Leon Trotsky: Notes of a Journalist

Published June 1931

[Writing of Leon Trotsky, Vol. 3, 1930-1931, New York 1973, p. 245-250]

Manuilsky, the Leader of the Comintern

Nothing can be done about it: Manuilsky is at present the leader of the Comintern. His strongest side is that he does not take himself seriously. This is evidence that he is inclined to self-criticism. Whether it is because Stalin does not take the Comintern seriously, or for some other reason, it was decided that Manuilsky, who does not take himself seriously, is the right man for the job. And who else could be put there?

Were a complete collection of Manuilsky's "works" to be gathered we would have, if not an instructive, at any rate an entertaining book. Manuilsky was always somebody's shield-bearer. Moreover, he changed his "knights” many times; he stayed longest with the not unknown Alexinsky. Currently Manuilsky, serving as Yaroslavsky's shield-bearer, is one of the prosecution apprentices in matters of Trotskyist ideology. Under his own name or under pseudonyms, he has again and again proved the irreconcilability of Trotskyism with Leninism. But he has not always spoken this way. In 1918 Manuilsky issued a pamphlet in which he wrote that the "honor of liberating Bolshevism from national limitedness and transforming it into a theory of international proletarian revolution belongs to L. D. Trotsky."* At one of the plenums of the Comintern [Seventh Plenum, 1926], Trotsky quoted this citation, "famous" in its way, in the presence of Manuilsky and with full justification ridiculed both the citation and its author. This pamphlet was written by Manuilsky after the October Revolution; what is more, after its publication not a single hair fell from his head. This is true, it may be said, but it was written prior to the "trade-union discussion," and Manuilsky later changed his views. Not so. Recently we came across a quotation from an article by Manuilsky written in 1922 and therefore at the time when Lenin's illness was drawing the final balance of the relationship between Lenin and Trotsky. In the article, dedicated to the memory of Chudnovsky, Manuilsky wrote: "The Sotsial-Demokrat [Social Democrat], published in Switzerland by Comrades Lenin and Zinoviev, and the Paris Golos [Voice], which subsequent to its suppression by the French police was renamed Nashe Slovo [Our Word], edited by Comrade Trotsky, for the future historian of the Third International will be the fundamental fragments out of which the new revolutionary ideology of the international proletariat has been hammered out” (Letopis Revolyutsy [Annals of the Revolution] 1922, number 1, p. 229).

* Unfortunately, I am obliged to give this quotation from memory, but I fully guarantee the accuracy of the thought.

Today Manuilsky proves that during the war Trotsky was a pacifist and a Kautskyan, that Leninism and Trotskyism are irreconcilable entities; but in 1922 he maintained, neither more nor less, that "the new revolutionary ideology of the international proletariat," that is, the ideology of modern communism, was created by Lenin and Trotsky. Just when did Manuilsky see the light of day? Neither in 1914-16, when he worked with Trotsky on the Paris paper Nashe Slovo, nor in 1917-22, when Manuilsky together with the whole party worked under the leadership of Lenin, did he see the light. Only after illness and death took Lenin from our ranks and the epigones, spurred on by the wave of Thermidorean reaction, declared war upon the ideological heritage of Lenin under the name of "Trotskyism" did Manuilsky begin to recover his sight. Incidentally, not all at once. The triumvirate (Stalin, Zinoviev, Kamenev) kept him in the background for a long time, and only after it had thus brought him to partial repentance did it present him with an ultimatum: open up a campaign against Rakovsky as an introduction to a campaign against Trotsky. Manuilsky, after hesitating (Rakovsky's prestige was too high), accepted the condition and thus bought himself a place on the Central Committee of the party. This deal was no secret in the broad party circles because Manuilsky himself, with his characteristic cynicism, talked about it in talking about the people involved, revealing his great talent as a raconteur of national and other anecdotes. We repeat, this man never took himself seriously, either politically or morally. And he has now been put at the head of the Communist International! And he is now working out the road for the Spanish revolution!

Averbach Caught with the Goods

In Moscow there is published a Literaturnaya Gazeta [Literary Gazette], the organ of the Federation of Soviet Authors. The critic on this paper is Averbach. His right to be an authority on literature is determined on the one hand by the fact that he deserted soon enough the ranks of the Opposition, into which he came accidentally, for the ranks of the bureaucracy, where he is quite at home (L N. Smirnov i" used to say about him, "he won't stay with us — he's too gluttonous"), and on the other hand by the fact that he has absolutely no literary flair, to which every line of his writings testify. In the Literaturnaya Gazeta of February 19 Averbach wrote a very long article entitled "Tempos of Self-exposure (on Trotsky, Maïakovsky, and Fellow-Traveling)." Reproduced in the center of the article is a citation from Trotsky devoted to Mayakovsky's suicide From this Averbach extracts a quotation concerning proletarian literature. The "self-exposure" consists in the fact that Trotsky has at last openly recognized the complete opposition of his views to the views of Lenin on the question of proletarian culture and proletarian literature. Let us produce the quotation from Trotsky's article in the form in which it is presented by Averbach, along with his own parenthetical remarks.

"The struggle for 'proletarian culture' (quotation marks by Trotsky — L. A) — something on the order of the 'toted collectivization' (his own quotation marks — L. A) of all humanity's gains within the span of a single five-year plan — had at the beginning of the October Revolution the character of utopian idealism. It is significant that in this field, even then, the conflict between Lenin and the author of these lines was exposed."

The whole paragraph, as we see, is in quotation marks, and Averbach also points out correctly the single quotation marks made by Trotsky. Averbach is exact and scrupulous. But despite this, the Averbachian style of the quotation and particularly its last sentence — "It is significant that in this field, even then, the conflict between Lenin and the author of these lines was exposed" — is puzzling. For Trotsky not only points out that he had disagreements with Lenin on a definite question, but he even hurries to emphasize the "significance" of the fact that these disagreements were exposed "even then," that is, it would appear that Trotsky was aiming for self-exposure. This does sound odd. Averbach, however, does not spare comment "First of all, what is most obvious," he says, "is the frank declaration about the disagreements with Lenin." Yes, Averbach is correct There is something obvious. Further on: "We must be grateful; what is more pleasant to read than the acknowledgment by Trotsky himself of Lenin's disagreement with his views on literature and general questions of culture." The sentence is poor, like the majority of Averbach's sentences, but it can be understood. The article concludes: "The speed of the self-exposure is significant."

Thus in the year 1930, Trotsky exposed the fact that he did not agree with Lenin's views on literature. On this score, Averbach celebrates a victory and speaks of the speed of self-exposure. But in the year 1928, Trotsky was exiled to Alma-Ata and, in the year 1929, was expelled from the country for counterrevolutionary activity and preparation of an armed uprising against the Soviet power. Of what significance, in comparison with this, is Trotsky's disagreement with Lenin's views on proletarian literature? Where and in what does the speed (!) of self-exposure lie? Is it not the other way around? Does not this "disproportion" in the accusations expose — Averbach's employers? This is the political side of the matter. But there is also another side.

The fact is that Averbach lied from beginning to end. The quotation which he gave is not a quotation; it is a falsification, crude, illiterate, insolent — a la Averbach. Here, word for word, is the excerpt from Trotsky's article which Averbach distorted:

"The struggle for 'proletarian culture’ — something on the order of the 'total collectivization' of all humanity's gains within the span of a single five-year plan — had at the beginning of the October Revolution the character of utopian idealism, and it was precisely on this basis that it was rejected by Lenin and the author of these lines."

Thus Trotsky says that the philosophy of proletarian culture "was rejected by Lenin and the author of these lines." But Averbach says "even then, the conflict between Lenin and the author of these lines was exposed" — neither more nor less! The man who poses as a proletarian critic simply turns out to be a low literary swindler. This time he has been caught with the goods too crudely and it isn't necessary to say another word. We cannot help commenting, however, that Averbach's dishonesty is even more reprehensible because he himself is very well informed about Lenin's and Trotsky's attitude toward the Averbachian margarine of literary and cultural philosophy. Averbach knows how strenuously Lenin came out against the theoreticians of so-called "proletarian culture" in the years when this movement had a revolutionary content and was not yet in the grips of the bureaucratic charlatans. Averbach knows that if Trotsky had "disagreements" with Lenin on this question, they were perhaps expressed in the fact that Trotsky had a softer attitude than Lenin to the infatuations of the ideologists of proletarian culture and at times defended them to Lenin. Averbach knows that Trotsky wrote his book on literature in agreement with Lenin, who insisted more than once that Trotsky first of all work on the chapter devoted to proletarian culture and publish it in Pravda. Incidentally, its publication was not accompanied by any comments or footnotes by the editor. Yaroslavsky — Yaroslavsky himself! — wrote to Trotsky that he agreed with the viewpoint he expressed. All this is known to Averbach, because as one of the young aspirants to "proletarian literature" he had attempted a number of times to find in Trotsky a defender against Lenin's views, but invariably met with a rebuff.

Really, whatever aspect you touch, the ideology of the centrist bureaucracy is built upon lies, falsifications, distortions of the past. Just think of it. This Averbach comes forward as an instructor and tutor of the proletarian youth! He, Averbach, paves the way for "proletarian" (!) "culture" (!!). People who can judge by symptoms will understand from this example alone what a fatal danger the current party regime represents for the development of a socialist society and a socialist culture.

Fragments of Truth Under the Rubbish of Slander

In 1924 Zinoviev put in circulation a charge against Trotsky that by issuing the railway "Order No. 1042" Trotsky almost ruined the transportation system. With this for a canvas, Stalin, Yaroslavsky, and Rudzutak later embroidered various designs. In its day the legend made the rounds of all the publications of the Comintern. Lenin's and Dzerzhinsky's real opinions concerning Order No. 1042 and its import for transportation are quoted in a letter by Trotsky to the Bureau of Party History. But there is a comment of more recent origin. In Yezhegodnik [Yearbook of the Comintern] issued in 1923, that is, on the eve of the campaign against Trotsky, the article entitled "The Transportation System of the RSFSR and Its Reestablishment" states the following:

"At that time the transportation system was already completely disorganized. Not only was there no talk of reestablishing it but matters had reached such a stage that in the Council of Labor and Defense, Professor Lomonosov, a member of the collegium of the People's Commissariat of Transport, made a report to the effect that the transportation system was on the verge of a complete and inevitable breakdown. Comrade Trotsky, on taking charge of transportation, advanced two slogans which proved of decisive significance not only for transportation but for the economy of the country as a whole. … Order No. 1042 is an historical event. According to that order, the locomotive yard should have been restored in five years. Communist propaganda based on that order and communist zeal called forth by it must be regarded as the highest level attained by the enthusiastic readiness of the masses for heroic achievements in labor" (Yezhegodnik, Publishing House of the Comintern, Petrograd-Moscow, 1923, p. 363).

And so on and so forth. As we see, the function of "Order No. 1042" was different at different times.