[page 34]
History or Bolshev
Alan Woods, Editor of
of articles
The Second Congress, 1903
THE TURN of the century saw a period of rapid industrial growth in Russia, which served to strengthen further the working class, now numbering nearly three million. Between 1894 and 1902 the number of workers in factories with a workforce of 100-150 went up by 52.8 per cent. In those big factories employing from 500-1,000 workers, the numbers rose by 72 per cent. The biggest increase, however, took place in the largest factories, employing more than 1,000 workers, which increased by no less than 141 per cent. In the early years of this century, 1,155,000 workers were employed by 458 enterprises.
Layer after layer of workers was drawn into the strike movement which acquired an irresistable force in this crucible of whirlwind industrial development.
The class composition of the revolutionary movement reflected this profound shift in social relations. In 1884-90, a mere 15 per cent of those arrested for political offences were workers. In 1901-03, 45 per cent, almost half, were workers. The statistics of the strike movement illustrate the rapid process of politicisation of the working class:
1901 1902 1903 Political strikes: 22.1 20.4 53.2 Economic strikes: 77.9 79.6 46.8
The movement of the working class gave a mighty impulse to the struggles of the peasantry. Early in 1902, peasant revolts flared up in Poltava and Kharkov provinces. 10,000 troops were sent to suppress the risings, but soon the movement had spread to the Central Black Earth region, the Volga and Georgia.
The revolutionary movement of the masses served to awaken the intelligentsia from the slough of despond. The setting up of the Social Revolutionary Party (SRs) in 1902 marked the re-emergence of the revolutionary petit-bourgeoisie under the banner of Narodnism and terrorism.
Feeling the ground tremble beneath their feet, the political representatives of the Russian bourgeoisie hesitatingly began to organise. The publication abroad of an illegal liberal journal Osvobozhdenie (Liberation") in 1902 was the first timid step towards the setting up of the future Liberal Party (the "Cadets"). This event marked the
final breach with Marxism of the former "Legal Marxist" trend of Peter Struve, who now became the editor of Osuobozhdenie. For its "democratic" phraseology, the liberal bourgeoisie was seeking to do a deal with the autocratic regime. The trouble was that the regime was more inclined to put its trust in the Cossack's whip than to lean on the liberals, whose ability to control the masses was conspicuous by its absence.
"Zubatovism"
Having failed to check the move-
ment by brute force, the government
decided to resort to cunning. The head of the Moscow Okhrana (secret police)
SV Zubatov hit on the idea of setting up legal unions, under the control of the police, which were allowed to function, and even elect committees subject to police vetting and carry out activities, provided they were of a strictly economic, non-political character. This movement was far more successful than its authors had expected—or intended. In a climate of general labour unrest-and in the absence of genuine mass legal organisations-the workers entered the "police unions" in large numbers. In order to keep in the workers' good books, over-zealous police officers even organised strikes. These unions contained thousands of workers-far more than the relatively small numbers active in the Social Democratic committees. With their • customary resourcefulness, the workers turned the table on the police, and used the opportunity to press home their demands and organise legally in the workplaces.
The question arose of what attitude the Social Democrats should take towards these reactionary police unions. Many years later, when the Russian workers had already taken power, Lenin gave the answer in his masterpiece on revolutionary strategy and tactics, Left-Wing Communism- An Infantile Disorder:
"Under Tsarism we had no 'legal opportunities' whatsoever until 1905. However, when Zubatov, agent of the secret police, organised Black Hundred* workers' assemblies and working men's societies for the purpose of trapping revolutionaries and combatting them, we sent members of
our party to these assemblies and into these societies... They established contacts with the masses, were able to carry on their agitation, and succeeded in wresting workers from the influence of Zubatov's agents." I
This was always the hallmark of Lenin's method: absolute implacability on questions of theory and principle combined with extreme flexibility on tactical and organisational issues. The authorities attempted to construct a wall between the Marxists and the masses. But the Social Democratic workers, by patient and careful work and flexible tactics, succeeded in breaking down the barriers, penetrating the unions, and fertilising them with the ideas of Marxism.
The success of these tactics did not take long in making itself felt. Under the irresistable pressure of the shopfloor, the Zubatov unions became partially transformed into organs of struggle. After the strike wave of 1903, the unfortunate Zubatov was unceremoniously sacked! Even then this movement continued to play a role. The workers' demonstration which sparked off the 1905 revolution was led by Father Gapon-who started out as Zubatov's principal lieutenant in St Peterburg.
At the time of launching Iskra, the party in Russia hardly existed as an organised force. In the midst of
* The "Black Hundreds" were a reactionary, anti-semitic organisation used by tsarism as an auxiliary arm against the revolutionary movement.
35
[page 35]
Bolshevism
Part
Five
ideological confusion, factional divisions gave rise to a series of splits and the setting up of small groups. In Petersburg alone at the turn of the century there was the "Group for the Self-Emancipation of the Working Class," the "Group of Workers for the Struggle with Capital Workers' ban-
"The Socialist" , "Social Democrat", "Workers' Library", 'The Workers Organisation" and others, all claiming to speak in the name of the RSDLP.
Many of these groups were influenced by the ideas of the Economists* One common feature was the desire for a "pure proletarian" image. The firstnamed group advanced the idea that the interests of the intellectuals were at variance with those of the workers. The Petersburg League of Struggle itself, having been taken over by the Rabochaya Mysl' (Workers' Thought) faction of extreme economism, actually split into two groups-one "for workers" and the other "for intellectuals!"
Of course all this posturing revealed not a proletarian tendency, but precisely the opposite: the snobbishness of intellectuals who imagine that the way to win the workers is by pandering to the prejudices of the most backward layers of the working class. In the same way as the old Narodniks tried, with calamitous results to "go to the people" , the would-be middie class revolutionist imagines that it is possible to find a road to the masses by donning a donkeyjacket and using bad language. The intellectual who tries to curry favour by "abasing" himself before the workers, in reality demonstrates at one and the same time a pathetic lack of understanding of and a deep-seated contempt for working people.
The advance of Iskra
In reality what is required is the creation of cadres, educated in the theory and practice of Marxism and integrated in the working class movement, starting with its most active and conscious layer. The class-composition of the party must be decisively proletarian. But students and intellectuals can play an important role, fertilising the movement with their ideas and assisting its development, on one condition-that they have decisively broken with their class and placed themselves not only in words but in everyday practice on the standpoint of the proletariat.
The problem with the "Economists" was that they saw, not the face of the proletariat, but only its backside.
The tendencies of localism and
36
amateurism which prevailed in many committees were holding back the work at a time when big possibilities were opening up.
shra's mr areist theory or a
iskra s message, unified party, for a professional approach to the work, struck a responsive chord among the workers, although by the end of 1901 there were only nine Iskra agents in the whole of Russia, and the tendency was still in a minority. Many members of local committees were sceptical or even hostile at first. Thus at the second congress one of the delegates remarked: "I recall the article Where to Begin? in No 3 or 4 of Iskra. Many of the comrades active in Russia found it a tactless article; others thought this plan was fantastic, and the majority attributed it solely to ambition. Then I remember the bitterness shown towards Iskra by a majority of the committees; I remember a whole series of splits...
The Iskra tendency was gradually built up by patient work around the paper itself. Starting as a monthly, Iskra later appeared every two weeks. Slowly but surely, a network was built up of worker-correspondents in the factories and workers' districts, for the distribution of the paper, the systematic collection of funds, the linkup with different organisations and the establishment of a periphery of sympathisers.
A key role in this work was the steadily growing number of Iskra agents, men and women who dedicated themselves entirely to revolutionary work. Under difficult and dangerous conditions in the underground they undertook the task of building the tendency inside Russia, maintaining stable contact with the centre abroad, organising the illegal transportation of literature, establishing underground print-shops, etc. Commenting on this period in which he played an active role within the Iskra camp, Trotsky gives a vivid picture of the work and lifestyle of these agents:
'The immediate task of Iskra was to select from among the local workers the persons of greatest stamina and to use them in the creation of a central
apparatus capable of guiding the revolutionary struggle of the entire
country. The number of Iskra
adherents was considerable, and it was
constantly growing. But the number
of genuine Iskrovites, of trusted
agents of the foreign centre, was of
necessity limited; it did not exceed
twenty to thirty persons. Most
characteristic of the Iskrovite was his
severance from his own city, his own
government, (this appears to be a
mistranslation of the Russian word "gubyerna" meaning "administrative region", AW) his own province, for the sake of building the party. In the Iskra dictionary 'localism' was a synonym for backwardness, narrowness, almost for regression. 'Welded with a compact conspirative group of protessional revolutionists', wrote the Gendarme General Spiridovich, 'they travelled from place to place, wherever there were party committees, established contacts with their members, delivered illegal literature to them, helped to establish printshops and gathered the information needed by the Iskra. They penetrated into local committees, carried on their propaganda against 'Economism', eliminated their ideological opponents and in this way subjected the committees to their influence.' The retired gendarme here gives a sufficiently correct characterisation of the Iskrovites. They were members of a wandering order, above the local organisations which they regarded as an arena for the exercise of their influence." 3
The upsurge of the revolutionary movement provided a fertile ground for the spread of Iskra's ideas. As the only paper with a real national identity, Iskra became a powerful force for unification which swiftly broke down the resistance of the parochial local "committee-men"
In many areas, the struggle for influence within the committees led to splits. Invariably, however, the anti- Iskra committees tended to wither away and disappear, while the number of viable Iskra committees continued to grow.
Economists in retreat
The main base which remained to the Economists of the Rabocheye Dyelo (Workers' Cause) tendency was the emigrê "Union of Social Democrats Abroad." An attempt to achieve unity on a principled basis broke down, after a unification conference in early 1901, and the Iskra supporters finally withdrew from the union in September and the following month set up the "League of Revolutionary Social Democrats Abroad."
The Economists of the "Union of Social Democrats Abroad", seeing the situation in Russia slipping out of their hands, decided to launch a preemptive strike by hastily convening a Party Congress, which they hoped might give them an advantage.
* For an explanation of Economism see Militant International Review Number 31, Spring 1986 and Militant International Review No 32, Summer 1986.
[page 36]
At the end of March 1902, delegates from seven different organisations convened at Belostok. Because of the way in which it was convened, there was an anti-Iskra majority. But in view of the patently unrepresentative nature of the gathering (there was, in fact, less representation than at the first congress), there was no question of giving it the character of a congress. an Organising Committee (OC) was elected, with the brief of preparing a proper congress. Shortly afterwards, the majority of the conference delegates were arrested, together with two members of the OC. After that, the entire work of convening the congress fell to Iskra. At a new congress held at Pskov in November 1902, a new OC was formed, this time with a majority of Iskra supporters. The preparations for the Second Congress now began in earnest. The successes of Iskra in Russia enormously enhanced the authority of the Editorial Board in London, which acted as the centre from which came not only theoretical guidance but also practical directives.
But, unseen by the membership, there were serious and growing tensions among the figures of Iskra.
preparations for the congress advanced and the decisive date grew nearer, so these contradictions assumed an increasingly unbearable character. The great bulk of the work rested on the shoulders of Lenin and his wife Nadyezhda Konstantinovna Martov played an important role on the literary front. Plekhanov was a theoretical giant. But in practice the other older members of Plekhanov's group played little or no role. Accustomed to decades of life in small emigre circles, characterised by extreme informality, where personalities loomed large and at times overshadowed politics, "oldthe timers" were increasingly out of their depth in the new situation. The movement in Russia, from which they had been physically separated for decades, was foreign to them. Living in the intellectual shadow of Plekhanov, with no possibility of independent development, stulified their political level. They were being left behind and they were painfully aware of it. The six-strong Editorial Board (Lenin, Plekhanov, Axelrod, Zasulich, Martov and Potresov) was frequently the scene of bitter arguments. In the run-up to the congress, there was a running battle between Lenin and Plekhanov over the draft programmes each had drawn up. In an atmosphere of hightened tension, the tone of the discussion often became heated. SWEDEN North Ses GERMANY FRANCE NEVA MAZEALAND KAMENETS PODOLSK AUSTRIA-HUNGARY ITALY THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION ON THE EVE OF THE HUMANIA SECOND CONGRESS IN 1903 TOMSK A • Groups A Committees Crimean League -- Other bodies •TASHKEN Map of Social Democratic organisations, 1903. When, in January 1902, Plekhanov presented his draft programme, Lenin and Martov raised some criticisms, which Plekhanov, as usual took as a personal insult. When it was proposed that the draft be voted on, point by point, his response was to walk out of the meeting. Subsequently, Lenin produced an alternative draft, which was discussed in a tense atmosphere, including threats and ultimatums. Krupskaya's description of this meeting provides a vivid picture of the inner workings of the Iskra Editorial Board at this time:
Problems within Iskra "Plekhanov attacked parts of the draft programme which Lenin had drawn up. Vera Lasulich did not agree with Lenin on all points, but neither did she agree entirely with Plekhanov. also agreed with Lenin on some points. The meeting was a painful one. Vera Zasulich wanted to argue with Plekhanov, but he looked so forbidding, staring at her with his arms folded on his chest, that she was thrown off her balance. The discussion had reached the voting stage. Before the voting took place, Axelrod, who agreed with Lenin on this point, said he had a headache and wanted to go Vladimir Ilyich was terribly upset. To work like that was impossible. The discussion was so unbusiness-like." 4. The essence of the disagreement revolved not so much on fundamentals, but on a different approach to the work and a different conception of the role of the programme.
something abstract about Plekhanov's draft, which Lenin found too academic and insufficiently concrete. It was the 080m55 VYATKA @ vorooDA @ NOVGOROO @TARTU A KOSTROMA @ rakur • ОРОСНКА POUS-KI EGOREVSK O AA SAMAR в клитика ฿RYAZAI KOPYS O PORKI @PENZA SARATOV SHOSTKA KURSK • BOMSOOLEASX KONOTOF • ROMMY AKIEV • TSARITEYN @ sUrIM живого нойт.
& KRASHOYARSX Alach ca оФАкноАт CHINA @ EREVAN voice of the exiled propagandist, and not the rallying-cry of a new mass revolutionary party. On Plekhanov's side there was undoubtedly an element of spite in his attacks on Lenin, which contained phrases, as Martov complained, which he normally reserved for political enemies. ' Lenin's draft was covered by Plekhanov with double underlinings, exclamation marks, sarcastic comments about style and so on. Only the pressure of Axelrod and Zasulich induced Plekhanov to back down and apologise. In the end, a compromise was arrived at, but the incident served to bring to a head the intolerable position of the Editorial Zasulich and Martov usually acted as conciliators between Lenin and Plekhanov. Martov, an outstandingly talented individual, had come from the interior, like Lenin. But his temperament and life-style drew him closer to Zasulich and the others. Zasulich, Martov and Alexeyev shared a bohemian existence in a kind of commune, ironically styled "the Den" by the fastidious Plekhanov. Krupskaya and others have left a vivid picture of Vera Zasulich shut up in her room, agonising over an article whilst chainsmoking and living on endless cups of strong black coffee.
"I regarded Martov as a rather chartype of bohemian something of the eternal student about his appearance," wrote Lunarcharsky, "by predilection a haunter of cafes, indifferent to comfort, perpetually arguing and a bit of an eccentric." 6. Lenin always retained a high regard for Martov's intellectual qualities. Indeed, Martov represents one of the most tragic figures in the history of the Russian revolutionary movement. As Trotsky wrote: "A talented writer,
[page 37]
MIR Autumn 1986: Bolshevism Part Five
a resourceful politician, a penetrating mind and a graduate of the school of Marxism, Martov will nevertheless enter the history of the workers' revolution as an enormous minus. His thought lacked courage, his incisiveness lacked will. Tenacity was no substitute. It destroyed him...A revolutionary instinct doubtless lay in Martov. His first reaction to great events always revealed a revolutionary aspiration. But after every such effort his thought not being sustained by the mainspring of will-power disintegrated and sank back. This would be observed at the first glimp ses of the waves of revolution. ..
The sensation on the part of the older members that they were slipping behind gave rise to an ill-concealed resentment against Lenin. Axelrod was bitter about the fact that Iskra was based in London, not Switzerland, and so on. The work of the Editorial Board was hampered by the fact that the six members frequently split into two equal groups. For this reason, Lenin formally requested the inclusion of Trotsky (known by his pseudonym, "Pero", the "pen") as a seventh member of the Editorial Board. In a letter to Plekhanov, he wrote: "I am submitting to all members of the Editorial Board a proposal to co-opt "Pero" as a full member of the Board. (I believe that for co-optation not a majority but a unanimous decision is needed.)
The Second Congress
"We are very much in need of a seventh member both because it would simplify voting (six being an even number) and reinforce the Board.
"Pero' has been writing in every issue for several months now. In general he is working for Iskra most energetically, delivering lectures (and with tremendous success)etc. For our department of topical articles and items he will be not only very useful but quite indispensable. He is unquestionably a man of more than average ability, convinced, energetic, and promising. And he could do a good deal in the sphere of translation and popular literature.
"We must draw in young forces: this will encourage them and prompt them to regard themselves as professional writers. And that we have too few of such is clear-witness 1) the difficulty of finding editors of translations; 2) the shortage of articles reviewing the internal situation, and 3) the shortage of popular literature. It is in the sphere of popular literature that 'Pero' would like to try his hand.
'Possible arguments
against:
youth; 2) his early (perhaps) return to Russia; 3) a pen (without quotation marks) with traces of feuilleton style, too pretentious, etc.
"Ad 1) 'Pero' is suggested not for an independent post, but for the Board. In it he will gain experience. He undoubtedly has the 'intuition' of a Party man, a man of our trend; as for knowledge and experience these can be acquired. That he is hardworking is likewise unquestionable. It is necessary to co-opt him so as finally, to draw him in and encourage him... (From Lenin's Collected Works volume 43,pp110-111).
However, Plekhanov, guessing that Trotsky would support Lenin, placing him in a minority, angrily vetoed the proposal.
The experiences of the past three years showed the need to put the party on a new tooting. It was necessary to effect a decisive break with the past to put an end to the "small circle" mentality, amateurism, organisational looseness and lay the basis for a strong, unified mass workers' party. In view of the harm done by localism and the need to adapt to difficult underground conditions, Lenin laid heavy stress upon the need for centralism.
The forthcoming congress would have to elect a leadership in a situation where the most important political leaders were in exile. The interior clearly had to be represented on the leading bodies, but Lenin opposed the idea of the Iskra Editorial Board—which was entirely responsible for re-building the party-relinquishing the leadership. The young Trotsky who had recently escaped from Siberia and come to London to assist the work of Iskra was surprised by Lenin's formulation:
"I arrived abroad with the belief that the Editorial Board should be made subordinate to the Central Committee. That was the prevailing attitude of the majority of Iskra followers.
''It can't be done' objected Lenin. 'The correlation of forces is different. How can they guide us from Russia? No, it can't be done. We are the stable centre, we are stronger in ideas, and we must exercise the guidance from here." 8
No-one suspected that at the longedfor Second Congress the Iskra camp would split precisely on the question of the leading bodies.
The Second Congress finally convened on the 17 July 1903 in Brussels, where its first thirteen sessions were held. The attentions of the police forced the congress to move to London where it re-convened as an Anglers' club, periodically changing the venue
to different workers' meeting places to avoid detection.
At the First Congress, the movement in the interior had been represented by only five local committees. The present gathering could now claim to represent several thousand members, with influence over hundreds of thousands of workers. The majority of delegates were young, mostly under 30 years old. Lenin, at 33, was already a veteran. The rapid pace of revolutionary events in Russia was a forcing house for the development of the young cadres of Marxism. Only the former members of Plekhanov's Emancipation of Labour Group stood out as the representatives of an older revolutionary generation, belonging to a different epoch, almost a different world.
Debate on the Bund
The conditions for acceptance as a delegation was a minimum of twelve months' existance as an active organisation. Several local committees (Voronezh, Samara, Poltrava, Kishinev etc) were not invited because they did not fulfil this condition. There were 43 delegates with 51 full votes. Partly because in many areas there was more than one local committee, every delegation was given two full votes, whether or not there were more than one delegate present. The Central Committee of the Bund was given three votes (one for the Bund's foreign organisation), and the two Petersburg organisations, one vote each. In addition, there were 14 people present with a consultative vote, including two representatives of the Polish and Lithunanian Social Democracy who arrived during the tenth session.
The Iskra group, in theory, had a clear majority with 33 votes. The open opponents of Iskra held eight votes-3 "Economists" and 5 Bundists. The remaining votes were held by indecisive, wavering elements, whom Lenin later characterised as the "centre" or "the marsh"
Over the years, the events of this congress have been heavily overlaid with a crust of myths, inventions and downright falsehoods. Here, it is alleged, Bolshevism emerged, fully clad and armed, like Palas Athene from the head of Zeus. Yet closer examination reveals that the split between "Bolsheviks" ("majority-ites") and "Mensheviks" ("minority-ites"), or more accurately between "hards" and "softs" in 1903 was by no means final but only an anticipation of future differences. The real split did not occur until 1912-almost a decade later.
The differences between Lenin and
[page 38]
Martov began to surface at the 22nd session, when the congress had been going on for two weeks. In all the previous sessions there was complete unanimity in the Iskra camp on all political questions.
A great deal of time was taken up with the question of the place of the Bund in the party. (For a characterisation of the Bund see Militant International Review, No 32, Summer 1986). This debate was of crucial importance in clarifying the Marxist attitude towards the national question. The historic significance of this can be gauged by the fact that without a clear position on the national question, the Russian Revolution could never have been successful.
In The History of the Russian Revolution, Irotsky gives a succinct definition of the Bolshevik position on the national question:
"Lenin early learned the inevitability of this development of centrifugal national movements in Russia, and for many years stubbornly fought-most particularly Luxemburg-for that most famous paragraph of the old party programme which formulated the right of selfdetermination-that is, to complete separation as states. In this the Bolshevik Party did not by any means undertake an evangel of separation. It merely an obligation assumed to struggle implacably against every form of national oppression, including the forcible retention of this or that nationality within the boundaries of the general state. Only in this way could the Russian proletariat gradually win the confidence of the oppressed nationalities.
"But that was only one side of the matter. The policy of Bolshevism in che national sphere had also another side, apparently contradictory to the first, but in reality supplementing it. Within the framework of the party, and the workers' organisations in general, Bolshevism insisted upon a rigid centralism, implacably warring against every taint of nationalism which might set the workers one against the other or disunite them. While flatly refusing to the bourgeois state the right to impose compulsory citizenship, or even a state language, upon a national minority, Bolshevism at the same time made it a verily sacred task to unite, as closely as possible, by means of voluntary class discipline, the workers of different nationalities. Thus it flatly rejected the national federation principle in building the party. A revolutionary organisation is not the prototype of the future state, but merely the instrument for its creation. An instrument ought to be adapted to fashioning the product; it ought not to include the product. Thus a centralised organisation can guarantee the success of a revolutionary struggle-even where the task is to destroy the centralised oppression of nationalities."' (My emphasis-AW) The Bund had played an important role in the early days of the movement, which earned it considerable prestige and enabled it to exercise a decisive influence on the First Congress, where it entered the RSDLP on the basis of autonomy. The weakness of the Russian Social Democracy meant that the Bund, in practice, led an independent existence up to the Second Congress, developing strong nationalist tendencies.
Separatism rejected At the Second Congress, the Bundists in effect spoke as an independent party, which was only prepared to enter the RSDLP on a loose, federal basis, which would have meant the legalisation of separate organisations of the Jewish workers. Lieber, the Bundist spokesman, justified this on the grounds of the special position of the Jewish workers, suffering not only from class oppression but also racial oppression, which Russian workers would not have the same degree of interest in combatting.
Lieber, Martov said: "Underlying this draft is the presumption that Jewish proletariat needs an independent political organisation to represent its national interests among the Social Democrats of Russia. Independently of the question of organising the party on the principle of federation or that of autonomy, we cannot allow that any section of the party can represent the group, trade or national interests of any sections of the proletariat. National differences play a subordinate role in relation to common class interests. What sort of organisation would we have if, for instance, in one and the same workshop, workers of different nationalities thought first and foremost of the representation of interest?"1° (My emphasis-AW).
Of course, on purely practical grounds, it would be possible to give a certain degree of autonomy to natonai groups within the party. This would, however, be of a purely technical character, arising from the need, for example, to publish material in the different languages of the groups concerned. There would have been no objections to the Bund enjoying the necessary autonomy to produce Party literature in Yiddish and conducting agitation among the Jewish workers and artisans with special material, etc. But what the Bund demanded was the exclusive right to speak in the name of the Jewish proletariat and, in effect, to have a monopoly of Jewish affairs within the Party. In short, it had a similar position to the present-day defenders of "black sections" in the Labour Party in Britain, or, in the unions in the USA, a position which would sow the seeds of disunity among he workers and play into the hands of chauvinist and racialist elements When the Bund's pretentions were decisively rejected its delegates abandoned the Congress. They were soon followed by the other representatives of the right wing, the Economists, Martynov and Akimov, who were present as representatives of the emigré "Union of Russian Social Democrats Abroad". They walked out when the Congress recognised the rival "League of Revolutionary Social Democrats" as sole representatives of the party abroad.
These walk-outs decisively changed the balance of forces at the congress. A development which was quite unforeseen was the crystalisation, in the course of the proceedings, of two trends within the Iskra camp. On a number of secondary issues (role of the Organising Committee, the Borba group, Yuzhny Rabochi), , '' it became clear that some of Iskra's supporters had voted with the right wing and the "Marsh".
. In general, the Iskra camp remained united. But in the twentysecond session, the unity was broken by an open clash between Lenin and Martov on an organisational issue. The first clause of the party rules 39
[page 39]
MIR Autumn 1986: Bolshevism Part Five
dealt with the question: "Who is a member?' Lenin's draft reads as follows: "A member of the RSDLP is one who accepts its programme and supports the Party both financially and by personal participation in one of the party organisations". . Martov opposed this clause and moved as an alternative that a member was somebody who accepted the programme, and supported the Party financially and "gives the party his regular personal co-operation under the direction of one of the party organisations"
On the face of it, there is only a slight difference between the two formulas. In fact, the real significance of the difference only became clear later. 'The differences were still intangible, Trotsky recalled, "everybody was merely groping about and working with impalpable things". 12 But behind Martov's proposal was a certain "softness", , a conciliatory attitude which amounted to the blurring of differences between members and sympathisers, between revolutionary activists and "fellow travellers". . At the moment when all the energies of Iskra should have been concentrated on combatting the old anarchistic formlessness and circle mentality, Martov's position represented a big step back. Small wonder that it led to a sharp struggle in the Iskra camp on and off the floor of the Congress.
The Party rules'
In the months and years after the congress a whole mythology has been constructed about this incident. It is alleged that Lenin stood for dictatorial centralism and a small conspiratorial party, whereas Martov's aim was a broad-based, democratic party which would allow the workers to participate. Both ideas are completely false.
To begin with, all the Iskra supporters were agreed upon the need for a strong, centralised party. That was one of the main arguments against the Bund's national-federalism, in which Martov and Trotsky played the main role. Immediately prior to the discussion on Clause One, Martov is quoted in the Minutes as saying: "I would recall to Comrade Lieber that our organisational principle is not broad autonomy but strict centralisation". ' (My emphasis-AW) *.
As to the demagogic argument that Martov's formula was intended to "open the party to the workers", that, too, is a misrepresentation. At the outset of the debate, Axelrod let the cat out of the bag, with the following example, which really revealed what was behind the proposal:
40
'And, indeed, let us take for example a professor who regards himself as a Social-Democrat and declares himself as such. If we adopt Lenin's formula we shall be throwing overboard a section of those who, even if they cannot be directly admitted to an organisation are nevertheless members... We must take care not to leave outside the party ranks people who consciously, though perhaps not very actively, associate themselves with the Party." 14
The working class and its organisations do not exist in a vacuum, but are surrounded by other social classes and groups. The pressure of alien cla and
especially the pressure of the intermediate layers, the middle class, the intellectuals who surround the workers' organisations is ever-present. The demands of these layers that the workers should adapt their programme, methods and organisational structure to suit the prejudices and interests of the petit bourgeoisie are a constant pressure. A long period of very close co-existence with the radicalised middle class in the person of the "Legal Marxists" had left its stamp on the consciousness of the older members of the Emancipation of Labour Group. They moved among social strata divorced from the working class, formed personal friendships with the radicalised quasi-Marxist university professors, lawyers and doctors who helped them with financial donations and words of encouragement, but were not prepared to "dirty their hands" with practical revolutionary work. "I support your aims, but to come out openly as a socialist would be inconvenient and risky. Think of my job, my positin. Un-
so on. Uncareer prospects, consciously, or perhaps semiconsciously, Axelrod, Zasulich and Martov were acting as the spokesmen for this social stratum, the transmission belt for the pressures of alien classes upon the workers' party.
Plekhanov was placed in a difficult position by this split, in which his friends and life-long colleagues were ranged against him. For the first time in her life, Vera Zasulich openly stood up to her mentor. It must have been a shock, but to Plekhanov's credit, he stood up against the pressure at the Congress. All his revolutionary instinct told him that Lenin was in the right. In the course of debate he pitilessly demolished the arguments of Axelrod and Martov:
"According to Lenin's draft, only someone who joins a particular organisation can be regarded as a Party member. Those who oppose his draft
say that this will cause unnecessary difficulties. But what do these difficulties consist of? They talk of persons who do not want to join, or who can't join, one of our organisations. But why can't they? As someone who has himself taken part in Russian revolutionary organisations, I say that I do not admit the existence of objective conditions constituting an insuperable obstacle to anyones joining. As to those gentlemen who do not want to join, we have no need of them.
"It has been said here that some professors who sympathise with our views may find it humiliating to join a local organisation. In this conneetion, I remember Engels saying that where it becomes your lot to deal with professors, you have to be prepared for the worst (laughter).
'No eternal laws'
'The example, is, in fact, an extremely bad one. If some Professor of Egyptology considers, because he has by heart the names of all the Pharoes, and knows all the prayers that the Egyptians submitted to the bull Apis, that it is beneath his dignity to join our organisation, we have no need of that professor.
"To talk of control by the Party over persons who are outside the organisation means playing with words. In practice such control is impossible". (My emphasis-AW)
After a heated discussion, Martov's variant was approved by 28 votes to 23, but only because the wavering elements in Iskra combined with the "Economists" of the Union, the Bund and the "Centre", , represented by the trend around the journal Yuzhny Rabochii ("Southern Worker").
Nevertheless, the split had not yet acquired a definite character. Lenin, in the course of the debate, showed that he was still anxious to reach agreement: "First, as regards Axelrod's kind proposal (I am not speaking ironically) to 'strike a bargain', I would willingly respond to this appeal for I do not at all consider our difference so vital as to be a matter of life and death for the party. We shall certainly not perish because of a bad point in the rules!" 16 (My emphasis-AW)
From a Marxist point of view, organisational questions can never be decisive. There are no eternal, fixed laws governing the mode of organisa-
* Incidentally, the Bund itself was a highly. centralised organisation. Its alleged opposition to centralism only applied to the par ty as a whole, and reflected nothing more than an unscrupulous defence of its own sec tional interests.
[page 40]
tion of a revolutionary party. The rules
and organisational structures must
change with changing circumstances
and in line with the development of the
party. The same Lenin who argued
fervently for restricting the party
membership in 1903, under different
historical circumstances, in 1912,
when the party was becoming
transformed into a mass force
representing the decisive majority of
the active working class in Russia, in
effect argued that the party should be
open to any worker who considered
himself a Bolshevik—a formula which
apparently echoes Martov's celebrated
phrase that "every striker should be
able to proclaim himself a Party
member" • Does this mean that Lenin
was wrong and Martov right in 1903?
Such a conclusion would be to com-
pietely misunderstand the dialectical
relationship between the mode of
operation of the revolutionary party
and the concrete stage through which
both the party and the working class
movement is passing. A house must be
built upon solid foundations. In 1903,
the party was only taking its first
hesitating steps towards the conquest
of influence among the masses. It was
necessary to lay heavy stress on basic political and organisational principles, above all the need for working-class cadres with a clear understanding of the ideas and methods of Marxism. This was all the more necessary in view of the chaotic period which had gone before. To have "thrown the doors open" at this concrete stage would have been absolutely disastrous, although at a different moment it would be necessary to do just that.
Every period of transition from one stage of the development of the party to another inevitably entails a certain amount of internal friction. We have already commented on the stresses and strains involved in the earlier transition from propaganda to agitation. Now the same problems recurred, but with far more serious results.
The main objective of the Marxist tendency represented by Iskra was to bring the party out of the embryonic period of circle life-"kustarnichestvo"-and lay the firm foundation for a strong and united Marxist workers' party in Russia. Even before the Congress, however, Martov began to express doubts and vacillations as to whether it was desirable to convene a party congress at all. Would it not be better to hold a congress of the Iskra tendency? The hesitations reflected the conservatism and routinism and the fear of the "veterans" of striking out in a new direction.
The ingrained habits of a small ex-
lie group instinctively rebelled against
so violent a disruption of the old ways.
The idea of formal elections, submis-
sion of the minority to the will of the
majority, disciplined work, while ac-
ceptable in theory, proved hard to
swallow in practice. The members of
Plekhanov's old group, accustomed to
the life of a small, informal circle of
friends, had long enjoyed immense
political authority as veterans and
members of the prestigious Iskra
Editorial Board which was not strict-
ly warrented by the role they now
played. Axelrod and Zasulich felt an
involuntary fear of losing their per-
sonal authority and having their in-
dividuality swallowed up in the new
environment, dominated by the new
generation of up-and-coming young
cadres from inside Russia. The Con-
gress minutes show how insignificant
was the role played by the old-timers,
with the natural exception of
Piekhanov. They must have felt completely lost.
In the interest of Party unity, both the Iskra organisation and the Emancipation of Labour Group were formally dissolved at the Congress. The veterans of the Emancipation of Labour Group never seriously imagined that this would change their status in the movement. Things would sure ly carry on much as before. It was unthinkable that they should occupy anything but the foremost positions, as they had always done.
The real meaning
1903 split
When Lenin moved the election of an Editorial Board of three, it caused an uproar, which took him completely by suprise— all the more so since this proposal had already been accepted by the editors before the Congress. But this agreement was only superficial. In reality, the proposal had deeply shocked and wounded the old editors who would be dropped. In the corridors of the congress, they went around com-
Drainingness and intensitillege
There can be no doubt that logic was entirely on Lenin's side, as Plekhanov completely agreed. The old E.B. of six had not even managed to meet once. The notion that a member of the E.B. of the party's official journal could be someone who did not personally participate in the work and whose only contribution was to provide the occasional article for publication did not square with the conception of a fighting proletarian organisation.
Initially, the younger E.B. members, Martov and Potresov were in agree-
ment with the change, but under the pressure of Zasulich and Axelrod they changed their minds. The indignation aroused by this issue among young and impressionable comrades is conveyed by Trotsky's memoirs of the occasion: "In 1903 the whole point at issue was nothing more than Lenin's desire to get Axelrod and Zasulich off the editorial board. My attitude towards them was full of respect, and there was an element of personal affection as well. Lenin also thought highly of them for what they had done in the past. But he believed that they were becoming an impediment for the future. This led him to conclude that they must be removed from their position in the leadership. I could not agree. My whole being seemed to protest against this merciless cutting off of the older ones when we were at last on the threshold of an organised party. It was my indignation at his attitude that really led to my parting with him at the Second Congress. His behaviour seemed unpardonable to me, both horrible and outrageous. And yet, politically it was right and necessary, from the point of view of organisation. The break with the older ones who remained in the preparatory stages, was inevitable in any case. Lenin understood this before any one else did. He made an attempt to keep Plekhanov by separating him from Zasulich and Axelrod. But this, too, was quite futile, as subsequent events soon proved."
The proposals agreed on by the I skra leadership prior to the Congress was for a central committee of three (from the interior), an editorial board of three and a party council made up of both bodies plus one other
41
[page 41]
Krupskaya and, right, 30 Holford Square, Kings Cross, where Lenin and Krupskaya lived (Plekhanov). However, a split opened up immediately over the composition 'hard" Iskra-ites CC.
The of the fávoured a CC composed entirely of P'skra supporters. The "softs", led by Martov, wanted to give representation to the "centre" (Yuzhny Rabochii), and produced their own list of candidates. When the split fully surfaced, It assumed a violent character. In the session when the composition of the Editorial Board was discussed the atmosphere was stormy in the extreme as the Bolsheviks later reported to the of the Socialist International (1904). Trotsky moved the re-election of the old Editorial Board of six. But the withdrawal of the Bundists and the supporters of Rabocheye Dyelo meant that the Iskra "hards" were now in a majority. Trotsky's proposal was voted down, and a new Editorial Board of Lenin, Plekhanov and consisting Martov was elected, whereupon Marov announced his refusal to par icipate on the EB. The split betweer the "hard" majority ("Bol'shinstvo") and "soft" minority ("Menshinstvo") significant the consequences of the 1903 split were for the future, the differences which emerged at the congress undeveloped character. The assertion Bolshevism and Menshevism already existed as political tendencies is entire ly without foundation. On all the political questions there was virtual unanimity within the Iskra tendency. Yet there have always been powerful vested interests in trying to read into these divisions far more than they contained in fact.
History distorted Nobody had anticipated that this The split would take place.
participants themselves were shocked and stunned by the unexpected turn of events. The fact that Lenin did not see it as a final parting of the ways was indicated by his ceaseless attempts to achieve unity with the minority in the months after the congress. Krupskaya recalled that on one occasion when she mentioned the possibility of a permanent split, Lenin retorted: "That would be too crazy for words.
The political tendency represented by Menshevism was only to take shape in the period following the Congress. Yet the Stalinists for decades have persisted in citing the hot-headed reaction of the 23-year old Trotsky at the Second Congress as "proof" of his Thus 'Menshevism statements like the following: "Con- 42 during their London exile.
gress speeches by Lenin (?) and other Bolsheviks show that on the fundamental question of the party programme (!) and rules, Trotsky was at one with the other Mensheviks and bitterly fought the Bolsheviks' revolutionary line (!)." 1'
This base slander originates in the campaign against "Trotskyism" launched in 1923-24, when Lenin lay on his death-bed, paralysed and helpless. Zinovier, who had formed a secret bloc with Kamenev and Stalin, with a view to forming the leadership after Lenin's death, went to the lengths of writing an alleged "History of Bolshevism the main aim of which was to discredit Trotsky by means of a false tendentious account of party history. In regard to 1903, Zinoviev reters to "Comrade Trotsky who was at that time a Menshevik." 2° For their part, bourgeois historians such as Leonard Shapiro attempt to caricature Lenin's arguments in favour of centralism to paint a picture 1. Lenin, 'Collected Works', Volume 31, 2. '1903, Minutes of the Second Congress of the RSDLP', p181.
3. Trotsky, 'Stalin', p39.
4. Krupskaya, 'Memories of Lenin' 5. See S. Baron, 'Plekhanov, Father of Russian Marxism', (Spanish edition), 6. Lunacharchy, 'Revolutionary Silhouettes, pp132-33.
7. Trotsky, 'Political Profiles', pp97-98. 8. Trotsky, 'My Life', p157. 9. Trotsky, 'History of the Russian Revolution', pp890-91.
10. '1903, Minutes of the Second Congress of the RSDLP, pol of a ruthless dictator, riding roughshod over democracy.
Both Stalinist and bourgeois historians have a vested interest • with in identifying Leninism Stalinism. In order to get at the truth, it is necessary to push these unscrupulous middle-men to one side and go back to the writings of the protagonists themselves-in first place the writings of the Lenin and Trotsky-which, with and unerring accuracy the real truthfulness explain origins and nature of Bolshevism. Part Six of Alan Woods' series of articles on the History of Bolshevism will appear in the next edition of the MIR. Back issues of the Militant International Review containing parts 1 to 4 are available for £1 each, postage included, from: World Socialist Books, 3-13 Hepscott Road, London E9 5HB. Cheques payable to 'World Socialist Books!
11. For a detailed explanation see 'One Step Forward, Two Steps Back' in Lenin's 'Collected Works', Volume 7, pp203-425. 12. Trotsky, 'My Life', p160. 13. '1903, Minutes of the Second Congress of the RSDLP', p308.
14. Ibid, p31l.
15. Ibid, p321.
16. Ibid, p326.
17. Trotsky, 'My Life', p162. 18. Quote from Party Archives in Istoriya, 19. V. Grinko and others, 'The Bolshevik Trotskyism Party's Struggle Against (1903- February 1917), p30. 20. Zinoviev, 'History of the Bolshevik Party, p 85.
[page 42]
Fifty years since the Moscow Purge Trials
Strike at Vorkuta: An eyewitness account
THIS YEAR saw the 50th anniversary of Stalin's notorious purge trials of 1936. The capitalist press has given due coverage to the frame-up and forced confessions of famous old Bolsheviks like Zinoviev, Kamenev and Bukharin.
But their deaths at the hands of Stalinist justice' were only the tip of the iceberg. Not remembered are the thousands of Marxists, supporters of Trotsky, who languished in brutal concentration camps in remote areas of Russia. They were brave and defiant to the end. They even organised an amazing hunger strike through all the scattered camps which forced concessions from the ar-
thorities, beginning on 27 October 1936 almost exactly 50 years ago. Stalin's agents could not get these Trotskyists to confess to false crimes, so they were never brought to trial but just callously executed and buried in the wastes.
The article below consists of extracts taken from an eyewitness account of those oppositionists' heroic but tragic story which first appeared in the October/November 1961 issue of the emigre Menshevik publication 'Sotsisalistichesky Nestnik' (Socialist Messenger). It was signed only "MB".
DURING THE middle and the end of the 1930s, the Trotskyists formed quite a disparate group at Vorkuta; one part of them kept its old name of "Bolshevik-Leninists." There were almost 500 at the mine, close to 1,000 at the camp of Ukhta-Pechora, and certainly several thousand altogether around the Pechora district.
The orthodox Trotskyists were determined to remain faithful to the end to their platform and their leaders. In 1927, following the resolutions of the 15th congress of the party, they were excluded from the Communist Party and, at the same time, arrested. From then on, even though they were in prison, they continued to consider themselves Communists; as for Stalin and his supporters, "the apparatus men," they were characterised as renegades from communism.
Among these "Trotskyists" were also found people who had never formally belonged to the CP and did not join the Left Opposition, but who tied their own fate with it to the very endeven when the struggle of the Opposition was most acute.
Arrival at Vorkuta
In addition to these genuine Trotskyists, there were in the camps of Vorkuta and elsewhere more than 100,000 prisoners who, members of the party and the youth, had adhered to the Trotskyist Opposition and then at different times and for diverse reasons (of which the principal were evidently repressions, unemployment, persecutions, exclusion from schools and university facilities, etc) were forced to "recant their errors" and withdraw from the Opposition.
The orthodox Trotskyists arrived at the mine during the summer of 1936 and lived in a compact mass in two large barracks. They categorically refused to work in the pits; they worked only on the surface, and for only eight hours, not the ten or twelve required by the regulations, as the other
prisoners were forced to do. They did so on their own authority, in an unorganised manner, openly flouting the camp regulations. In the main they had already served nearly ten years in deportation.
In the beginning, they were sent into political isolators and then afterwards exiled to Solovka. Finally they arrived at Vorkuta. The Trotskyists formed the only group of political prisoners who openly criticised the Stalinist "general line" and offered organised resistance to the jailers.
Nevertheless, there were significant divergences within this group. Some considered themselves disciples of Timothy Sapronov (ex-secretary of the Supreme Soviet) and insisted on being called "Sapronovists'' or "Democratic Centralists."' They claimed to be more to the left than the Trotskyists and thought that the Stalinist dictatorship had already reached the stage of bourgeois degeneration by the end of the 1920s and that the reappochment of Hitler and Stalin was very probable. Nevertheless, in the event of war, the "Sapronovists" declared themselves for the defence of the USSR.
Among the "Trotskyists" were also found partisans of the "Right wing," that is to say of Rykov and of Bukharin, as well as followers of Shliapnikov and his "Workers' Opposition"' platform.
But the great majority of the group was made up of authentic Trotskyists, supporters of LD Trotsky.
...In spite of their differences, all of these groups at the mine lived in a friendly enough fashion under one common denominator, "the Trotskyists."' Their leaders were Socrates Gevorkian, Vladimir Ivanov, Melnais, VV Kossior and Trotsky's ex-secretary, Poznansky.
Gevorkian was a calm man, very balanced, reasonable, full of good sense. He spoke without hurry, weighing his words, without any affection of theatrical gestures. Up to the time of his arrest, he had worked as an expert for the Russian Association of
the Centres of Scientific Research of the institute of Human Sciences. He was an Armenian, and at this time, was at least forty. His younger brother was imprisoned with him.
Melnais, a Lett, was a little younger than Gevorkian. After having been a member of the Central Committee of the Young Communists, he studied at the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of the University of Moscow, where, in 1925-27, he headed a very important group (several hundred people) of opposition students...
At the end of 1927, Melnais was one of the first members of the Opposition at the university to be arrested...
Melnais had been imprisoned ever since. In political isolators and in exile, he spent a lot of time working on economic problems and soon turned out to be an eminent and talented economist.
News of Show Trials
reaches camps
Vladimir Ivanov was a hearty man, with the round and full face of a successful merchant, with a big black moustache and intelligent grey eyes. In spite of his fifty years, one sensed in him a strong will and the strength of a bear. An Old Bolshevik and member of the Central Committee, Ivanov, until his arrest, directed the Chinese Eastern Railroad. He, as well as his wife, had belonged to the "Democratic Centralist" group and were among the supporters of Sapronov. When the fifteenth congress decided that belonging to the Opposition and to the party was incompatible, Ivanov quit the ranks of the Opposition, but this did not save him; he was arrested after the assassination of Kirov...
Kossior was a middle-aged man, very short (almost a dwarf), with a large head. Before his arrest, he occupied a leading post in the management of the petroleum industry. His brother, Stanisias Kossior, then sat on the Politbureau, and, at the same time, was
[page 43]
Left Oppositionists in Siberian exile, 1928, celebrating the anniversary of the October secretary of the Central Committee of the Ukrainian Communist Party. (He was later liquidated by Stalin. His case was mentioned by Khruschev in his report to the twentieth congress) ... Poznansky, a handsome well-built man about thirty-five to thirty-eight years old, was deeply interested in Trotsky's second music and chess.
secretary, Grigoryev, was also in Pechora.
In the autumn of 1936, soon after the frame-up trials agains: the leaders of the Opposition; Zinoviev, Kamenev and the others, the entire group of "orthodox" Trotskyists at the mine got together to confer with one another. Opening the meeting, Gevorkian addressed those present: "Comrades! Before beginning our meeting, I ask you to honour the memory of our comrades, guides, and leaders who have died as martyrs at the hands of the Stalinist traitors to the revolution." The entire assembly stood up. Then, in a brief and very trenchant speech, Gevorkian explained that it was necessary to examine and resolve the key problem: what should be done and how should they conduct themselves from now on.
"It is now evident that the group of Stalinist adventurers have completed their counter-revolutionary coup d'etat in our country. All the progressive conquests of our revolution are in mortal danger. Not twilight shadows, but those of deep black night envelop our country. No Cavaignac spilled as much working class blood as has Stalin. Physically annihilating all the opposition groups within the party, he aims at total personal dictatorship. The party and the whole people are subjected to surveillance and to summary justice by the police apparatus. The predictions and the direst fears of our Opposition are fully confirmed. The nation slides the Thermidorian swamp. This is the triumph of the centrist petty-bourgeois forces, of which interpreter, spokesman, and the apostle. 'No compromise is possible with the Stalinist traitors and hangmen of the revolutionaries to the very end, we should not entertain any illusion about the fate waiting us. But before destroying us, Stalin will try to humiliate us much as he can. By throwing political prisoners in with common criminals, he criminals and to incite them against us. We are left with only one means of struggle in this unequal battle: the hunger strike. With a group of comrades, we have already drawn up a list of our demands of which many of you are already informed. Therefore, I now 44 ANAGRANTA ПРОЛЕТАРИАТА revolution.
propose to you that we discuss them together and make a decision." The meeting lasted only a short time; the question of the hunger strike and of concrete demands had already been debated for some months by the Trotskyists. Some Trotskyist groups in other camps (Usa station, Chib-Yu, Kochmes, etc) had also been discussing the matter and had sent their agreement to support the demands and to participate in the hunger strike. These demands were ratified unanimously by those present. They stipulated: 1. Abrogation of the illegal decision of the NKVD, concerning the transfer of all Trotskyists from administrative camps to concentration camps. Affairs relating to political opposition to the regime must not be judged by special NKVD tribunals, but in public judicial assemblies.
2. The work day in the camp must not exceed eight hours.
3. The food quota of the prisoners should not depend on their norm of output. A cash bonus, not the food ration, as a production should be used incentive.
4. Separation, at work as well as in the barracks, of political prisoners and 5. The old, the ill, and women prisoners should be moved from the camps where the conditions were more It was recommended, at the time of the meeting, that the sick, the invalids, and the old should not participate in the hunger strike; however, all those in question energetically rejected this proposal...
weeks later, 27 October Three 1936, the massive hunger strike of the political prisoners began, a strike without precedent and a model under Soviet camp conditions. In the morning, at reveille, in almost every barrack, prisoners announced themselves on strike. The barracks occupied by the ДА ЗАРАТВЕТ MANAVIN Trotskyists participated 100 per cent in the movement. Even the orderlies struck,.Close to 1,000 prisoners, of whom half worked in the mine, participated in this tragedy, which lasted more than four months.
The first two days, the strikers stayed in their usual places. Then the camp administration busied itself in isolating, them from the rest of the prisoners, concerned lest the latter followed their example. In the tundra, 40 kilometres from the mine, on the banks of the Syr-Yaga river, there were primitive half-demolished barracks, which previously had been used during the preliminary boring of the mines. In great haste, these barracks were put into makeshift condition; a call was sent out to the inhabitants of the region, who, with their teams of reindeer, transported the hunger strikers there, where they soon numbered about 600. The others were brought together not far from Chib-Yu. After having isolated the strikers, the GPU took measures to prevent the movement from spreading in the country and from becoming known outside The prisoners were the frontiers.
deprived of the right of corresponding with their families; the salaried employees of the camp lost their holidays and their right to leave. Attempts were made to incite the other prisoners against the strikers... At the end of the first month of the strike, one of the participants died of exhaustion; two others died during the third month. The same month, two strikers, non-orthodox Trotskyists, voluntarily gave up striking. Finally, just a few days before the end of the strike, still another striker died. Having begun at the end of October 1936, the hunger strike lasted 132 days, ending in March 1937. It culminated with the complete victory of the strikers who received a radiogram from the headquarters of the NK VD, drawn up in these words: "In-
[page 44]
form the hunger strikers held in Vorkuta mines that all their demands will be The Trotskyists were taken back to the mine, received food reserved for the sick and, after a period of time, back to work, but only above ground; certain of them worked in the office of the director of the mine, in the capacity of paid workers, bookkeepers, economists, etc. Their work day did not exceed eight hours; their food ration was not based on their production norm.
But little by little the other prisoners' interest in the strikers began diminish. Everyone's interest was now focused on the new trial at Moscow, which was being broadcast by radio; besides, new prisoners began arriving end of June. Their stories described mass arrests, outrages, executions without a trial behind walls of the NKVD, and this all over the country. At the beginning, no one wanted to believe this, particularly since the new arrivals spoke unwillingly and rather enigmatically. But little by little, the bonds between them became tighter and the conversations franker. Without let up, new prisoners arrived from Russia; old friends and acquaintances discovered each other: it no longer was possible not to believe the stories.
Executions in the tundra In spite of these obvious facts, a certain number of prisoners waited with impatience for the Autumn of 1937 and the twentieth anniversary of the October Revolution; they hoped, on this occasion as in 1927, that the government would declare a largescale amnesty, particularly since a little while earlier the very promising "Stalinist Constitution" had been adopted. But the Autumn brought bit- The harsh regime of the camps grew The sergeants and their assistants in maintaining order common criminals-having received new orders from the camp director, armed themselves with clubs and pitilessly beat the prisoners. The guards, the watchmen close to the barracks, tormented the prisoners. To amuse themselves during the night they fired on those who went to the toilets. Or else, giving the order "On your bellies," they forced the prisoners to strech out, naked, for hours on the snow. Soon there were massive arrests. Almost every night, GPU agents appeared in the barracks, called out certain names and led away those Certain Trotskyists, including Vladimir Ivanov, Kossior, and Trotsky's son, Sergei Sedov, a modest and likeable youth, who had imprudently refused to follow his father into exile in 1928, were taken in a special convoy to Moscow. We can only believe that Stalin was not satisfied simply to hurl them into the tundra; his sadistic nature thirsted not only for blood; he wished first to humiliate them and torimmeasurably, coercing them into false-accusations... Toward the end of Autumn, about 1,200 prisoners found themselves in the old brick field; at least half of these were Trotskyists. They were all lodged in four barracks; their food ration was 400 grams of bread a day and not every day. The barracks were surrounded by a barbed wire fence. Nearly 100 freshly recruited guards, supplied with automatic arms, watched the prisoners day and night. The prisoners arrested at the mine, at Usa and in other nearby camps were taken to the old brickyard. Those arrested in more distant camps-at Pechora, Izhma, Kozhma, etc-were kept near Chib-Yu. The whole winter of 1937-38 some prisoners, encamped in barracks at the brickyard, starved and waited for a decision regarding their fate. Finally, in March, three NKVD officers, with Kashketin at their head, arrived by at Vorkuta, Moscow. They came to the brickyard to interrogate the prisoners. Thirty to forty were called each day, superficially questioned five to ten minutes each, rudely insulted, forced to listen to vile name-calling and obscenities. were greeted with punches in the face; Lt Kashketin himself several times beat up one of them, the Old Bolshevik Virap Virapov, a former member of the Central Committee of Armenia.
At the end of March, a list of twentyfive was announced, Gevorkian, Virapov, Slavin, etc... To each was delivered a kilo of bread and orders to prepare himself for a new convoy. After fond farewells to their friends, they left the barracks, and the convoy departed. Fifteen or twenty minutes later, not far away, about half a kilometre, on the steep bank of the little river Verkhnyaya Vorkuta (Upper Vorkuta), an abrupt volley resounded, followed by isolated and disorderly shots; then all grew quiet again. Soon, the convoy's escort passed back near the barracks. And it was clear to all in what sort of convoy the prisoners had Two days later, there was a new call, this time of forty names. Once more there was a ration of bread. Some, out of exhaustion, could no longer move; they were promised a ride in a cart. 'MIR Autumn 1986: Vorkuta Holding their breath, the prisoners remaining in the barracks heard the grating of the snow under the feet of the departing convoy. For a long time there was no sound; but all, on the watch, still listened. Nearly an hour passed in this way. Then, again, shots resounded in the tundra; this time, they came from much further away, in the direction of the narrow railway which passed three kilometres brickyard. The second definitely convinced those remaining behind that they had been irremediably The executions in the tundra lasted the whole month of April and part of May. Usually one day out of two, or one day out of three, thirty to forty prisoners characteristic to note that each time, some common criminals, repeaters, were included. In order to terrorise the prisoners, the GPU, from time to time, made publicly known by means of local radio, the list of those shot. Usually broadcasts began as follows: counter-revolutionary sabotage, brigandage in the camps, retusal to work, attempts to escape, the following have been shot... followed by a list of names of some political prisoners mixed with a group of common criminals.
Defiant to the end One time, a group of nearly a hundred, composed mainly of Trotskyists, was led away to be shot. As they marched away, the condemned sang the "Internationale," joined by the voices of hundreds of prisoners remaining in At the beginning of May, a group of women were shot. Among them were the Ukrainian Communist, Chumskaya, the wife of IN Smirnov, a Bolshevik and ex-Peoples' Comsince 1898 missar; (Olga, the daughter of Smirnov, a young girl, apolitical, passionately fond of music, had been shot a year before in Moscow); the wives of Kossior, of Melnais, etc... one of these women had to walk on crutches. At the time of execution of a male prisoner, his imprisoned automatically liable to capital punishment; and when it was a question of well-known members of the Opposition, this applied equally to any of his children over the age of twelve. In May, when hardly a hundred prisoners remained, the executions were interrupted. Two weeks passed quietly; then all the prisoners were led in a convoy to the mine. There it was learned that Yezhov had been dismissed, and that his place had been taken
[page 45]