Military Review

The crash of the "pet party"

The crash of the "pet party"85 years ago, 17 on November 1929 of the year Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin (1888-1938), the leader of the "right-leaning", was withdrawn from the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU (B.). Later, at the time of the Great Terror, he will be expelled from the party, arrested and executed as one of the most insidious "enemies of the people". And it is rehabilitated, along with many other leaders of diverse oppositions, only during perestroika.

Then, from Bukharin, they will try to make an “icon” of market socialism, referring to the definition given to him by V.I. Lenin - "the favorite of the party." It was believed that it was the “right deviation” that represented a real alternative to Stalinism, which was unequivocally identified with the “command-administrative system”. However, soon Bukharin was not needed, market socialism very quickly changed to ordinary capitalism ...

1. Career Revolutionary

Bukharin is very often taken lightly, mainly because of certain traits of his character, such as hysteria, infantilism, quarreliness, etc.

They also recall the fact that party colleagues called him “Kolya-balabolka”. However, all this did not prevent Bukharin from making a dizzying political career - in the capacity of both a revolutionary and a party-statesman.
He became interested in the revolutionary struggle in the gymnasium, joined the party in 1906 year. There were arrests, one and a half years in Butyrki and three years of administrative exile in Onega, which the young revolutionary managed to avoid - as a result of a successful escape. Then there was emigration - Germany, Austria-Hungary, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the USA. It is in emigration that Bukharin falls into the field of vision of Lenin, who offered him close cooperation in Bolshevik publications.

At the same time, in emigration, Bukharin entered into polemics with Ilyich for the first time, demanding that the entire RSDLP program be revised. One of the points of disagreement with Lenin concerned the prospects of national liberation movements: he believed that in the epoch of imperialism they were impossible. Nikolai Ivanovich, in general, strongly objected to the rights of nations to self-determination. Naturally, not at all from some great-power chauvinism there. Bukharin tried to be an absolutely faithful Marxist, sincerely wishing the extinction of all nations.

Later, in 1920, Bukharin will take full care of all nations except the Russian, to which he proposed the following: "We, as a former great-power nation, must put ourselves in an unequal position in the sense of even greater concessions to national trends."
By the way, I.V. categorically disagreed with such proposals. Stalin: “They tell us that it is impossible to offend the nationals. This is absolutely correct ... But to create from this a new theory that the Great Russian proletariat should be put in an unequal position ... - that means to say inconsistency. ” He resolutely argued with Bukharin when he made dismissive and even offensive statements about the Russian people. When Bukharin called the Russians "the Oblomovs nation," Joseph Vissarionovich reasonably remarked: "It is unlikely that Comrade. Bukharin will be able to explain from the point of view of his “concept” how this “Oblomovs’ nation ”could historically develop within the framework of a huge state ... And it’s hard to understand how the Russian people created such giants of artistic creativity and scientific thought as Pushkin and Lermontov, Lomonosov and Mendeleev , Belinsky and Chernyshevsky, Herzen and Dobrolyubov, Tolstoy and Gorky, Sechenov and Pavlov ”.

After February 1917, Bukharin returns to Russia, where he takes an active part in the activities of the Moscow Committee of Bolsheviks, edits the newspaper "Social Democrat" and the magazine "Spartak". At the VI Congress, he was elected a member of the Central Committee, and after October he became the de facto editor-in-chief of the leading official, Pravda newspaper, which, in essence, meant playing the role of the chief ideologue. In the 1919 year, despite all his opposition overruns, Bukharin is made a candidate member of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee, and in 1924, he is a member of this political Areopagus. Together with Stalin, he compiled a duumvirate that crushed the left opposition (LD Trotsky, GE Zinoviev, LB Kamenev). Whatever you may say, but in 1920's, Bukharin became a “number two” man in the party (after Stalin), having all the chances of becoming a “number one” man. And all this, of course, requires to take his figure very seriously.

2. From left to right

The most curious and indicative is the evolution that Bukharin did in 1918-1921. Initially, he stood on the left-radical positions and was one of the leaders of the “Left Communists” faction, who advocated the forced socialization of property, the collapse of commodity-money relations, etc. Even after the group ceased to exist, Bukharin continued to be a “red hawk” , Insisting on drawing the toughest line. To characterize his views, it is enough to cite at least such a quote:

"Proletarian coercion in all forms, starting from executions and ending with labor service, is a method of working out communist humanity from the human material of the capitalist era."
However, at the beginning of 1920's views of Bukharin undergo a dramatic transformation. He becomes an ardent supporter of the continuation and deepening of the NEP and protects it from the left opposition. In the opinion of the “party favorite”, the building of socialism and the pursuit of industrialization should be made dependent on a gradual increase in the well-being of the peasants. The logic here was simple - the more prosperous a peasant, the more he can buy industrial goods. And the more goods he buys, the better it will be for the industry itself. At the same time, the peasantry itself must be slowly but surely embraced by various forms of cooperation, from simple to complex.

In general, if you think about it, Bukharin spoke in favor of ordinary capitalist development, which is fully combined with cooperation.

It is clear that the long and stable development of individual peasant farms would make the village sustainably capitalist. And the deepening of the NEP in the city would lead to a dramatic expansion and strengthening of the private sector, with all the ensuing consequences. There is one more aspect here: the long-term enrichment of the peasantry simply would not have allowed the creation of industry in a short time, which means that the country could not at least somehow prepare for war. But this is a topic for another conversation.

It is unlikely that Bukharin was conscious supporters of the capitalist restoration. But it is unlikely that they were many “foremen of perestroika” in the year that way 1986 – 1987.
However, the very logic of the expansion of the capitalist system led precisely to this. (By the way, its capitalist structure was also in the late USSR - this is the so-called “shadow economy”.) Well, the political consciousness could well be transformed further, along with the transformation of the entire socio-economic sphere.

3. Singer of "organized capitalism"

The question arises, what is the reason for such a stunning transformation of Bukharin-leftist into a market-oriented Bukharin? There is a temptation to blame everything on his personal qualities - he was very nervous in kind. But that would be too easy ...

It is necessary to turn to the theoretical legacy of Bukharin, to those of his works in which imperialism is studied — capitalism of a monopolistic era (“Towards a theory of an imperialist state”, “World economy and imperialism”, “Imperialism and capital accumulation (theoretical etude)”). It follows from these works that large monopolies eliminate the anarchy of production and competition, practically eliminating contradictions within the capitalist states. The issues of prices, market, competition are now the problems of the world economy, but within each individual country they are solved through a properly organized organization.

It turned out that capitalism in the era of imperialism becomes something completely different. A “pure imperialism” emerges, essentially abolishing the pre-monopolistic forms of capitalism. Willingly or involuntarily, but Bukharin apologeticized imperialism itself, emphasizing its progressive nature and highlighting it into something separate. Of course, he did not write about it and did not speak, but it literally followed from his constructions.

It seems that here it would be inappropriate to engage in conspiracy delights. Bukharin was too fixated on the subject of his research, which, was the subject of his revolutionary denial. And, as they say, from love to hate is just one step. In addition, in philosophy there is the idea that the subject of knowledge, one way or another, but connected with the object of knowledge.

You can also recall the ancient legend of the dragonborer, who himself becomes a dragon.
It is significant that at about the same time, in 1927, the well-known economist Rudolf Hilferding delivered a report at the congress of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), who also argued that the development of monopoly and concentration of production lead to the elimination of production anarchy, the disappearance of competition and crisis prevention. And this, the speaker concluded, means "a fundamental replacement of the capitalist principle of free competition by the socialist principle of planned production."

The theory of Hilferding called the theory of "organized capitalism" and in the future it formed the basis of the Social Democratic capitulation to capitalism. The Frankfurt Declaration of the Socialist International will define: "Socialist planning is compatible with the existence of private property in important areas." Bukharin adhered to the same theory, which largely caused his shift to the “right”, which was, in fact, a shift towards capitalism.

4. Left turn Comintern

In the year 1926, Bukharin headed the Comintern Executive Committee (ECCI), replacing Zinoviev, the left deviationist in this post, who had suffered a crushing defeat in the inner-party struggle. At the same time, the course of this world organization has become even more “left revolutionary”. It was then that the concept "class versus class", developed by Bukharin’s supporter of the Swiss communist Jules Ambert Draw, is taken into service. Bukharin supported this formula in every possible way, explaining in a special letter to all the Communist Parties that this was a complete rejection of any conciliation towards "reformism". The letter guided the Communists to "resolutely eradicating parliamentary cretinism and left-bloc traditions." And this very “eradication” was officially confirmed at the IX Plenum of the ECCI (February 1928 of the year).

Bukharin solemnly proclaimed: “Our program is the program of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But this is not only a program of the dictatorship of the proletariat, it is a program of the world dictatorship of the proletariat. ”

There is a paradox: the "right" Bukharin shifts the Comintern precisely to the left, acting as a real radical. And it was profitable, no matter how cool, to global, “organized” capitalism.

The more left the Comintern became, the easier it was to present Soviet Russia as an international devil threatening the entire civilized world.
Accordingly, it was more convenient to put pressure on her and slow down the revolutionary and socialist movement in their countries. It would be possible to come up with a basis for aggression against the Soviets, especially since Russia was not yet an industrial country (and according to Bukharin’s plans, she would have to become one oh, but not soon ...). By the way, the pragmatist Stalin already in the 1931 year, almost immediately after the fall of the “pet”, finished this turn and began to cool the hot heads of the “revolutionary communists” in every possible way.

The most curious thing is that in the middle of the 1920's, Trotsky behaved like Bukharin. He flaunted a revolutionary phrase, demanding more decisiveness from the Comintern, but advocated the development of farms, that is, the same capitalist way. About this, by the way, is written with great piety in the collection “The Ideological Heritage of LD Trotsky ”, released in 1994 year by admirers of Lev Davidovich. In addition, the “demon of the revolution” repeatedly reiterated that the USSR should be integrated into the system of world capitalism. He also advocated a powerful credit intervention by the West in order to accelerate the industrial development of the country.

By the way, Trotsky and Bukharin collaborated together in the editorial office of the émigré newspaper Novy Mir, in the New York period of their émigré life.
An interesting touch, isn't it? And together they opposed the Brest Peace, the conclusion of which was in every way impeded by the countries of Western democracy - England, France and the USA.

Say what a coincidence? Are there too many such coincidences?

By the way, here you can talk about Bukharin’s possible ties with various foreign centers, in particular, with Freemasonry. So far, this can be said a little, but there is something. So, the famous masonka E.D. Kuskova reports that during his visit to Prague, giving lectures, he made a symbolic masonic gesture while standing on the stage. According to her, this Bolshevik in the middle of the 30-s gave lectures in Prague, one of which was attended by masons. By the way, in a letter to her of another mason - B.A. Bakhmetyeva (29 March 1929 of the year) expresses hope that the leaders of the “right deviation” will come to power.

5. How can you all "talented" to lose

When Bukharin spoke out against the Stalinist plan for industrialization and collectivization, he had all the trump cards in his hands. For him was the majority of the members of the Central Committee - the June 1928 of the year, the plenum canceled emergency measures to seize grain from the peasants, taken by Stalin. To him, one way or another, the most diverse party and state leaders were inclined, and many of them were part of the Stalinist group. This is how the current deal of S.I. Aksyonenko: “So, MI Kalinin, the chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee ... was always located in favor of the peasants, and the “rightists” counted on his support. The same can be said about K.E. Voroshilov, who was Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs, that is, the commander of the armed forces of the country. Although he was a friend of Stalin, he was alarmed by how collectivization affected the peasants. And the armed forces then consisted almost entirely of peasants. What are the others? They were V.V. Kuibyshev - the chairman of the Supreme Economic Council of the country, that is, the head of industry and agriculture, and Ya.E. Rudzutak, who was very important at that time as Commissar of Communications and at the same time was the deputy head of government. Rudzutak and Kuibyshev took a rather neutral position, but Bukharin expected them to submit to the majority. It must also be said that the leader of Moscow and the Moscow Region N.A. was an ardent supporter of Bukharin. Uglanov, who not only headed the capital party organization, but also served as secretary of the Central Committee and candidate member of the Politburo. Moreover, supporters of Bukharin controlled almost all central newspapers and magazines with the exception of Komsomolskaya Pravda, of which most of the red professors consisted, that is, Bukharinites dominated the universities.

Add to this that Nikolai Ivanovich supported and G. G. Yagoda, deputy chairman of the OGPU, who, due to the illness of the chairman V.R. Menzhinsky, was, in fact, the head of punitive organs.
The second deputy of Menzhinsky M. A. Trilisser also inclined to the right. That is, at the time of the collision with Stalin, the Bukharin group was much stronger. His supporters controlled the power structures of the country, its economy, trade unions, the media and the government. Do not forget that Stalin was only the head of the party apparatus and did not possess any formal authority. Neither the special services, nor the army, nor the courts directly obeyed him. ” (“Bukharin is a failed perestroika”)

Yes, it seemed that with such a deal Bukharin’s victory was predetermined. However, he himself took it away from himself, having made a promising, but, as it turned out, unnecessarily risky maneuver. 11 July 1928 of the “party favorite” made a “friendship visit” to one of the leaders of the defeated “left deviation” Kamenev and offered him a kind of union, saying: “The differences between us and Stalin are many times more serious than all our differences with you” . Recently, the “broken” Kamenev, who feared every kind of dirty trick, either did not believe Bukharin’s single word, moreover, published a recording of the conversation in the Paris Opposition Bulletin published by the supporters of Trotsky.

This caused a shock among the party members - they didn’t like and feared the “leftists”, and Bukharin’s such outstanding double-dealing just outraged. By the way, when later, in 1937-1938, Bukharin was accused of participating in some kind of two-party “right-Trotsky bloc” - no one was particularly surprised, there was a precedent. After that, the "party favorite" began to lose position after position until it was "asked" from the Politburo.

No, he still afloat for some time. He was left in the Central Committee; in 1934, he was elected a candidate member of this body. Bukharin edited the major newspaper Izvestia, took part in the activities of the Supreme Economic Council and the preparation of the new Soviet constitution.

Nikolai Ivanovich repented of all his anti-party sins and tirelessly praised Stalin, calling him at the XVII Congress of the Party "Field Marshal of the Proletarian Forces." But it can be assumed that all this time yesterday's “favorite” continued to keep the fig in his pocket at least.
This can be concluded from the memories of the Mensheviks B.I. Nicholas and the wife of another famous Menshevik figure F.I. Dana Bukharin communicated with these exiled socialists in 1936 during his visit to Paris, where he was sent to negotiate the redemption of the archives of Karl Marx.

Then Bukharin curled Dan’s wife without any confusion: “Stalin is a small, evil man, no, not a man at all, but a devil.” In a conversation with Nikolaev, he was less categorical, but he still rated relations with Stalin as unimportant — by three and a minus.

Stalin himself allowed Bukharin to go on this trip with his young wife, which was against the rules - all the more, clouds were gathering over the “favorite”. It was rumored that the leader thus wanted to let him go back home, he expected that the traveler would become a defect. However, Bukharin still returned to the USSR, towards a very unenviable fate.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Denis
    Denis 22 November 2014 07: 54
    And they rehabilitate him, along with many other leaders of diverse opposition, only during perestroika
    What did not make him human. As, according to the recollections of people who knew him, he was a rut-balabolka, so he
  2. Pervusha Isaev
    Pervusha Isaev 22 November 2014 09: 55
    Freemasonry is the answer not but many questions, to serve the proletariat all over the world and serve the Freemasons, who are firstly Jews, and secondly capitalists - this is, as the POLITICS OF DOUBLE STANDARDS would say now. His RUSOPHOBY is a distinctive feature of all Masons. You can talk a lot about the "world revolution" and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" - it is not clear what it is, although it is not - RETRACT AND SHARE, but it turns out that if the words do not see the deed, then such a nightingale of revolution and windbag and empty talk, which is actually a revolutionary Bukharin turned out to be.
  3. avt
    avt 22 November 2014 09: 57
    “Then Bukharin told Dan’s wife bluntly:“ Stalin is a small, evil man, but no, not a man at all, but a devil. ” In a conversation with Nikolayevsky, he was less categorical, but still assessed relations with Stalin as unimportant - by three with a minus. "----- This is very typical for a person with hypertrophied conceit, whom the same party members are not textbook, carried by the current destalinisers, chased - "the favorite of the party" was called, but quite bitingly and accurately - "Kolya is a balabolka." Stalin himself allowed Bukharin to go on this business trip with his young wife, which was against the rules - especially over the "favorite" Clouds were already gathering. "------ ,, Kolya balabolka" In general, under Stalin, in his inner circle, he occupied a place that Nykyt would later take, it was these two who practically looked after his wife in a friendly way at her studies - Nykyt and Kolya balabolka, so he was almost even a family member. And he burned out on a banal betrayal, when Stalin Clashed with Kamenev and others, it was with this object that Kolya the balabolka wrote in his letter of repentance, well, where about the "proletarian ax"he rant theatrically, but he completely repented to himself - "he ran from you to Kamenev" and back. Well, the question is - a man with such confidence from Stalin that he could get for a very specific betrayal and even with mockery - "Oh, my cucumbers, tomatoes, Stalin sewed Kirov in the corridor. " ?? This ditty was actually launched about a personal friend who, according to the recollections of Sergeev's adopted son, when he came to Moscow, lived in Stalin's apartment! That was such a "favorite of the party", by the way - a member of the Cheka collegium in those very times when people finished off only for belonging to another class - "we will answer with white terror with red terror." There is more innocent blood on it than many "fiery leaders", however, the libertarian destalinizers prefer to keep quiet about this. It is understandable - almost 99,9% of the current destalinizers are descendants of "commissars in magnificent helmets", completely intriguers in life, whom he calmed Athec.
    1. vlad63
      vlad63 22 November 2014 19: 20
      Yuhim died, and with him.
  4. valokordin
    valokordin 22 November 2014 10: 13
    People tend to make mistakes, only mistakes are worse than a crime. It is very good that Joseph Vissarionovich continued the correct line and he had fewer mistakes in crimes, so he and the Great Leader. History needs to know and not repeat historical mistakes, as it is today in the Donbass, which we still have to regret bitterly.
  5. Boris55
    Boris55 22 November 2014 10: 20
    And they rehabilitate him ... ... only during the restructuring.

    During perestroika, the victorious bourgeoisie did not rehabilitate good people.
  6. parusnik
    parusnik 22 November 2014 11: 26
    By the way, there was a capitalist system in the late USSR - this is the so-called. "shadow economy"
    The "shadow economy" arose as a result of which ... N. Khrushchev. liquidated numerous artels and cooperatives that existed in the era of J.V. Stalin and they were engaged not only in the production of consumer goods, but also did serious things. The first TV set in the USSR was produced by such a production artel ... my grandfather was in command of a shoe artel ... from the regional center received orders ... Then such artels were driven into the shadows, the larger ones became state factories under Khrushchev ...
  7. Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 22 November 2014 11: 47
    A rare reptile ... However, like the entire so-called "Leninist guard" ... Give free rein to such "favorites" and they would have done such misfortunes with their "world revolutions" ...
    1. kompotnenado
      kompotnenado 22 November 2014 15: 48
      I completely agree. Shame that they began to rehabilitate these scum during the disaster.
  8. Black
    Black 22 November 2014 17: 36
    "Bukharchik" is still that scum, revolutionary foam, BES, Dostoevsky predicted the coming of these. It's good that Stalin was on this crowd.

    I remember the rehabilitative publications in the AMF at the end of the 80s throughout this shoble. I wonder where the teams came to the editorial office.
    1. avt
      avt 22 November 2014 18: 00
      Quote: Chen
      . I wonder where the teams came to the editorial office.

      Nuuuu! request Do you not really not remember the "superintendent" of the pie-building, Yakovlev, who was in charge of the ideology of the CPSU Central Committee !? The very one whom SE hid from the wrath of old men from the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee in Canada. And he also had a deputy by the name of Zyuganov! bully Nothing evokes a last name then! ??
  9. avvg
    avvg 22 November 2014 19: 24
    I. STALIN knew who the enemy was and who.
  10. воронов
    воронов 22 November 2014 21: 45
    JV Stalin to each such revolutionary found a worthy place near the wall.
  11. Kazanok
    Kazanok 23 November 2014 10: 03
    the mustachioed degenerate itself ... I hope it burns in hell ... yes no, this is exactly the way it is .. Judah is roasted !!!!
  12. moskowit
    moskowit 23 November 2014 11: 22
    "The revolution is devouring its children"! This statement appeared during the Great French Revolution. The first ideologists and organizers passed through the guillotine, then replaced them, ending with the dictatorship of Napoleon's Bounaparte. When the time has come for statehood and work to strengthen it in various spheres, then there is no need for the talkers spinning at the trough and annoyingly reminding of their past "merits". True, the methods are different. In Germany, they staged a "Night of Long Knives", in the USSR "unreasonable repressions". True, they forget a little that the persons involved from the high strata of power, who fell under the "unfounded", first directed the "justified" repressions.