The Stalin school of falsification - Marxists Internet Archive

Stalin School of Falsification -- Chapter 9
international revolution and not on supporting Purcell, you will not only fail to build socialism, but you
will doom the Soviet power itself. It is urgent that the proletariat understand this. The fault of the
Opposition, our crime, lies in the fact that we refuse to lull ourselves, and "optimistically" to shut our
eyes to the dangers confronting our revolution.
The real danger is from the Right, not from the Right wing of our party-the Right wing of our party
serves only as a transmitting mechanism-the real, basic danger comes from the side of the bourgeois
classes who are raising their heads, whose ideologist is Ustrialov, that wise and far-seeing bourgeois to
whom Lenin used to listen and against whom he warned. You all know that Ustrialov is not supporting
us; he supports Stalin. In the autumn of 1926, Ustrialov wrote: "What we need now is a new maneuver, a
new impulse, to put it figuratively, a Neo-Nep. From this standpoint, it must be recognized that a number
of actual concessions recently made by the party to the Opposition cannot fail to inspire serious
apprehension." Further: "All hail to the Political Bureau if the declaration of repentance on the part of the
leaders of the Opposition is the result of their one-sided and unconditionol capitulation. But woe to it, if
it is the fruit of a compromise with them. If the latter is the case, the struggle must inevitably flare up
again. . . . The victorious Central Executive Committee must acquire an inner immunity against the
decomposing poison of the Opposition. It must draw all the necessary conclusions from the defeat of the
Opposition. . . . Otherwise, it will be a calamity for our country. . . . It is thus [continues Ustrialov] that
the cause must be approached by the Russian intelligentsia within the country, by the business elements
and the specialist circles, the ideologists of evolution and not of revolution." Ustrialov draws the
conclusion: "That is why we are now. . . definitely in favor of Stalin." And what is your reply to that?
You seek to remove the Opposition from the Central Committee for the time being only from the C.C.
Ustrialov is a bourgeois who is acquainted with the history of the great French bourgeoisie, indeed, very
well acquainted with it. And this spokesman for the moods of the new bourgeoisie understands that only
the back-sliding of the Bolsheviks themselves can prepare the power for the new bourgeoisie least
painfully. Supporting the Stalinist C.C., Ustrialov writes that it is necessary to safeguard (what?) against
the decomposing Poison of the Opposition. In consequence he also is in agreement with you that the
Opposition is -- a decomposing poison; that it is necessary to destroy this poison, otherwise "it will be a
calamity for our country." That is what Ustrialov says. That is why he is not only against me, but also
why he sup ports Stalin. Reflect on this. You are dealing here not with ignorant people, the unconscious
or the duped who think that the Opposition carries on its activity with English money- no, Ustrialov is a
very class-conscious man, he knows what he is saying and whither he is going. Why then does he support
you? What is he defending together with you?
I was recently informed that comrade Soltz, in the course of a conversation with one of the comrades
who had signed the declaration of the Opposition, drew an analogy with the French Revolution. Now I
am of the opinion that this method is a correct one -- I believe that a factual exposition and a Marxian
interpretation of the Great French Revolution, especially of its last period, should be now reprinted for
the benefit of the party. Comrade Soltz is present here, he knows better than I do what he said, and if I
quote him erroneously, he will correct me. "What does the Declaration of 83 mean?" said Soltz. "What
does it lead to? You know the history of the French Revolution,-and to what this led: to arrests and to the
guillotine." Comrade Vorobiev, with whom comrade Soltz was talking, asked him, "So then, is it your
intention to guillotine us?" To which Soltz replied by going into a lengthy explanation, "In your opinion,
wasn't Robespierre sorry for Danton when sending him to the guillotine? And then Robespierre had to go
himself.
Do you think he was not sorry? Sure he was, but he had to do it. . .
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1937-st2/sf09.htm (9 of 21) [06/06/2002 15:07:02]