party, and the whole thing ended within the walls of the Central Committee and it did not go beyond that. Comrade Bukharin knew about all this. We didn't want to definitively expose him. If this had been openly printed in our press, Bukharin could not have remained in the post of editor of Izvestia already in the summer of 1934. All confidence in our party would be destroyed in him.
Let us take the last period before the Trotskyist trial. Isn't it strange to you that in August we are conducting a big, huge political trial against the Trotskyists - terrorists who have got in touch with the fascist Gestapo, and so on and so forth, and not a single word of Bukharin against this trial has been published? Isn't this strange for a writer like Bukharin? You understand, not a single word of Bukharin against the Trotskyists has been published anywhere, despite their exposure. Did he try? Did. How can Bukharin resist and not write anything? He sent one article, then another, but they were absolutely worthless, they should not be published, they are all false through and through. An experienced writer, he knows what is at stake, he, of course, repeats the words. After all, Pyatakov also wrote high-sounding words, such as "chief bandits," and so on. But everything basic, the essence of the matter, is such that we did not dare to publish it.
And now six months have passed: August, September, October, November, December, January, February - seven months and not a single line of Bukharin against the Trotskyist terrorists, since in fact he politically supported them at that time. (Voices from the seats. That's right!) I'll read you a letter from Comrade Voroshilov. You got it all. I will read what Bukharin says about the party and its leadership. The process has already ended, he addresses Comrade Voroshilov as a member of the Politburo, one of the leaders of our party. The letter was written on August 31, 1936. “Put an honest question, if you sincerely believe, then I must be immediately arrested and destroyed, because such scoundrels cannot be tolerated ... (Voices from the seats. That's right.) If you think insincerely, but you yourself leave me free, then you yourself cowards who don't deserve respect." (Postyshev. What a bastard!)
There is a process. All these bastard Trotskyists testify that they were engaged in terror, that they went for it, they undress themselves at the trial. They point to Bukharin as a participant in these affairs. We, the Central Committee, assume political responsibility towards the working class. We think: let's wait, maybe Bukharin is not 100% to blame, let's find out the matter. We leave his signature in the Izvestia newspaper. We assume a certain moral responsibility, protecting and protecting him. And at that time, he says: either you do not believe in these testimonies, that is, it means that you understand the process as a false process, or you are cowards who do not deserve respect. This is because we are trying to help him out, somehow by the last means to keep him in the eyes of the workers and working people in general. It's because we're trying to save him. Beat us, scold us for being too patient, but we are trying to figure it out.
Already at the last plenum, we had enough evidence and again this case was postponed. We decided to give a person the opportunity to get out if he got confused. Even if he is guilty, give him time to admit his mistakes, get away from it, repent, end it. All ways were sought for this. What does he say? And do you think that Bukharin does not have a copy of this letter and that he will not let it go when necessary? (Beria. If he didn't let him in already. Stalin. What did Voroshilov answer?) Voroshilov answered very well. I must read Comrade Voroshilov's reply: “Comrade Bukharin, 3 September. I return your letter in which you allowed vile attacks on the party leadership. If you wanted to convince me with your letter of your complete innocence, then you convinced me of one thing so far - to continue to stay away from you, regardless of the results of the investigation in your case. And if you do not refuse in writing the vile epithets addressed to the party leadership, I will consider you a scoundrel as well. (Voices from the localities. That's right! Postyshev. Short and clear.)
Tov. Voroshilov gave a proper answer, and none of us, of course, can call such letters an abomination and vileness. Bukharin did not write a single line against the Trotskyite terrorists, but he has a letter against the Central Committee in which he pours his last words on us. Whose side is Bukharin on? (Voices from the localities. On the side of the Trotskyists.) These are the facts that speak for themselves. But if, comrades, all this did not exist, all these testimonies, etc., would one hunger strike not be enough? (Voices from the localities. Right, right!) Before the plenum, the Central Committee wrote a letter: I declare a complete hunger strike in protest against the slanderers and in view of the atmosphere created. This fact alone is enough, which he later had to admit as an anti-Soviet step. (Mikoyan. That's right!) And how else can it be viewed?
But since he does everything with antics, he only says this to the Politburo. We had to report to the entire plenum about this, to read it, but he speaks only for the members of the Politburo. (Postyshev. It turns out that he spares, you bastard.) Spares. He knows that Tomsky's card was beaten, everyone understood the significance of his suicide, no one took pity on Tomsky's suicide. Sees that it does not fit, come on a new way. He is a Christ. Look at him, how he twitches his head, and when he forgets, he does not twitch. When he forgot, then he didn’t twitch, everything was in order with him, but when he remembers, he twitches again. (Postyshev. Martyr.) "You can bring him to the plenum." You see what he has come to, he cannot come, but he came, nothing. He spoke ... (Voice from the place. He spoke for 2 hours.) He came, spoke and cursed as much as you like, wow. (Postyshev. He also called members of the Central Committee sheep.)
Two days have passed since he went on a hunger strike, and then he comes forward and says: I have been on a hunger strike for 4 days. At least read your letter. Here is the comedian, the actor Bukharin. Small provincial actor. Whom does he want to touch? After all, it's just a small act. This is a hunger strike comedy. Is that how revolutionaries starve? This is the counter-revolutionary Bukharin. (Stalin. There is no calculation of how many days hestarved?) They say that the first day he went hungry for 40 days and 40 nights, the second day he went hungry for 40 days and 40 nights, and so every day he went hungry for 40 days and 40 nights. This is a comedy of Bukharin's hunger strike. We were all terribly scared, we were in despair. The hunger strike is over. He is not starving, but just an actor, of course, a small one, in funny roles, but the actor is there. (Stalin. Why did he go on a hunger strike at night, at 12 o'clock?) I think it is because they don't eat at night: this is not recommended by medicine.
Comrades, this whole hunger strike is a comical event in our Party. Everyone afterward will say: there was a comic incident in the party with Bukharin's hunger strike. Here is the role of Bukharin, to which he crawled. But this is not art for art's sake, it's all for the fight against our party. (Voices from the seats. Correct.) He mobilizes everything he can. The same Kuzmin says about him - Bukharin: "Both right and left, both." Kuzmin is right, he knows him well from personal experience. This is really such a person, he is against Lenin, but he did not object with a single word to Maretsky's article, published in the Encyclopedic Dictionary, that Bukharin was the first to explain Marxist teaching. Bukharin, not Lenin to expose all these unprincipled lies, Bukharin could not find a single word to expose this vileness. To expose this unprincipled servility, because he is not ours in terms of ideas, he is someone else's ideology.
If he could still play the role of an actor, a person who wages an ideological struggle, then he is not on our positions, he is waging this struggle against our positions, against Bolshevism, against Leninism, against all of us, against the Soviet regime. So, he ends up with a miserable acting act. That's what Bukharin is, that's what's left of him. He puffed up like a little frog: he is a theoretician, he is a leader, he is a leader, but he turned out to be an actor in comic roles. If such a person can climb out of the pit, please get out, disarm yourself, give up this vile struggle against the Party. You can't cover it with anything. And now that you have been exposed in front of the whole party, you will be in a ridiculous position if you continue this rigmarole.
Now about Rykov. What is Rykov, we also know well. Before the revolution, I must say - I begin with personal recollections - I did not meet him, but I know that he was a major party worker, nomadic, supporting either Lenin or Trotsky, crawling into various cracks. (Stalin. At the plenum of the Central Committee in 1910 - Krupskaya should know about this - Kamenev, Rykov, Zinoviev in the bloc, Ilyich in the singular. Ilyich was forced to go to London, to the British Museum. Comrade Krupskaya should know this. And then Zinoviev went to see him and gave him back the paper he had taken.) That was in 1910, and after that he was in Russia. I worked for Pravda for quite a long period, Rykov was in exile somewhere, doing something, I don't remember him supporting us. Some letter signed by Vlasov (this is Rykov's pseudonym) was in the Menshevik newspaper, but there was not a single letter from Rykov in Pravda, there was no statement of his support for the party.
The beginning of the revolution, the April party conference. Rykov against Lenin, against the socialist revolution. October Revolution - Rykov against the October Revolution. We are dispersing the Constituent Assembly, Rykov is against dispersing the Constituent Assembly. 1920, the fight against Trotsky in a new stage. Rykov endures where the majority is, where the minority is, he joins tenth, sees that Trotsky does not have a majority, waited for a moment and voted with Lenin. Then the whole subsequent period, the right bias, where he is in the lead, where he sufficiently showed himself in full. Then take later, he repented, gave him a new job. What did he do in Narkomsvyaz? This is one of the most ruined people's commissariats. Yagoda says that the bosses and leaders there were engaged in sabotage. Let's check, find out this matter, but in any case, this is not work, but misfortune, then, that Rykov left in Narkomsvyaz. There is not a single person who would say that the work is well done. Worked very badly.
Here is the practical work, but let's take the political side of the matter. He also talked about the fact that he gave all sorts of testimony - this is his trick - he mixed up the cards. Everything can be said about the dead - he is an enemy, a pest, and a leader. There's some conscience and honor. (Beria. And he calls the living crazy.) And he calls the living crazy, his closest assistant Nesterov, who was his first secretary for 10 years and after that was with him, who was ill for a certain period, but he shows both before illness and after illness one and Same. This has to be proven somehow.
And now Schmidt shows that Schmidt is the closest friend who personally knew all their affairs while he was in Moscow and in the subsequent period, while he was outside Moscow, was closely connected and politically supported Rykov, Tomsky and Bukharin. Everything speaks against Rykov. However, he is not going to admit his guilt, his mistakes. How does he behave? I will not dwell on the details of the case, but I will take one example. Rykov does not like to write articles; Nesterov and the same Radin wrote articles to him, which show facts about Rykov's activities. On the other hand, he was more in the know. Let us take such a big fact as the Ryutin platform. This, in my opinion, is a very big fact. (Stalin. This is the platform of all Trotskyists.) Yes, this is the platform of all Trotskyists and rightists, of all counter-revolutionaries. I will read from this platform as proof of what Comrade Stalin said here, the most characteristic places. I am quoting the so-called Ryutin platform: “The main watershed of the Party at the present time is not along the line—for Trotsky or against...” (Reads.)
Here the idea of a bloc is one hundred percent expressed: our disagreements with Trotsky are a secondary matter, Bukharin's former ideas are also a secondary matter, the main thing is the struggle against Stalin, against the party, against the dictatorship of the proletariat. These gentlemen, who subscribed to the Ryutin platform, they called themselves the "Union of Marxist-Leninists." The Trotskyists called themselves "Bolshevik-Leninists", and these - "Marxist-Leninists". The platform ends with offers. They formulate the first point: “The Union of Marxist-Leninists calls for struggle...” (He reads.) This, of course, is already a reservation for the soul, and most importantly, the overthrow of the dictatorship of the working class, which is headed by our party. Here is the line: disagreements with Trotsky are a secondary matter, the old ideas of Bukharin should not be repeated, the main thing is: everything that can be united against the dictatorship of the working class and the CPSU (b), the main thing is the violent overthrow of Soviet power. This is what goes through the whole platform like a nail. And then, of course, as expected: “Immediately get to work! It's time to put an end to the state of confusion and fear...” (Reads.)
Here is Ryutin's platform. What is she talking about? If we now listen to the speeches of Bukharin and Rykov, what do we get? Bukharin, you see, argued: "You compare the style, it's not my style, so I didn't write it." It's pretty awkward. Let's take the factual side. In early June, the Politburo of the Central Committee issued a resolution to appoint a plenum of the Central Committee for the end of September. There is such a solution. In July, Bukharin writes an application for leave and leaves on August 5. Ryutin's platform was written in June 1932. Here the time was until August in order to tell, show, compose, there was enough time. But here's what's interesting, one very important fact - Rykov's behavior. Most of the comrades present here were also present at the plenum of the Central Committee at the end of September-beginning of October 1932, where Ryutin's platform was announced, and where it was spoken about, where the decision of the Central Committee was adopted, condemning this platform and demanding exposure, expulsion from the Party and bringing to justice everyone who even knows about the fact of such a platform. Here's what's interesting, at this plenum of the Central Committee, comrades will remember, Rykov spoke. (Voices from the seats. He spoke.) He declared - I remember this perfectly, we did not keep transcripts, but Rykov cannot refuse here, because most of the comrades were at this plenum - he said: “This is a White Guard document, if I As soon as I learned about such a document, I would consider it my duty to shoot the one who issued this document. (Eikhe. He said he would personally bring him to the NKVD.)
It was right before our eyes in early October, but when was the Bolshevik meeting where Ryutin's platform was read? He says I don't remember exactly. Let's take both options. Let us assume that Rykov read this platform first at the Bolshevik meeting, then was at the plenum of the Central Committee, where he spoke and said that he did not know about this platform, like a ram staring at a new gate, as if, it turns out, a new document, and if he knew someone who was involved in this case, he would personally drag him to the GPU. How could it be? It is unlikely that the Bolshevik conference took place before this plenum of the Central Committee. Well, it was after October? It doesn't fit the situation. Let us assume that this document was somehow new for Rykov, especially after the speech that he promised to steal to the GPU. (Voice from the floor. He said there was a meeting in the summer. ) How could it be for an honest person? How can you trust a man who spoke to us both in October 1932 and now, in February 1937, and is lying, openly lying (Shum.), As soon as he can lie. (Eikhe. Like a gray gelding, in Russian speaking. A voice from a place. And tears are pouring.) In both cases, he is a liar, he is confused.
Now imagine the position of Bukharin. Bukharin at the last plenum spoke before all of us (it is in the transcript) - he had not heard of the Ryutin platform, he does not know the content of the Ryutin platform, only Comrade Stalin showed him that there is a Ryutin platform, I say, I skimmed it. (Voice from a place. Didn't read. Mikoyan. Not interested in reading.) But Bukharin was quite a man. (Voice from a place. Slippery). So you yourself determine who he was and who he is - it is difficult to determine. The plenum ended on the 5th, and on October 7 Bukharin sent a letter to the Politburo and signed "with communist greetings to Bukharin." It begins like this: “To the Politburo. Having returned from vacation on October 6 and having read, in general terms, from the words of Comrade Rykov, the course of the closed session of the plenum of the Central Committee, I have the following to state in connection with this: firstly, I cannot but protest against the mention of my name by some comrades in a context that casts at least some shadow on me; secondly, it goes without saying that my attitude towards the counter-revolutionary document and organization, which was discussed at the plenum and the existence of which I first learned from Rykov's story about the closed meeting, can only be one thing - I also believe that a simple failure to report such outrageous counter-revolutionary documents, even if it is subjectively explained by extreme frivolity, is objectively the gravest crime against the party ... ”, etc.
You see, he fenced himself off from this matter with a note, but Rykov presented the document to him, was at the plenum, spoke himself, Bukharin knew about this platform, after that he met with Rykov more than once - in 1932, 1933, - he admits, that he had met—and well, he did not know about this platform after Rykov had read it in Bolshevo, when he had heard at the plenum of the Central Committee, and so on. But Bukharin speaks to us: I have not read; I have not heard. (Bukharin. Not a single word was said about Bolshev. Please interrogate, absolutely nothing. Eikhe. A fresh legend, but hard to believe.) Take Bukharin's speech, he tries to keep within the framework of the letter - he heard something. And then he tries to portray what he knows about this document only in such a way that he knows about this document, only from the note that he saw in the hands of so-called. Stalin and not for a long time received in the Central Committee at his disposal. (Mikoyan. Isn't it strange that Stalin gave him this platform and a member of the Central Committee is not interested in reading it. So, he knew before. How can a member of the Central Committee not want to read this document? Voice from the spot. He edited it himself.) Believe Bukharin hunters there's a little here. (Laugh.)
Take Rykov. I won't talk about Bukharin anymore; with Bukharin the question is more or less clear. Rykov - after all, his lies, lies, his attempt to inflate the plenum are completely obvious, even in this particular immediate case. This is how things stand at the present time.
Bukharin turned out to be more adroit at this moment. The year 1932, and especially the second half of 1932, was the most acute in terms of attempts by individual groups to get out. At this moment, the Zinovievists and Trotskyists are looking for a final connection, they are agreeing on terror. At that moment, a group gathered in Bolshevo near Tomsky to discuss the Ryutin platform. At this time in Moscow in August or September, Slepkov is gathering a conference of young people. Bukharin, knowing about these things, leaves somewhere far away, to the Pamirs, knowing about this document, in June 1932. So, it is with all these facts.
Well, comrades, after what we know about the political physiognomy and political activities of these people, the picture is quite clear to us. These people in all recent years have not made any attempts to get closer to the Party, these people have continued during all this time, after formal statements about the recognition of their mistakes, to carry on anti-Party work. (Bukharin. False.) This is the minimum that we can understand. "Wrong," Pyatakov, the pest, told us. "Wrong," said Radek, Lifshitz, Serebryakov. Everyone denied it, and we believed them. They did not believe that these people could reach such a crime. And at the present time many people are still asking themselves the question: it’s impossible, have these people reached such a state, after all, they were in our Party, they were in the most prominent posts in our Party, they are familiar with Marxism, they treated the working class well, they can’t be that they have come to this.
But, comrades, we know that what applies in this respect to Rykov, Bukharin and Tomsky, fully applies to Zinoviev, Kamenev, Pyatakov and Serebryakov. (Voices from the localities. That's right. Yes, yes.) They were also prominent members of the party and took part, worked together with Lenin for a number of years. And indeed they enjoyed great respect among the working people as long as they were with our Party. The tricks, hobbled about, left, stabbed the Party and Lenin in the back, stabbed our Central Committee and Comrade Stalin in the back in recent years. But still, people simply could not believe that things had gone so far.
That means, comrades, that we are doing a very big thing, that means that our struggle is very acute, that means that the question of fighting for communism or against communism is the fundamental, most acute question of our time. (Voices from the floor. Yes, yes.) This means that the question we are solving is indeed a question of the deepest importance for working people. And, of course, one can be amazed, one can rejoice at the successes that we have in our country. But, comrades, no matter how great our successes in the USSR, no matter how enormous the achievements we have made recently in our country, there are Social-Democrats, there are bourgeois democrats who are more or less liberal towards the USSR, and who do not want to go along our path.
After all, there is America, where there are as yet no prominent communists, there is England, there is France, where new cadres have grown up, but there is still a sharp struggle going on. Still, not a single prominent Social Democrat has finally abandoned the struggle against the Communist Party. All the same, he has a Social-Democratic soul, and for the time being he remains himself, in positions other than ours. And if people have gone over from individual vacillations to a whole ideology, to the creation of their own cadres, if their hostile attitude towards the policy of the Party, towards Leninism has been transformed from individual acts into a protracted struggle, these people are finished. These people are insane. These people are not with the proletariat, but with the bourgeoisie. They may choose a different path. Why can't prominent Social-Democrats follow the path of communism, although they are very prominent workers, have read Marxism and have seen all the successes that we have? (Stalin. They write notes.) People, who really seem to be able to deal with this matter with great success, but still they do not depart from the bourgeoisie, from capitalism, do not tear because they do not believe in communism, because they are afraid of the proletarian revolution, because their roots are connected with the bourgeoisie, with bourgeois democracy or with fascism, as has now been clarified. (Mezhlauuk. Fascists, of course. Voices from the localities. Correct.)
But if rightists and Trotskyists now tell us, not all, but many: yes, we harmed, we engaged in terror, we poisoned the water for the workers, we gassed the workers in the shops, there are such facts, they are now talking about it, then this is people who have completely broken with the working class, with our party, with Marxism and Leninism. So they are in a different camp. If anyone from this camp breaks away, finds the strength of courage in himself, remembers that he can still do something for the workers, we endured enough and took measures for this. But if you have begun a struggle against the Party and have gone over to an open counter-revolutionary path, we will act as it is proper to deal with such gentlemen. (Voices from the seats. That's right. Applause.)
There is a proposal to announce a break until 6 pm. (Voices from the seats. Correct.)
.jpg)
No comments