Bolshevik Leaders correspondence

Bolshevik leadership Correspondence. 1912-1927
Collection of documents 1996.
Compiled by: A.V.Kvashonkin, L.P.Kosheleva, L.A.Rogovaya, O.V.Khlevnyuk.

No. 142

G. K. Ordzhonikidze - Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), V. I. Lenin, V. Ya. Chubar, D. 3. Manuilsky

January 10, 1922

In the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP. Copy of com. Lenin, MEMBER of the Central Committee of the RCP comrade. Chubar and Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (b) of Comrade. Manuilsky 1 .

From a series of conversations with individual workers, secretaries of ukoms, cells, trade unions, rupas 2 , specialists, members of the board of the Central Communist Party of the Communist Party and a series of meetings held in Kharkov, Bakhmut, Lugansk, Debaltsevo, Kadievka, Yenakiyevo, Yuzovka, the reasons for Comrade Pyatakov’s disagreement with the Donetsk comrades seem to me in the following form 3 :

The CPKP is a rare exception among our numerous Soviet and economic bodies, distinguished by its discipline, order, and the precise and speedy performance of its duties. The leading group of workers of the CPKP was chosen very well. Many of them were able, while carrying out the major task of restoring the coal industry, at the same time not to break away from the party and professional organizations, maintaining the best relations with them (comrades Reingold, Korobkin, Larin, Butkov, Kirilkin, recently Pavlov and etc.). The work done by the CPKP is colossal. The CPKP with its leading group of workers, carrying out the dictatorship of coal, bearing on their shoulders the difficult and responsible work of restoring the large-scale coal industry, naturally took an economically dominant position in the life of the province and strove for the same in the party sphere. This will become all the more understandable if we remember that Com. Pyatakov, the Rupas and many other members of the DPKP are old big party workers. Many of them (Pavlov, Bitker, Yulin) do not imagine the work of the CPKP otherwise than with the presence of a provincial committee who is fully and consciously pursuing the policy of the CPKP. We were not only rupas in the localities, but also political workers who set themselves the task of transferring the party organizations to a production footing,” says Comrade. Bitker. Against this point of view - the dictatorship of coal - the Donetsk comrades object, moreover, they must be divided into two parts. A group led by Comrade Rukhimovich looks at our economic tasks in the Donbass differently than Comrade. Pyatakov and his associates. “We categorically object,” says Comrade. Rukhimovich is against the dictatorship of coal reigning in the Donbass, bringing down everything else. This trend of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, and perhaps the Glavtop, does not withstand any criticism from the point of view of the state as a whole. We must not forget that in the Donbass there is our main coal-fuel base, but that in the Donbass there is also the republic's primary metal base and, finally, the main chemical industry. And it is absolutely not by “localism” that our indications of the need for a uniform development of all the foundations of our industry, closely connected with one another, intertwined with thousands of threads, can be qualified, but by the audacity of “dared men” who have taken the liberty of pointing out to the center that not only should be, but such business executives must be removed from the economy in the interests of its restoration ... We have shown that it is possible without a fever, without special expenditure of the country's resources, as a temporary measure, to have a large amount of additional fuel with a small expenditure of bread. Our point of view remains the same - due to the additional amount of fuel from small mines, it is possible to slowly but surely restore large-scale industry, for which we should not load the Central Control Commission with a large production task, but pay attention to the restoration of large mines. Further Comrade. Rukhimovich, turning to the methods of the CPKP, characterizes it as follows: “Comrade PYATAKOV and his Pyatakovites began to behave like a conqueror among the Papuans, where everyone and everything had to unquestioningly obey this handful of people who call themselves the CPKP”4. The other part of Comrade Pyatakov's opponents, the Yuzovites and the Lugansk people, act as defenders of the places. Undoubtedly, they are dissatisfied with the fact that the CPKP and its bodies belittle the importance and authority of local bodies, they have claims, if not completely subordinate to the local bodies of the rups, then at least take them under their own hand. Tov. Lyapin from Lugansk writes on page 14 of the clean-up commission's report: “We need to cut off the edge of the vertical structure of our economic organs. Otherwise, the existing internecine strife may lead, with its continuation and deepening, not to the revival of Donbass, but to the second July catastrophe.”

With such a mood among the leaders of the Donbass, Comrade Pyatakov and his comrades required extreme caution and great tact in carrying out the really necessary dictatorship of coal. Moreover, by allocating coal [to] a shock group, thereby, both workers and employees of the coal industry were placed [in] more tolerable living conditions compared [to] workers of other enterprises in Donbass. It must be admitted that this caution and tact did not always work out for Comrade. Pyatakov and his staff. The disgracefulness of Chugurin, who drank in the summer [in] Yuzovka, and the repeated request of the Yuzovsky Ukom to remove Comrade Chugurin, left unattended so far, this same thing was not confirmed by comrades Semashko and Khorechko, of course, could not help strengthen the connection and commonwealth between the Yuzovites and the Central Control Commission. The eviction in Almaznaya of 80 souls of children for Selkhoz, which was later confirmed by a representative of the Luhansk organization, but to evict [with] such a scandal that the children with the singing of the Internationale returned back to the premises and occupied it, of course, is unacceptable. By the way, the eviction was not carried out by Comrade. Bitker, who at that time was in Moscow, and his deputy. The incident with Pavlov, subsequently exaggerated, the speech of Comrade. Pyatakova in Kommunist of September 10 - "Wounded Giant": "there is no time to observe party professional etiquette, and let us not be suspected of malicious intent in the event of repeated violation of this etiquette ... We have been given a task, and we will fulfill this task, maybe stepping on someone's feet. The Republic demands it, the working class demands it, our party demands it, and tangerine etiquette on the side." Pyatakov's order not to give any information to the organs of the Gubekonomosveshchenie, a telegram from Comrade Pyatakov to the Yuzovsky Ukom and the executive committee with a threat to betray them to the tribunal and the party court for attempting to arrest comrade. Chugurina. To this we must add the struggle around KIMKP. Tov. Pyatakov, not believing in the success of the operation of small mines, transfers them to the Gubernia Economic Council and after a while gets a rather sensitive competitor in the person of KIMKP. Tov. Pyatakov wants to take KIMKP under the control of the CPKP, to which the Governor's Economic Meeting does not agree, and a scuffle polemic begins. All this, in the presence of deep disagreements with the Donetsk comrades, heats up the atmosphere and completely spoils the already unimportant relations between the local comrades and the CPKP. These relations finally deteriorate at the all-Ukrainian conference5, reaching the point where the majority of the Donetsk delegation demands the immediate removal of comrade. Pyatakov from the Donbass, otherwise they will reject the candidacy, comrade. Pyatakov in the Central Committee with such a scandal that they would still make it impossible for Comrade. Pyatakov in Donbass. The Central Committee of the Communist Party (b) of Ukraine, not wanting to bring the matter to a political scandal, promises the Donetsk delegation to remove comrade. Pyatakov, after which the delegation votes for the candidacy of Comrade Pyatakov. All this struggle was confined within the circle of responsible Party workers and did not become the property of the broad Party and non-Party masses.

After the All-Ukrainian Conference, the work of Comrade. Pyatakov in the Donbass has become absolutely impossible, this is recognized by both supporters and opponents of Pyatakov. According to comrades, the mood among the broad working masses is satisfactory. Some misunderstanding of the New Economic Policy that occurs among insignificant party circles, according to the statement of both sides, is being successfully eliminated. The attitude towards specialists, as a general phenomenon, is good. The murder of engineer Monosov by cell secretary Ukraintsev has not yet been sufficiently clarified, but the available material does not give grounds to consider this murder as symptomatic, as a hostile attitude towards specialists. The killers are young people aged 19, party members [from 19]20.

There is reason to think that they became a tool in the hands of a member of the same cell, Zavalishin, who wanted to take the place of the murdered engineer. According to the opinions of the workers, engineer Monosov enjoyed the general respect of the workers. Monosov was killed by Zavalishin's rifle, [at] the moment of the murder the killers and Zavalishin were drunk. All killers are arrested. Immediately after the murder of Monosov, Zavalishin takes his place, remaining until his arrest. The assassination attempt on the engineer Alyashkevich was carried out by the former clerk Nikulin, who was expelled from the party for speculation. The cell of the mine came out in defense and with the justification of Nikulin, demanding his release from arrest. The cell is unconditionally decomposed and must be re-registered, which is done, albeit with a great delay. Nikulin Revtribunalom was released under an amnesty and returned back to the same mine, from where he was removed by rupa.

The coal industry is currently facing a food crisis. Stocks are available for two weeks. If a sufficient amount of grain is not delivered in time, a sharp drop in coal production is inevitable. Attitude towards Comrade. Chubar from the party organizations the best, they are all sure that comrade. Chubar will cope with his work, promising him all-round support. Employees of the Central Control Commission for the candidacy of comrade. Chubar is considered quite acceptable and they promise to cooperate with him, with the exception of comrades Pavlov and Bitker, who, without objecting to the candidacy of comrade. Chubar, consider their stay [in] Donbass impossible and ask to be released in a month.

I consider it necessary to draw the most serious attention of the CEC to the absolute collapse of the Donetsk railway. There are no signs of discipline and responsibility among the railroad workers. Coal, more than 100 million, lies and begins to burn, which causes demoralization among the miners. At the same time, on the section Kharkov - Bakhmut, trains crawl on firewood, stopping in a field for a surge of steam - they “sip”. With such a state of the road, the absence of rolling stock, food supply and non-payment of salaries, it is not possible to take out already mined coal.

A few words about com. Pavlov. I think comrade. Pavlova one of the best workers. Pavlov is a sick man, with frayed nerves and diseased lungs. The entry of a “warning” into his party book by the verification commission further tugs at the already sufficiently torn person. It would be a well-deserved reward if his membership card were freed from an unnecessary “warning”.

S. Ordzhonikidze.

RTSKHIDNI. F. 5. On. 2. D. 243. L. 1-2. Typewritten copy. The last paragraph, date and signature is an autograph.

Notes:

1 On the first page of the letter there is a note by Ordzhonikidze: “Tov. Lenin and Secretary of the Central Committee of the CP(b)U comrade. Manuilsky" and Stalin: "Read Stalin."

2 Rup - manager of works.

3Soon Ordzhonikidze wrote a letter to Lenin, in which he more frankly outlined his views on the reasons for the differences between Pyatakov and Rukhimovich: “Dear Vladimir Ilyich! In my report, of course, I could not indicate the main reason for the intensification of the struggle between comrades Pyatakov and Rakhimovich. Here the matter is as follows. Our Ukrainian comrades were convinced that Comrade Pyatakov had gathered all the Trotskyists around him and set it as his task to take over the Donetsk organization, waged a fierce struggle against Pyatakov, deciding to kick Pyatakov out of the Donbass, of course, nothing was forgiven him, but, on the contrary, everything was blown up. Our friends here say outright that they could not [allow] Pyatakov to turn the Donbass into a citadel of Trotskyism. Trotsky would not have been so silent if the Donbass had been in his hands. At first I was critical of these statements, but after looking closely, convinced that the local Pyatakovites were Trotskyists. They don't hide it very well. It is difficult to say how true the assumptions and fears of our Ukrainian friends are, but it is true that Trotskyists have grouped around Pyatakov and the Central Communist Party. It is difficult to say whether organizational work is underway to create and unite the faction [...]” (RTSKHIDNI. F. 85. Op. 23/. D. 1. L. 1).

4 According to Rukhimovich’s note “Our Differences,” his disagreements with Pyatakov began in February 1921 “on the question of the correct approach to the working masses” and flared up especially during the discussion about trade unions (Ibid. F. 5. Op. 2. D. 243. L. 5-7).

5 VI All-Ukrainian Conference of the CP(b)U was held from December 9 to 13, 1921.

No. 143

G. M. Krzhizhanovsky - V. I. Lenin

January 10, 1922

Dear V.I.! one

I am forwarding the review of two engineers of the Siberian Commission - persons deserving attention. As if there are interesting moments in this sketch "from the side" 2 .

I would smile to cooperate with Pyatakov: what do you think about this? 3

Let me bring to your doctor's attention the following medical advice. I remember that some of my acquaintances, who suffered from insomnia due to nervous overwork, praised the excellent effect of certain phosphorus preparations. In particular, the Swiss "phosphorine" - a completely harmless remedy, which in the bourgeois families of Moscow was used for feeding as very ordinary pills, just had a strong effect in this direction - that is, from insomnia. What will Getye say? Once again I repeat that in relation to yourself you behave like a "handicraftsman"; It's you! ... (um!) From this I conclude that you are an inconsistent electrifier.

I am very, very proud of you! 10/1 22

Yours, G. Krzh[izhanovsky].

RTSKHIDNI. F. 5. On. 1. D. 1105. L. 1. Autograph.

Notes:

1 The letter was sent to Gorki, where Lenin was on vacation until January 13, 1921 (V. I. Lenin. Biographical Chronicle. Vol. 12. P. 99).

2 Apparently, we are talking about developments within the framework of the GOELRO plan.

3 We are talking about the appointment of Pyatakov as Deputy Chairman of the State Planning Commission (Krzhizhanovsky). The appointment took place.

No. 144

Ya. E. Rudzutak to V. I. Lenin

January 10, 1922

10/1-22.

Vladimir Ilyich, here are the corrections that Andreev and I made to your outline of theses . Their short motivation:

To paragraph 3. The end of the paragraph must be changed so that it does not turn out that the workers and the factory management of the state factory are representatives of different classes, which is essentially wrong 2 . Hence there can be no class contradictions, but only misunderstandings on labor issues at a given enterprise.

To point 4. On point 4, Andreev and Dogadov and I had fundamental disagreements. They did not consider it possible to recognize the legality of a strike at a state [state] enterprise. Finally, we agreed on the wording of this paragraph that I proposed. Tomsky did not approve of my editorial, pointing out that it violated the logically consistent development of thought that you have. I could not but agree with him and will not insist on my redaction*, but still I think that it is necessary to soften some places a little 3 .

To paragraph 5. The wording of paragraph 5 was agreed between me, Andreev and Tomsky.

To paragraph 7. On paragraph 7, on the question of the role of unions in the formation of plant management, we did not come to an agreement. Andreev and Dogadov categorically insist on the old formula * "appointed by agreement between the trade union and the government agency." Tomsky and I no less categorically defend your editorial board that the union should play an advisory role in this matter .

The remaining amendments are insignificant and I will not dwell on them.

A few words about Tomsky's work. At first, Andreev, Dogadov and Antipov greeted the decision of the Central Committee on the return of Tomsky with dracoli . Andreev even announced his resignation if Tomsky returned to the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions. Yesterday, this group of comrades unexpectedly expressed their full consent to the return of Tomsky and offered to formalize it at the presidium of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions today. From this I conclude that there was a "factional" meeting not only of professionals, where the political disadvantage of the campaign against Tomsky was taken into account.

I personally regret very much that they gave up their positions.

From a conversation with Tomsky, I became convinced that he did not have a certain feeling of resentment. There are still some eructations against the Central Control Commission and individual comrades, but this is of no importance. Since in his work in the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions he can block only with me, I am sure that in the process of practical work his balance will be fully established.

From comrade regards J. Rudzutak.

RTSHIDNI; F. 5 Op. 2. D. 17. L. 44-45. Autograph.

Notes:

oneOn January 4, 1922, while in Gorki, Lenin completed work on the "Draft Theses on the Role and Tasks of Trade Unions in the New Economic Policy." On Lenin's instructions, the text of the theses was sent to the members of the commission on the question of trade unions - Andreev and Rudzutak, as well as to Molotov for the members of the Politburo. In addition, Lenin asked to tell Andreev and Rudzutak that, after reading the theses, they urgently called him (V. I. Lenin. Biographical Chronicle. Vol. 12, pp. 103-104). On January 12, the draft theses were considered at a meeting of the Politburo, which decided: “The text of the theses proposed by Comrade Lenin, take as a basis [...] Submit the theses with all the amendments to the editorial commission consisting of comrades Lenin, Zinoviev, Andreev and Bukharin for final approval and publication on behalf of the Central Committee with an indication of the support of the theses by the bureau of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions faction.

2 Paragraph 3 of Lenin’s draft Theses stated that in connection with the transition to the NEP “[...] in an environment of allowed and developing freedom of trade, the transfer of state enterprises to a large extent on commercial, capitalist foundations [...] inevitably gives rise to a certain opposition of interests between the working masses and the directors [...] Therefore, in relation to state-owned enterprises, the trade unions undoubtedly have the duty to defend the class interests of the proletariat and the working masses against their employers ”(Lenin V.I. PSS. T. 44. P. 343).

3 Paragraph 4 of Lenin’s draft theses stated: “As long as classes exist, a class struggle is inevitable [...] It follows from this that at the present moment we cannot in any way abandon the strike struggle, we cannot, in principle, allow a law to replace strikes with obligatory state mediation [...]” (Ibid., pp. 343-344).

4 Subparagraphs 1 and 2 of paragraph 7 of Lenin's draft theses were devoted to the participation of trade unions in personnel appointments. In particular, the 1st subparagraph stated: “Trade unions participate in the composition of all economic and state bodies related to the economy, nominating candidates and giving their advisory vote [...]”. In the 2nd subparagraph: “One of the most important tasks of the trade unions is to promote* and train administrators from among the workers and the working masses in general [...]” (Ibid., pp. 346-347).

5 We are talking about the return of Tomsky to the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions after a squabble and trial in the leadership of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions with the participation of the Central Control Commission. Lenin supported Tomsky. Simultaneously with the distribution of theses, on January 4, 1921, Lenin wrote and sent to Molotov a draft resolution of the Politburo on the organization of a commission of the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee for the purge of the personnel of the trade union leadership (V. I. Lenin. Biographical Chronicle. T. 12. S. 103-104).