Were the Russian "Left Opposition" Terrorists and Counterrevolutionaries?

[Sam Lord]

You have to love that little sly association of the Nazis and Trotsky - the old 'Trotsky-facist' slander of the Stalinist still hasn't died out.

It was all before my time but I'm not sure it was a "slander" as you say. Your guys did confess after all, in open court, to their counter-revolutionary and terrorist activities in the Soviet Union. Who am I call to call them liars?

[Jolly Red Giant]

It was all before my time but I'm not sure it was a "slander" as you say. Your guys did confess after all, in open court, to their counter-revolutionary and terrorist activities in the Soviet Union. Who am I call to call them liars?

As an adherent to a failed ideology and someone who engages in nasty and vindictive commentary about Socialists you actually deserve to be treated with nothing but contempt.

I am quite sure that if you had a gun put to your head and were told to confess our your family would be killed on the spot you would have sh*t a large pile of soft brown smelly stuff and begged for mercy.

Of course the fact that a large number of the people that your idol tortured and murdered were actually former supporters of him and his cronies who had served their purpose of suppressing the socialist opposition movement and were no longer useful, is something you are blissfully ignorant about. It never ceases to amaze me that Stalinists have the gall to claim that practically every member of the Bolshevik central committee in October 1917 was a counter-revolutionary terrorist (with the 'honourable' exception of the 'boss') and they don't even bat an eyelid when doing it.

[C. Flower]

As I have told you before I have never read Mein Kampf or anything written by Hitler (and have no intention of). But I know a fair bit about Nazis and their history and feel well informed enough to speak on the topic.

It is the same with Trotsky and Trotskyites.

One can study history in a broad manner without reading everything (or anything) by particular historical personalities of a period. I'm fairly well acquainted with the history of the working class movement in the 20th century. I'm sure you feel the same but I doubt you have ever read a word of, say, Plekhanov or many others.

But thanks for the suggestion. I will put it at the bottom of a lengthy reading list.

You are quite wrong about Plekhanov. He was an important Marxist theoretician, particularly in the area of historical materialism and dialectical materialism and I've read his work and much discussion of it by other Marxists, including Lenin. More reading of Plekhanov and Lenin on these topics might create a greater capacity to deal with issues like Wallace and the building of a solid and fit for purpose ULA.

[C. Flower]

It was all before my time but I'm not sure it was a "slander" as you say. Your guys did confess after all, in open court, to their counter-revolutionary and terrorist activities in the Soviet Union. Who am I call to call them liars?

Bukharin's final statement is very informative. He confesses, without reservation, and then refutes all the charges relating to right wing conspiracy against the Soviet Union. But he confesses to "wrong thinking." This is after a year in jail, in isolation and under interrogation. One way of putting it would be that, under extreme pressure, he capitulated to Stalinism, in particular the theory of Socialism in One Country, as an end in itself. The well being of the Soviet Union and the world revolution was what was most important to him, and at this point it seems that perhaps (if you ignore the contradictory nature of the confession) he considered that to admit guilt and to condemn others was in the interests of the revolution.

He most certainly did not confess to being complicit with Nazis, which is a politically absurd suggestion.

http://art-bin.com/art/obukharin.html

I shall now speak of myself,.of the reasons for my repentance. Of course, it must be admitted that incriminating evidence plays a very important part. For three months I refused to say anything. Then I began to testify. Why? Because while in prison I made a revaluation of my entire past. For when you ask yourself: ”If you must die, what are you dying for?” - an absolutely black vacuity suddenly rises before you with startling vividness. There was nothing to die for, if one wanted ta die unrepented. And, on the contrary, everything positive that glistens in the Soviet Union acquires new dimensions in a man’s mind. This in the end disarmed me completely and led me to bend my knees before the Party and the country. And when you ask yourself: ”Very well, suppose you do not die; suppose by some miracle you remain alive, again what for? Isolated from everybody, an enemy of the people, in an inhuman position, completely isolated from everything that constitutes the essence of life . . ” And at once the same reply arises. And at such moments, Cltizens Judges, everything personal, all the personal incrustation, all the rancour, pride, and a number of other things, fall away, disappear. And, in addition, when the reverberations of the broad International struggle reach your ear, all this in its entirety does its work, and the result is the complete internal moral victory of the U.S.S.R. over its kneeling opponents. I happened by chance to get Feuchtwanger’s book from the prison library. There he refers to the trials of the Trotskyites. It produced a profound impression on me; but I must say that Feuchtwanger did not get at the core of the matter. He stopped half way, not everything was clear to him; when, as a matter of fact, everything is clear. World history is a worldcourt of judgement: A number of groups of Trotskyite leaders went bankrupt and have been cast into the pit. That is true. But you cannot do what Feuchtwanger does in relation to Trotsky in particular, when he places him on the same plane as Stalin. Here his arguments are absolutely false. For in reality the whole country stands behind Stalin; he is the hope of the world; he is a creator. Napoleon once said that fate is politics. The fate of Trotsky is counter-revolutionary politics.

I am about to finish. I am perhaps speaking for the last time in my life.
I am explaining how I came to realize the necessity of capitulating to the investigating authorities and to you, Citizens Judges. We came out against the joy of the new life with the most criminal methods of struggle. I refute the accusation of having plotted against the life of Vladimir Ilyich, but my counter-revolutionary confederates, and I at their head, endeavoured to murder Lenin’s cause, which is being carried on with such tremendous success by Stalin. The logic of this struggle led us step by step into the blackest quagmire. And it has once more been proved that departure from the position of Bolshevism means siding with political counter-revolutionary banditry. Counter-revolutionary banditry has now been smashed, we have been smashed, and we repent our frightful crimes.

The point, of course, is not this repentance, or my personal repentance in particular. The Court can pass its verdict without it. The confession of the accused is not essential. The confession of the accused is a medieval principle of jurisprudence. But here we also have the internal demolition of the forces of counter-revolution. And one must be a Trotsky not to lay down one’s arms.

I feel it my duty to say here that in the parallelogram of forces which went to make up the counter-revolutionary tactics, Trotsky was the principal motive force. And the most acute methods - terrorism, espionage, the dismemberment of the U.S.S.R. and wrecking - proceeded primarily from this source.

[Sam Lord]

Bukharin's final statement is very informative. He confesses, without reservation, and then refutes all the charges relating to right wing conspiracy against the Soviet Union. But he confesses to "wrong thinking." This is after a year in jail, in isolation and under interrogation. One way of putting it would be that, under extreme pressure, he capitulated to Stalinism, in particular the theory of Socialism in One Country, as an end in itself. The well being of the Soviet Union and the world revolution was what was most important to him, and at this point it seems that perhaps (if you ignore the contradictory nature of the confession) he considered that to admit guilt and to condemn others was in the interests of the revolution.

He confessed to many things and confidently denied many things (and in the process was accused of being a liar by one of his co-accused.) What this shows is that he was not reading from some script or acting out of fear as some suggest. There is no doubt that in this period (indeed from the time of the revolution) there were significant and ongoing plots against the soviet government by different political forces with the support of foreign governments. Why this seems to astonish some leftists today is beyond me given their knowledge of things carred out by imperialism across the world in their lifetime. I have no doubt that the Soviet government successfuly rooted out the principal players in this regard for the simple reason that it was the only country in Europe invaded by the Nazis that did not have a significant 5th column assisting the fascists.

I cannot understand your assertion that he "capitulated to Stalinism, in particular the theory of socialism in one country" because " .... the world revolution was what was most important to him." This seems quite contradictory on the face of it.

He most certainly did not confess to being complicit with Nazis, which is a politically absurd suggestion.

Hmmmm ... don't know about that. In his own words:

"At the time TROTSKY was negotiating with the German fascists and promising them territorial concessions, we Rights were already in a bloc with the Trotskyites. RADEK told me that TROTSKY considered that the main chance of the bloc coming into power depended upon the defeat of the USSR in a war with Germany and Japan and that he proposed after this defeat to surrender the Ukraine to Germany and the Far East to Japan. RADEK told me this in 1934...."

Report of Court Proceedings in the Case of the Anti-Soviet "Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites". Moscow: The People's Commissariat of Justice of the U.S.S.R., 1938 , p. 13

[Sam Lord]

It never ceases to amaze me that Stalinists have the gall to claim that practically every member of the Bolshevik central committee in October 1917 was a counter-revolutionary terrorist (with the 'honourable' exception of the 'boss') and they don't even bat an eyelid when doing it.

I have never heard that claimed by anyone of any political persuasion. Perhaps you could provide a link.

And whats so important about the Central Committee of October 1917? Why is it more important that the CC of 1921 or 1925 or 1930? Some of them even opposed the armed uprising much to Lenin's dusgust.

[Jolly Red Giant]

I have never heard that claimed by anyone of any political persuasion. Perhaps you could provide a link.

There is some dispute as to the actual composition of the Central Committee in Oct. 1917 – this appears to be the most definitive list from marxists.org

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, died stroke 1923
Leon Trotsky, assassinated by Stalinist agent 1940
Grigory Zinoviev, executed 1936
Lev Kamenev, executed 1936
Josef Stalin,
Grigory Sokolnikov, killed in prison 1939
Andrey Bubnov died in prison 1940

Five of the seven Politbureau members in 1917 died at the hands of Stalin

Full members
Alexandre Kollontai, died 1951 worked as foreign diplomat
Nicholai Bukharin, executed 1938
Yakov Sverdlov, died typhoid 1919
V P Nogin, died natural causes 1924
Alexei Rykov, executed 1938
Artem Sergeyev, died train crash 1921
V Miliutin, executed 1937
Felix Dzerzhinsky, died heart failure 1926
Leonid Petrovich Serebryakov, executed 1937
Ivars Smilga executed 1938
Berzin, shot dead (or possibly strangled) on Stalin's orders 1938
Nikolai Krestinsky, executed 1938
M K Muranov, died 1959
Stepan Shaumian executed by British in Baku 1918

Candidate members
Moisei Uritsky, assassinated 1918 by right-wing student
Vladimir Antonov-Ovseyenko, shot on Stalin's orders 1939
Elena Stasova, died 1966 – after the revolution played only a minor party role
George Lomov (Oppokov), executed 1937
Adolf Joffe, committed suicide 1927 expected to be arrested on Stalin's orders
Alexey S Kiselev, shot on Stalin's orders 1937
Prokopius Dzhaparidze, killed during civil war 1918
Yevgeny Preobrazhensky, executed 1937
Yakovleva shot on Stalin's orders 1941


Of the total of 30 members –
17 were killed on Stalin's orders
8 died or were killed either before or very shortly after Stalin came to power
1 committed suicide to avoid being arrested by Stalin's secret police
3 died of natural causes in 1951, 1959 and 1966
Joseph Stalin died 1953

And whats so important about the Central Committee of October 1917?

It was the Central Committe in place at the time of the Russian Revolution - doh - by 1940 most were 'counter revolutionaries and terrorists'.

Some of them even opposed the armed uprising much to Lenin's dusgust.

Including Stalin who wanted a coalition with the Mensheviks.

http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr...or/cc-1917.jpg

[Sam Lord]

Of the total of 30 members –
17 were killed on Stalin's orders

I'm delighted that you did the research to prove yourself wrong. Even if I accepted that there were 30 CC members in October 1917 and that 17 were subsequently executed by the Soviet state it is a far cry from your original contention that practically everyone apart from Stalin was executed.

It was the Central Committe in place at the time of the Russian Revolution - doh - by 1940 most were 'counter revolutionaries and terrorists'

I don't think that because it constituted the Central Committee when a revolutionary situation arose gave it any more weight than any other Central Committee. Five of the ones who were subsequently executed (Zinoviev, Kamenev, Alexei Rykov, Vladimir Milyutin and Victor Nogin), for example, resigned from the Central Committee on 4 November 1917 over some disagreement with the party. So if you just moved your goalpoasts by a month they would not have been part of it and your dramatic headline would be significantly altered.

It should be bone in mind that the party at this time was not some ideological monolith. There were differing political currents and many "oppositions" to the majority view and many factions. Trotsky, who had opposed the Bolsheviks for years was central to much of this. There were so many "oppositions' I can't recall them all:- the Group of 15, the Workers opposition, the left opposition, etc. etc.

Lenin was moved to ban factions in the party in the early 20's because they were posing such a problem.

It would be an interesting activity (and I will do it when I have some time) to look at the histories of the 17 and see to what extent they were involved in "oppositional" activities to to the decided positions of the party over the years. I suspect the vast majority were to significant degrees.

At the time of his death Lenin was very concerned that the party would split between Stalin and Trotsky. I think there is a good case that this effectively hapened, except that Stalin was always always able to easily command a decisive majority. The minority did not leave (though lost influence and positions) but remained within to carry out covert "opposition". As the danger of fascism to the Soviet Union grew these became more and more dangerous to the state and needed to be dealt with.

There is a significance to these people having been in leading positions in the party in 1917 but it is in a point made by Lion Feuchtwanger when he wrote about the 1930's trials:

Most of the accused were ..... first and foremost conspirators, revolutionaries; all their lives they had been impassioned revolutionaries and changers: they were born to it. Everything they had achieved they had achieved in defiance of the predictions of "sensible people," by courage, by their love of adventure, and by their optimism. Moreover, they believed in Trotsky, whose powers of suggestion cannot be overestimated. With their master, they saw in the "Stalin State" a caricature of what they had wanted to achieve, and their chief object was to correct this caricature according to their own ideas.

This should be bore in mind by anyone who found the charges against them (because they were old Bolsheviks) difficult to understand.

Including Stalin who wanted a coalition with the Mensheviks.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing:

On 10 October 1917 (Old Style), Kamenev and Zinoviev were the only two Central Committee members to vote against an armed revolt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigory_Zinoviev

[Jolly Red Giant]

I'm delighted that you did the research to prove yourself wrong. Even if I accepted that there were 30 CC members in October 1917 and that 17 were subsequently executed by the Soviet state it is a far cry from your original contention that practically everyone apart from Stalin was executed.

By the time Stalin came to power there were only 22 of the 30 still alive - of that 22 Stalin killed 17 of them and another committed suicide rather than be arrested by Stalin's secret police.

Excluding Stalin - of the remaining three - two played very minor roles in the CP and one, Muranov, was one of Stalin's henchmen and was sent into retirement in 1939 (being one of the few to survive the purges).

My contention stands.

I don't think that because it constituted the Central Committee when a revolutionary situation arose gave it any more weight than any other Central Committee. Five of the ones who were subsequently executed (Zinoviev, Kamenev, Alexei Rykov, Vladimir Milyutin and Victor Nogin), for example, resigned from the Central Committee on 4 November 1917 over some disagreement with the party. So if you just moved your goalpoasts by a month they would not have been part of it and your dramatic headline would be significantly altered.

This resignation occurrred AFTER the revolution. Furthermore both Kamenev and Zinoviev opposed the revolution - which they were entitled to do - and while there were incorrect in their approach they did support it when it happened. By the begining of 1918 Kamenev was Lenin's deputy in the government.

Of the six new members to join the Central Committee in 1918 - two died during the civil war, two others were minor dignatories (one of who was condemned after his death for 'vulgar sociologism') and two were executed by Stalin.

t should be bone in mind that the party at this time was not some ideological monolith. There were differing political currents and many "oppositions" to the majority view and many factions. Trotsky, who had opposed the Bolsheviks for years was central to much of this. There were so many "oppositions' I can't recall them all:- the Group of 15, the Workers opposition, the left opposition, etc. etc.

Lenin was moved to ban factions in the party in the early 20's because they were posing such a problem.

It would be an interesting activity (and I will do it when I have some time) to look at the histories of the 17 and see to what extent they were involved in "oppositional" activities to to the decided positions of the party over the years. I suspect the vast majority were to significant degrees.

The old Stalinist falseification of history is hard at work here - i like the way you try and suggest that Trotsky was in opposition to Lenin - he wasn't - but I will tell you who was - Stalin.

At the time of his death Lenin was very concerned that the party would split between Stalin and Trotsky. I think there is a good case that this effectively hapened, except that Stalin was always always able to easily command a decisive majority. The minority did not leave (though lost influence and positions) but remained within to carry out covert "opposition". As the danger of fascism to the Soviet Union grew these became more and more dangerous to the state and needed to be dealt with.

Another nice one - of course you conveniently ignore the part where Lenin in his Last Testament called for Stalin's removal as General Secretary of the CP - a testament suppressed by Stalin.

There is a significance to these people having been in leading positions in the party in 1917 but it is in a point made by Lion Feuchtwanger when he wrote about the 1930's trials:

Wow a quote (and an irrelevent one) from a Stalinist apologist.

This should be bore in mind by anyone who found the charges against them (because they were old Bolsheviks) difficult to understand.

Of all the members of the Central Committee in October 1917 everyone of them that were alive in 1927 were conspirators and terrorists with the exception of Stalin and his henchman Muranov (and the two who played only minor roles in the party) It is a wonder they ever achieved the success of the first workers revolution

I don't think we are talking about the same thing:

In March 1917 Stalin was editor with Kamenev of Pravda and (with Muranov) issued statements stating that the Bolsheviks supported the Provisional Government. Stalin even explored possible reunification with the Mensheviks. When Lenin returned in April he roundly attacked those, including Stalin, who were 'betraying socialism'. (Lenin was constantly criticising Pravda under the control of Stalin aas far back as 1912.) Furthermore Stalin's approach demonstrated that he was completely out of step with the views of the rank-and-file of the Petrograd Bolsheviks. For ten days Stalin contemplated challanging Lenin for the leadership, even sounding out Kamenev for support - then realising he would lose, switch his political position to back Lenin. While Kamenev and Zinoviev adopted a principled, if incorrect, political position - Stalin adopted a completely unprincipled approach of political manoeuvring (with Muranov) and spent the enitre period up to the Revolution gauging which side was in the ascendancy and was ready to switch at any time.

So - Stalin did openly support unification between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks during this period declaring that he supported the proposal of the Menshevik Tseretelli for unification of the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. He declared since both parties agreed on the position of the Manifesto of the Soviet, there were no fundamental differences of principle between the parties.

[Sam Lord]

By the time Stalin came to power there were only 22 of the 30 still alive - of that 22 Stalin killed 17 of them and another committed suicide rather than be arrested by Stalin's secret police.

Excluding Stalin - of the remaining three - two played very minor roles in the CP and one, Muranov, was one of Stalin's henchmen and was sent into retirement in 1939 (being one of the few to survive the purges).

My contention stands.

No it does not as anyone even remotely familiar with the English language will be happy to point out to you.

Your original wild assertion was that:

Stalinists have the gall to claim that practically every member of the Bolshevik central committee in October 1917 was a counter-revolutionary terrorist (with the 'honourable' exception of the 'boss') and they don't even bat an eyelid when doing it.

I pulled you on this and asked you to support it and all you have come back with is information that indicates that at least a dozen of the CC were never considered by the party at any stage to be "counter-revolutionary" terrorists.

You have not been able to produce any link to support your contention regarding "what Stalinists have the gall to claim." I repeat that I have never seen anyone claim what you assert is a standard claim by "Stalinists" and would again ask you to provide a link.

Bty, it is my understanding that Stalin became First Secretary of the Central Committee of the party in 1922. At that time only 4 of the Oct. 1917 central commitee were dead ... not 8 as you seem to believe.

Of all the members of the Central Committee in October 1917 everyone of them that were alive in 1927 were conspirators and terrorists with the exception of Stalin and his henchman Muranov (and the two who played only minor roles in the party) It is a wonder they ever achieved the success of the first workers revolution

Why have you picked 1927 as a matter of interest? Going back just a year would have found Nogin and Dzerhinsky still alive.

The success of the Soviet Union up until the 1950s was achieved without the "oppositionists" and defeatists who asserted that socialism in one country was impossible. By the late 1920s most of them had either been demoted (which fueled their anger and sense of being hard done by) or kicked out of the party (though sometimes readmitted after they had admitted mistakes but in lower positions).

I'll get to the rest of your stuff later.

[Jolly Red Giant]

No it does not as anyone even remotely familiar with the English language will be happy to point out to you.

Your original wild assertion was that:



I pulled you on this and asked you to support it and all you have come back with is information that indicates that at least a dozen of the CC were never considered by the party at any stage to be "counter-revolutionary" terrorists.

Never considered because they were dead - given the record of Stalin it is likely they would have been among the accused if they had survived. The only numbers we have to go on are the fact that only four of the 22 alive when Stalin consolidated power died of natural causes.

You have not been able to produce any link to support your contention regarding "what Stalinists have the gall to claim." I repeat that I have never seen anyone claim what you assert is a standard claim by "Stalinists" and would again ask you to provide a link.

I did -have a look at the photo in the link on the first post where I addressed this stuff

Bty, it is my understanding that Stalin became First Secretary of the Central Committee of the party in 1922. At that time only 4 of the Oct. 1917 central commitee were dead ... not 8 as you seem to believe.

Yes in 1922 - however he didn't consolidate power in his hands until 1927 - he was unable to remove (and take out) political opponents until he had defeated his opponents within the CP and ensured they were no longer in positions of power.

Why have you picked 1927 as a matter of interest? Going back just a year would have found Nogin and Dzerhinsky still alive.

You really don't know your history very well - in 1927 the Left Opposition were defeated at the CP Congress

The success of the Soviet Union up until the 1950s was achieved without the "oppositionists" and defeatists who asserted that socialism in one country was impossible.

Socialism in one contry goes against the very basis of Marxist thought - and socialism was not built in the SU - a bureaucratic distortion of the planned economy was built. Yes the SU made huge strikes in the 40 years after the Revolution - but at enormous human (50million people) and political cost. If socialism in one country was built how the hell did it collapse after Stalin's death? Was it all because of the 'boss'?

By the late 1920s most of them had either been demoted (which fueled their anger and sense of being hard done by) or kicked out of the party (though sometimes readmitted after they had admitted mistakes but in lower positions).

Not alone were they counter-revolutionaries and terrorists, according to you they were driven by ego and self interest - a damning indictment of the revolutionaries that led the first successful workers revolution. One wonders why they didn't grasp the opportunity prior to October to grap personal power as part of the Provisional government? - wait a minute - one of them did - STALIN.

[C. Flower]

I recommend this article by Trotsky as a good analysis of the rise of the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union.

Socially the proletariat is more homogeneous than the bourgeoisie, but it contains within itself an entire series of strata that become manifest with exceptional clarity following the conquest of power, during the period when the bureaucracy and a workers’ aristocracy connected with it begin to take form. The smashing of the Left Opposition implied in the most direct and immediate sense the transfer of power from the hands of the revolutionary vanguard into the hands of the more conservative elements among the bureaucracy and the upper crust of the working class. The year 1924 – that was the beginning of the Soviet Thermidor.


Involved here, of course, is the question not of historical identity but of historical analogy, which always has as its limits the different social structures and epochs. But the given analogy is neither superficial nor accidental: it is determined by the extreme tension in the class struggle that prevails during the period of revolution and counterrevolution. In both cases the bureaucracy raised itself upon the backs of plebeian democracy that had assured the victory for the new regime. The Jacobin clubs were strangled gradually. The revolutionists of 1793 died on the battlefields; they became diplomats and generals; they fell under the blows of repression ... or went underground. Subsequently, other Jacobins successfully transformed themselves into Napoleon’s prefects. Their ranks were swelled in ever-increasing numbers by turncoats from old parties, by former aristocrats and by crass careerists.

And in Russia? The very same picture of degeneration, but on a much more gigantic arena and a much more mature background, is reproduced some 130 to 140 years later by the gradual transition from Soviets and party clubs seething with life to the commandeering of secretaries who depend solely upon the “passionately beloved leader.”

The upsurge of the nationalized productive forces, which began in 1923 and which came unexpectedly to the Soviet bureaucracy itself, created the necessary economic prerequisites for the stabilization of the latter. The upbuilding of the economic life provided an outlet for the energies of active and capable organizers, administrators and technicians. Their material and moral position improved rapidly. A broad, privileged stratum was created, closely linked to the ruling upper crust. The toiling masses lived on hopes or fell into apathy.

The article also gives biographies of some of the people who rose to power in the bureaucracy (and who opposed the Left Opposition) who had been active opponents of the revolution, only joining the Bolsheviks years later when it was advantageous to do so.

[C. Flower]

I've made this thread by splitting off a series of posts from this thread on the Socialist Party's Statement on the ULA as they do not relate to the substance of the ULA thread and are a separate topic.

[C. Flower]

[quote]

He confessed to many things and confidently denied many things (and in the process was accused of being a liar by one of his co-accused.) What this shows is that he was not reading from some script or acting out of fear as some suggest. There is no doubt that in this period (indeed from the time of the revolution) there were significant and ongoing plots against the soviet government by different political forces with the support of foreign governments. Why this seems to astonish some leftists today is beyond me given their knowledge of things carred out by imperialism across the world in their lifetime. I have no doubt that the Soviet government successfuly rooted out the principal players in this regard for the simple reason that it was the only country in Europe invaded by the Nazis that did not have a significant 5th column assisting the fascists.

There is no question of Bukharin having confessed to any such activities or connections - in fact, he explicitly denied them.

I'm not familiar with whether or not there was a "5th column" with the Nazis active in the Soviet Union. The Stalin-Hitler pact and its abrupt end with a full scale assault on the Soviet Union was also not replicated elsewhere, and may be relevant.

More to the point, the social character of the Soviet Union as a workers state meant that conditions would have been highly adverse to any attempt at building up fascist organisations or support bases.

I cannot understand your assertion that he "capitulated to Stalinism, in particular the theory of socialism in one country" because " .... the world revolution was what was most important to him." This seems quite contradictory on the face of it.

Agreed - a wrong and apparently a contradictory position. But for many of these people, the well being of both the USSR and the working class as a revolutionary class was an overwhelming consideration. There was an objective contradiction at work that expressed itself in Bukharin's position at the trial.

Trotsky wrote in 1935

Thus, the present-day domination of Stalin in no way resembles the Soviet rule during the initial years of the revolution. The substitution of one regime for the other occurred not at a single stroke but through a series of measures, by means of a number of minor civil wars waged by the bureaucracy against the proletarian vanguard. In the last historical analysis, Soviet democracy was blown up by the pressure of social contradictions. Exploiting the latter, the bureaucracy wrested the power from the hands of mass organizations. In this sense we may speak about the dictatorship of the bureaucracy and even about the personal dictatorship of Stalin. But this usurpation was made possible and can maintain itself only because the social content of the dictatorship of the bureaucracy is determined by those productive relations that were created by the proletarian revolution. In this sense we may say with complete justification that the dictatorship of the proletariat found its distorted but indubitable expression in the dictatorship of the bureaucracy.

Hmmmm ... don't know about that. In his own words:

"At the time TROTSKY was negotiating with the German fascists and promising them territorial concessions, we Rights were already in a bloc with the Trotskyites. RADEK told me that TROTSKY considered that the main chance of the bloc coming into power depended upon the defeat of the USSR in a war with Germany and Japan and that he proposed after this defeat to surrender the Ukraine to Germany and the Far East to Japan. RADEK told me this in 1934...."

Report of Court Proceedings in the Case of the Anti-Soviet "Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites". Moscow: The People's Commissariat of Justice of the U.S.S.R., 1938 , p. 13

I don't own this book, and sadly it doesn't seem to be available on line, so I can't see the context of the quote (which year does it refer to?). It is in any event hearsay via Radek. It looks like nonsense. If the USSR had been defeated in WW2, it would have been in no position to negotiate any such thing but would have been overrun and dismantled.

[Sam Lord]

I don't own this book, and sadly it doesn't seem to be available on line, so I can't see the context of the quote (which year does it refer to?). It is in any event hearsay via Radek. It looks like nonsense. If the USSR had been defeated in WW2, it would have been in no position to negotiate any such thing but would have been overrun and dismantled.

Dismantled like France was?

Vichy France, Vichy Regime, Vichy Government, or simply Vichy are common terms used to describe the government of France which collaborated with the Axis powers from July 1940 to August 1944, during the Second World War. It officially called itself the French State (État Français) and was headed by Marshal Philippe Pétain, who proclaimed the government following the 1940 allied defeat against Axis Powers.

The Vichy regime maintained some legal authority in the northern zone of France (the Zone occupée), which was occupied by the German Wehrmacht, but was most powerful in the unoccupied southern "free zone", where its administrative centre of Vichy was located. In November 1942 the southern zone was also occupied and fully subjected to German rule.

Pétain collaborated with the German occupying forces in exchange for an agreement not to divide France between the Axis Powers. Vichy authorities aided in the rounding-up of Jews and other "undesirables", and at times, Vichy French military forces actively opposed the Allies. Much of the French public initially supported the new government despite its pro-Nazi policies, seeing it as necessary to maintain a degree of French autonomy and territorial integrity.