Leon Trotsky: Letter to Sosnovsky

March 5, 1928

[Leon Trotsky, The Challenge of the Left Opposition (1928-1929), New York 1981, p. 54-59, title: “'Pravda' Sounds the Alarm”]

I received your letter three days ago; it took about twenty days to get here. This should be taken into account in future correspondence.

From your letter it undeniably follows that Barnaul is a far better place than Narym: Hurray for the wise ones who crossed out the word Narym on your travel orders and wrote in Barnaul.

I have already exchanged telegrams with Ishchenko and have written him a letter. I intend now to write to Vaganyan, having learned his address from your letter. You again mention Vardin and Safarov. Can't you let me know what kind of mood they're in and what impression the rather stupid and whining letter of the two "knights of the rueful countenance" made on them? Most remarkable is their argument about trade unionism. In the published document ["Problems of the International Opposition (Two Letters)"] we said that despite all the mistakes of the leadership – the miscalculations, the artificial slowing of the tempo of development, etc. – the Soviet government is doing immeasurably more for the working class than any bourgeois government could or would do, given the same general level of wealth of the country [see the second letter, point 17]. Our two Philistines – pitching their voices by the official tuning fork-object that this is a narrow trade unionist criterion, that after all, the task of the Soviet government is not just to raise the material level, etc., etc., but also to build socialism.

Ah, what intelligent and clever individuals! How could we, nonbelievers in socialism, even dream of such wisdom? … If all the workers in the world believed that the criterion of the dictatorship of the proletariat was higher than narrow trade union criteria, we would have nothing to worry about. But the problem is that the bourgeoisie and Social Democracy scare the workers away from the dictatorship of the proletariat precisely by arguing that the dictatorship in itself leads to the impoverishment of the proletariat, citing the comparative living standards of the workers without regard to the development of the productive forces. It is in response to this basic argument of the Social Democratic scoundrels against the USSR and against the dictatorship of the proletariat in general that we assert: The workers of a bourgeois Russia, with productive forces at the same level, would never have had a living standard as high as they have now, despite all the mistakes, miscalculations, and departures from the correct line. And this is the argument that our repentant Philistines call "trade unionist"!

Thank you for the newspaper clippings about the kulaks. They are very, very useful to me. Did you notice the editorial in Pravda February 15 on the grain collections? This editorial is truly remarkable. I quote: "Among a whole number of causes for the difficulties in grain collections, it is necessary to single out the following: The villages have expanded and enriched themselves. Above all, it is the kulak who has expanded and enriched himself. Three years of good harvests have not passed without leaving their mark."

This means that the obstacle to the grain collections, which means to the building of socialism as well, is the fact that "the villages have enriched themselves." And this because "three years of good harvests have not passed without leaving their mark," the article says instructively. Not without leaving their mark! One might think the author was talking about three earthquakes or about three plague epidemics. It turns out that "the increase in the income of the peasantry … given the relative lag in the supply of industrial goods, made it possible for the peasantry in general and the kulak in particular, to hoard grain." Further we read that although the kulak, that same kulak for which three epidemics of harvest have not passed without leaving their mark, although he is "not the principal hoarder of grain, nevertheless" – listen to this – "nevertheless he is the economic authority in the village" – why is this? – "has established a smychka with the urban speculator" – how did this happen? – "who pays higher prices for grain" – why is this? – and that "he (the kulak) has the possibility of drawing the middle peasant behind him" … Lord almighty, what kind of panic over the kulak is this? Why does this kulak "have the possibility of drawing the middle peasant behind him"? That is exactly how the article puts it. Why, you know, this is an anti party document, not an editorial. As for the author, Barnaul would be too good for him. I would cross out Barnaul and write in Narym …

Further it says: "The line of our party in the village in a whole number of regions (???) has proven to be distorted." In which regions? What regions are exceptions? About this nothing is said, but to make up for it we learn that "the party organizations … have far from everywhere organized work with the village poor as yet." In a whole number of regions … far from everywhere … It would be good to be more precise about this geographically: then we could find out if we are talking about one-tenth or nine-tenths of the country. But the most striking passage comes further on:

"In our organizations, both in the party and elsewhere, certain elements alien to the party have emerged in the recent period who do not see classes in the village … and who attempt to conduct the work in such a way as to offend nobody in the village, to live in peace with the kulak, and in general to maintain popularity among 'all the layers' of the village." An amazing thing! Where did these elements "emerge" from when for four years the process of merciless "Bolshevization" of the party has been going on precisely over the question of the peasantry (1923-27)? And apparently these elements (it would be good if they were named by name) have not only "emerged" but have had such influence on policy that as a result, "the kulak is the economic authority in the village … and has the possibility of drawing the middle peasant behind him."

One more question remains: How is it that these "elements alien to the party" – further on they are called "degenerated elements," which means they did not "emerge" but degenerated – how is it that these alien, degenerated elements did not reveal themselves in connection with the most important questions of party life in recent years? How is it that they didn't adhere to the "Social Democratic deviation"? The fact that they are alien to the party and have degenerated was discovered somehow in passing in connection with the grain collections as a kind of surprise. Can one doubt that these alien elements and degenerated individuals were and are the most inveterate haters of the "Social Democratic deviation," and the most ardent supporters of the "building of socialism in our country?" We can expect more than a few surprises from them in the future. The grain collections are a big problem; but after all there are bigger problems: for example, war or revolution in Europe. If the kulaks have the possibility of drawing the middle peasants behind them, and if elements who more than anything else want to live in peace with the kulak have emerged, appeared, or degenerated in the party, then in the event of major upheavals, complications, or policy turns, this could have a very telling effect. It is bound to have. This is the same old tail which has struck at the head (as yet only gently) in connection with the grain collections. In the event of a war, this tail will try to replace the head, or in any case will present its own stiff terms. But those in Barnaul, Narym, Alma-Ata, etc., will unconditionally and without reservations defend that very "socialist construction" which they supposedly do not recognize.

In the way of practical measures, the kulak's "surplus grain" is being confiscated, with Pravda recommending that 24 percent of the confiscated grain be handed over "to the poor." This is a much harsher measure than a compulsory loan of 150 million poods [2.7 million tons] from the top 10 percent of peasant households. Yet the proposal for a compulsory loan and other, similar proposals were said to be a renunciation of NEP, a return to grain confiscations, war communism, etc. Having heard so many speeches like that, the tail is now striking at the head, and apparently the blows are not all that gentle, because the Pravda editorial says further:

"Talk that we are allegedly abolishing NEP (listen well!), introducing grain confiscations, dispossessing the kulaks, etc., is counterrevolutionary chatter, against which it is necessary to wage a decisive struggle." The author of the celebrated slogan "Enrich yourselves" [Bukharin] is clearly offended. …

Charges of wanting to go back to war communism are appropriate for literary "discussion" against the Social Democratic deviation, but when the kulak is squeezing your tail, then the matter is no longer literary and you even recall something from Marxism. Further on, there are even threats directed at the "counterrevolutionary blowhards who talk about the abolition of NEP," and there are demands for purging the party of "alien and infiltrated elements." (But they have just been striking out at alien elements – or weren't those the right ones?)

The light-minded author of the article imagines that the alien elements who have appeared, infiltrated, or degenerated in our midst can be dealt with by an editorial. No, the matter is more serious than that. But years of falsification of Marxism have created a whole generation which "wants to live in peace with all layers" (except the layer of ["Social Democratic"] deviators). Meanwhile, underneath this new generation, and the degenerated elements of the old, major shifts in the social order have taken place, [that is,] "three years of good harvests have not passed without leaving their mark." And an ever heavier tail has been formed, which is testing its strength: first against the "Social Democratic deviation," and then on the grain collections question; later on it will get around to the question of power in its full dimension. No, dear friend, there will still be need of us, even great need.

Our advantage is that we have correctly foreseen. Marx says in his Civil War in France that at the time of the Commune, the Proudhonists and Blanquists ended up being forced to do exactly the opposite of what they had advocated before the advent of the Commune. We are seeing the same kind of surprises now, not only in the case of the grain collections but also in the case of the Canton uprising. We were told that Soviets are appropriate only for a socialist revolution and that in China what is going on is a struggle against feudalism. And what really happened? In Canton, a city that is far from China's main industrial center, the overthrow of the reactionary forces, even if it was episodic, placed power in the hands of the workers, and this power immediately took the form of Soviets, and these Soviets proclaimed not only the confiscation of the large landholdings (to the extent that they existed) but the nationalization of the large industrial and transport enterprises. "Skillfully was it written on paper" (or let us admit, not so skillfully), but in reality things have turned out quite the opposite. I had many arguments with Zinoviev on this subject, oral and in writing, early last autumn. It was with these in mind that he later spoke of "regurgitation." But events came along and tested things out!

But enough about the large questions. In spite of your proposal, we have not once gone to the movies. This is most likely explainable by the fact that there are three of us and one of you. Rakovsky is in Astrakhan, not in Krasnaya Yara.