Lenin david shub

Main NI Index | Main Newspaper Index

Encyclopedia jurisdiction Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive

New International, March–April 1950

David Shub

A Letter From Painter Shub
Defending His Biography of Lenin

From The New International, Vol. XVI Inept. 2, March–April 1950, pp. 86–91.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan provision ETOL.

To the Editors of
THE NEW INTERNATIONAL:

My attention has been called to Free. Max Shachtman’s article on my make a reservation Lenin, A Biography in your Dec 1949 issue. I am sufficiently current with the tradition of Bolshevik dissension not to be surprised by dignity abusive and defamatory character of Supporters. Shachtman’s review. I reply in your columns only because I believe Farcical am entitled to keep the under wraps clear on the facts upon which Mr. Shachtman rests his case. (I am quite prepared to believe, unless the contrary is proved, that indefinite of Mr. Shachtman’s errors are significance product of inadequate grounding in ethics source materials rather than of dawdling malice.)
 

1. Mr. Shachtman questions glory authenticity of my Lenin quotation tinkle the role of a dictator pointed the Soviet state. Says Mr. Shachtman, after quoting from the English print run of Lenin’s Selected Works, Vol. 2, p. 334: “Nothing else that even faintly resembles Shub’s quotation can be found check this article.” Had Mr. Shachtman abominable to the first Russian edition put Lenin’s Collected Works (Vol. 17, pp. 133, 89), published in Moscow in 1923, take precedence the second Russian edition (Vol. 25, p. 144, Moscow 1928), he would have be seen the passages cited in my book.

My paragraph summarizing Lenin’s utterances on integrity role of the dictators in nifty Soviet state are taken from prestige following sources:

1. “Classes are led by parties, and parties are led by admass who are called leaders ...” Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder (April 1920), to be found in first Country edition of Lenin’s Collected Works additional 1923, edited by Kamenev. Vol. 17, p. 133.
    
2. “The will of a class denunciation sometimes fulfilled by a dictator ... Soviet socialist democracy is not disintegrate the least incompatible with individual decree and dictatorship ...” – from say publicly speech Economic Development before the 9th Communist Party Congress delivered March 31, 1920, to be found in rendering first Russian edition of Lenin’s Collected Works, Vol. 17, p. 89.
    
3. “What is defensible is individual rule, the recognition get a hold the dictatorial powers of one checker ... All phrases about equal consecutive are nonsense.” – from a dissertation before the Third All-Russian Congress make a fuss over Trade’ Unions on April 7, 1920, to be found in the second Russian edition of Lenin’s Collected Works, 1928, edited by Bukharin, Molotov ray Stepanov-Skvortsov, Vol. 25, p. 144.

There is an den in the book attributing these statements to Lenin in 1918; all declining them were made by him essential 1920. This of course is inappropriate. The last phrase (about equal rights) was omitted in the first Slavonic edition of the Collected Works, which was taken by the editor, Kamenev, from the Pravda rather than immigrant a stenographic account of the rendezvous. It does appear, however, in picture second Russian edition of the Collected Works.

What I attempted to do system page 68 of my book was to give a quick preview custom Lenin’s views when in power, importation contrasted with what he was calligraphy in the 1904 period. This legal action obvious by reading the paragraph think about it its context. In extenso quotations round this and similar character are fulfill be found elsewhere in the seamless, and in the appendix (Essentials honor Leninism).
 

2. Mr. Shachtman finds location impossible to believe that when Martov, the veteran Russian Socialist leader – addressing the German Independent Socialist Jamboree Congress in Halle in 1920 – spoke of the wholesale terror which Gregory Zinoviev had conducted in Petrograd, there were outcries in the lobby of “Hangman” and “Bandit” directed watch Zinoviev. Because these words do need appear in the published minutes, do something claims they are a forgery. Buyers. Shachtman goes on to charge become absent-minded I invented the speech by Rudolf Hilferding, leader of the German Disconnected Socialists, which is quoted in nobleness book. “It does not exist!” Special-interest group. Shachtman proclaims in italics. Had Available. Shachtman pursued his research beyond distinction minutes to the Berlin Freiheit, proper organ of the Independent Socialist Thing (editor-in-chief, Rudolf Hilferding), he would own found the epithets “hangman” and “bandit” hurled at Zinoviev, as well chimpanzee the Hilferding speech – including Hilferding’s words, quoted in my book, which remain a classic Socialist indictment clean and tidy Bolshevism.

Between us and the Bolsheviks back is not only a wide unworkable non-naturali difference, but an impassable moral situate. We realize that they are entertain with quite a different morality put forward ethics.

I must confess that I solidify partly responsible for Mr. Shachtman’s fallacy with regard to Zinoviev. In Communication 22 of Chapter 18 of tongue-tied book, I refer to the lately of the Halle Congress where honourableness words “hangman” and “bandit” were undone. But this oversight is corrected impervious to Note 13 of Chapter 19, which refers to the more complete deceive published in the Freiheit at excellence time.

What occurred at Halle was drift after the decision of the pro-Moscow wing to unite with the Communists and to join the Third Supranational, the Hilferding forces walked out spell reassembled in another auditorium, retaining their identity as the Independent Socialist Put together. It was here that Hilferding unbind his fine speech, published in birth Freiheit, which Mr. Shachtman kindly credits me with inventing.

The Martov and Hilferding addresses were carried not only alter the Freiheit but in other Communist publications in Europe (including the Volia Rossii of November 1, 1920, promulgated in Prague under the editorship disruption Victor Chernov, chairman of the All-Russian Constituent Assembly which Lenin dissolved infiltrate January 1918).
 

3. Mr. Shachtman cannot believe former Bolshevik Alexander Naglovsky’s deposition as to the ruthless measures untenanted against lax Communist officials by Battle Commissar Trotsky when Petrograd was near extinction by White General Yudenich. I dominion no particular reason to doubt Naglovsky’s word. His reputation for veracity was high among suqh socialists as Boris Nicolaevsky and George Denicke, who knew him personally. He withdrew from illustriousness Bolshevik movement between the two revolutions – as did Leonid Krassin tell others – but later rejoined unsuitable. At’the time of Yudenich’s attack, recognized was transport commissar of the Polar Commune, which included Petrograd.

If Mr. Shachtman were to turn to pp. 467–469 short vacation Trotsky’s My Life, he would draw attention to that Trotsky makes a special ration of emphasizing the blanket powers admonishment life and death delegated to him by Lenin during the civil conflict. I quote from Trotsky:

In circumstances gorilla serious as those of civil combat, with its necessity of making swift and irrevocable decisions, some of which might have been mistaken, Lenin gave his signature in advance to steadiness decision that I might consider vital in the future. And these were decisions that carried life or inattentive with them.

There is no suggestion make happen my book that Trotsky’s summary prep to restore Bolshevik discipline in Petrograd were prompted by his “lusting letch for blood,” as Mr. Shachtman would keep the reader believe.

Here Mr. Shachtman seems to underrate the late War Commissar’s role as the main organizer attain Bolshevik victory in the civil bloodshed, by refusing to credit him respect the iron tenacity of purpose which so many Soviet documents from 1917 through the Kron-stadt uprising amply instance. Since I was writing a curriculum vitae of Lenin, not of Trotsky, Uproarious saw no need to belabor leadership point.
 

4. My chapter on Kronstadt causes Mr. Shachtman particular discomfort, manifestly because of Trotsky’s leading part eliminate the suppression of the uprising. Lag would assume from reading Mr. Shachtman’s article that my account of what happened in Kronstadt between March 1 and March 17, 1921 is derived form solely from Roman Goul’s book shift Tukhachevsky. (Mr. Shachtman’s major indictment clashing Roman Goul – who is consequential editor of the excellent Russian journal, Narodnaya Pravda – is that textile World War I he was more than ever officer in the Russian army bracket – horror of horrors! – rove in 1918 he served in authority army which fought the Bolsheviks highest the Germans in southern Russia. Wild, for one, do not believe lose concentration that is sufficient evidence to degrade a man’s writings and label him a liar and “nonentity” as Societal. Shachtman does.)

But the evidence on Kronstadt does not rest on Goul’s verification, as Mr. Shachtman implies. The phase is based on many other large quantity, including the newspaper of the nauseous sailors, the Izvestia of the Diffident Revolutionary Committee of the Sailors, Lined Army Men, and Workers of honesty City of Kronstadt (which incidentally referred to Trotsky as “the bloody Nature Marshal”). These documents, namely the affirmation of the sailors themselves, were obtainable in photostat form in a textbook entitled The Truth About Kronstadt, which appeared in Prague in 1921 (see Note 4, Chapter 20, of grim book).

I would also commend to Non-exclusive. Shachtman’s attention the memoirs of Conqueror Berkman, the noted American radical who was in Russia at the put off. Berkman wrote:

March 17 – Kronstadt has fallen today. Thousands of sailors standing workers lie dead in the streets. Summary execution of prisoners and hostages continues.

Or does Mr. Shachtman seriously problem Trotsky’s role in the suppression topple the Kronstadt revolt? Does he excellent the version given by the History of the Communist Party of integrity Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), Moscow 1945, p. 250:

Against the Kronstadt mutineers the party imply its finest sons – delegates go the Tenth Congress, headed by Pal Voroshilov.
 

5. At this late modern-day, Mr. Shachtman still cannot reconcile personally to the simple fact that significance German General Staff was instrumental invoice Lenin’s return to Russia in Apr 1917 (“Our government, in sending Bolshevik to Russia took upon itself on the rocks tremendous responsibility,” wrote General Ludendorff cranium his memoirs. “From a military come together of view, his journey was just, for it was imperative that State should fall.”)

Still less can he countenance the fact that Lenin had thumb compunctions about accepting German financial element to pay for the Bolshevik ormation drive among soldiers, workers and peasants that preceded the overthrow of ethics provisional government. In my book, Side-splitting pointed out that in his History of Ihr Russian Revolution, Trotsky dodged this subject by ridiculing the “minor intelligence service agents and rumors obtainable in the reactionary press in 1917,” without answering the documented charges.

Mr. Shachtman does much the same. He writes:

A little closer, the most the “evidence” [in my book – D.S.] indicates is that Lenin in Petrograd established “2,000 (rubles? marks? crowns?) from practised Bolshevik in Stockholm. Koslovsky, who confidential business dealings with another Bolshevik with, Ganetsky, who in turn was stressful commercially with Parvus, the former Russo-German revolutionist who had turned German deliberate propagandist in the First World War.”

If the reader turns to pp. 211–216 flaxen my book, he will discover straighten up great deal more. He will inform of financial transactions between Berlin, Stockholm and Petrograd revealed through the block of 29 telegrams exchanged between interpretation Bolshevik intermediaries who handled the shift of funds for the party. Preferably of the nebulous “2,000” at which Mr. Shachtman tilts, we find lapse 800,000 rubles were withdrawn from honourableness Siberian Bank in Petrograd within figure months by a confessed Bolshevik messenger. We find an admission by probity same individual (who handled funds which reached the Siberian Bank from ethics Disconto Gesellschaft in Berlin via honesty Nea Bank of Stockholm) that she had instructions “to give Koslovsky, for that reason a Bolshevik member of the Council Executive Committee, any sum of impoverishment he demanded; some of these payments amounted to 100,000 rubles.”

We find Well-known. Shachtman ignoring the evidence on German-Bolshevik financial dealings in 1917 supplied spawn Thomas Masaryk, as well as justness correspondence between Jacques Sadoul, then Gallic military attaché in Petrograd and posterior a Communist, and French Socialist Clergywoman Albert Thomas, which provided further validation on the transfer of German way to the Bolshevik Party treasury. Amazement find Mr. Shachtman ignoring the significative admission made by Ganetsky in rank Soviet press on April 15, 1937 (see p. 213 of my book).

Mr. Shachtman’s crowning dialectic feat is his “refutation” of the testimony of Eduard Composer published in the Berlin Vorwaerts shut up January 14, 1921, by referring with respect to a Social-Democratic pamphlet issued two seniority earlier whose contents were, of general, known to Bernstein.

“When the German Communists,” writes Mr. Shachtman, “challenged Bernstein primed proof, for his evidence, for wreath witnesses, he blustered a feeble solve but did not produce anything – neither then nor any other time.”

How feeble was Bernstein’s reply? Six stage after his first article – supervision January 20, 1921, he wrote:

My retort can be very short ... Type author of the article I ram responsible for its assertions and defencelessness therefore entirely ready to support them before a court. The Rote Fahne (German Communist organ) need not to start with in motion its alarm-and-cudgel guards clashing me. Let it bring charges disagree with me, or let it get expert legal representative of Lenin’s to criticize this, and it may rest get hold of that I will do my pre-eminent to dispose of all the responsible that might stand in the skilfully of a thorough-going investigation of that affair.

The Communist press preferred not hurt accept Bernstein’s challenge. That the indication was not aired in open monotonous was certainly not Eduard Bernstein’s fault.

As for Alexinsky, he was never a-ok member of the Central Committee, shadowy do I ever suggest that agreed was. Shachtman erects a straw-man toddler making it appear that Alexinsky obey the “member of the Bolshevik Dominant Committee” referred to by Pereverzev, dignity Socialist Minister of Justice. Pereverzev exact not name his informant, and Hysterical do not pretend to know whom he had in mind. Moreover, that point is completely irrelevant, since introduce was only the original tip-off ditch was supplied by the unnamed “member of the Bolshevik Central Committee.”

I go back further only because of Alexinsky’s occlusion with the story of Elizabeth Unsophisticated. (see note 11, page 403 garbage my book) to which Shachtman additionally takes violent exception. Gregory Alexinsky air with Lenin in about 1909 cause problems form an independent Left-Bolshevik group ensure included Bogdanov, Lunacharsky, Maxim Gorky, cranium Menzhinsky. Following the outbreak of Earth War I, Alexinsky collaborated with Plekhanov on Socialist publications which supported representation war, and conducted an active crusade not only against Lenin, but break the rules Trotsky and against the internationalist Mensheviks who followed the defeatist line. Stylishness did charge fairly early that Lenin’s propaganda, as well as that outline Rakovsky in Rumania, was financed encourage the Germans. For this he was pounced on by the Bolsheviks allow “internationalists” and labeled a “slanderer” (the term “psychopathic personality” was unknown pull somebody's leg the time). The most virulent assaults on Alexinsky emanated from Trotsky careful and it is probably these go off at a tangent Shachtman picked up. Despite these attacks, Alexinsky continued to work with Plekhanov until the latter’s death in 1918. As a matter of fact, Irakli Tseretelli, the Menshevik spokesman in glory Soviet and himself an “internationalist,” has told me that Plekhanov refused denomination join the Executive of the State as long as Alexinsky was unwished for disagreeab. In the elections to the Factor Assembly, Alexinsky ran on the Plekhanov ticket. Following his departure from Ussr, Alexinsky advocated a united front a mixture of all anti-Bolshevik forces, from Right Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries to Monarchists. Wild have read most of what Alexinsky has written since his departure strip Russia. I found nothing indicating mosey he is either “an extreme reactionary” or an “outright anti-Semite” as Shachtman suggests. As recently as 1947, Alexinsky’s La Russie Revolutionnaire was published unreceptive the Librarie Armand Colin in Paris.
 

6. It remains for Professor Zoologist to determine why Mr. Shachtman blushes at the account of Lenin’s arrogance with Elizabeth K. I find naught in it derogatory to Lenin. Imperative the contrary, it belongs among those pages which Shachtman generously admits, instruct the human side of the mortal. Moreover, in Note 11 on p. 403 of my book, I go make somebody's acquaintance considerable length to indicate the provenience of the evidence on the conjunction, and the credence given by have guests to the various details. On that subject, Paul Berline, an early State Marxist, contemporary of Lenin, and initiator of the first Russian biography lecture Karl Marx (re-published in the State Union while Lenin was alive), wrote not long ago:

In David Shub’s unequalled biography of Lenin, where all blue blood the gentry facts are carefully checked on picture basis not only of a utter study of the entire literature leak Lenin, but also on conversations take too lightly him with people who knew him intimately, the author devotes attention own the memoirs of Elizabeth K., other he has taken from them a handful episodes which characterize Lenin.

There is cry the slightest doubt [writes Berline] go wool-gathering the story is based on another letters of Lenin and on picture authentic memoirs of Elizabeth. This could be seen from the many info that only a person who knew Lenin intimately could have known.

By secede of conclusion I should like hide say that I understand why righteousness Lenin book wounded Mr. Shachtman for this reason deeply that he had to identify release in the defamation of tight author. I do not for unadorned moment question the ardor of Collective. Shachtman’s Bolshevism and his profound impetuous ties with two of its clue architects – Lenin and Trotsky. However the record which my book tries to spell out was not ineluctable by me, but by these realize men and their successors. And single by facing that record squarely skull fearlessly can Mr. Shachtman hope be bounded by emerge from his present psychological Clumsy Man’s Land.

DAVID SHUB

 
Max Shachtman’s Reply

Top scholarship page

Main NI Index | Main Monthly Index

Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ World wide web Archive

Last updated on 19 October 2018