published on occasion of the
25th of July 1991
- 25th Day of Death -
November 22, 1893 - July 25, 1991
- once a great Bolchevik leader who had fought alongside Lenin and Stalin -
"Corpse of Bolshevism" (Enver Hoxha)
"Revisionism is the idea and action which leads the turning of a country from socialism back to capitalism, the turning of a communist party into a fascist party, it is the inspirer of ideological chaos, confusion, corruption, repression, arbitrarily, instability and putting the homeland up for auction."
"Thus, after this forlorn attempt, these former co-fighters of Stalin's, who had associated themselves with the slanders made against his glorious work, were described as an «anti-party group» and received the final blow from the Khrushchevites. No one wept over them, no one pitied them. They had lost the revolutionary spirit, were no longer Marxist-Leninists, but corpses of Bolshevism. They had united with Khrushchev and allowed mud to be thrown at Stalin and his work"
(Enver Hoxha - "The Krushchevites")
Greeting message of solidarity
Greeting message of the Comintern (SH)
on the 25th anniversary of death of Lazar Kaganovich
July 25, 1991 - July 25, 2016
After the death of Comrade Stalin, Kaganovich, one of his most loyal comrades, quitted the world-historical scene of the revolutionary class struggle of the world proletariat. Kaganovich did not correctly understand the task by which the world communist movement was faced after Stalin's death - namely the revolutionary destruction of the power of modern revisionists, the restoration of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the struggle for the restoration of socialism on an international scale. Kaganovich was not able to fight against the power of the modern revisionists in a proper Bolshevik way, and he capitulated. The new world-historical question of the struggle against the power of the modern revisionists could be solved only in a revolutionary way - namely full steam to rush forward and overthrow the new Kremlin Tsar, similar as Kaganovich did it against the old Czar in the October Revolution. After the murder of Stalin this would be the only way to fulfill the legacy of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin honorably. Kaganovich did not follow this Bolshevik path, so it is our duty to criticize him and to learn from his mistakes. None of the old Bolsheviks could thus take Stalin's place of honor as his successor. The successor of Comrade Stalin became Comrade Enver Hoxha, the 5th Classic of Marxism-Leninism. As the oldest survived Bolshevik, Kaganovich outlived even the Socialist Albania without wasting any words about comrade Enver Hoxha, the leader of the international struggle against modern revisionism, in general, and against Soviet revisionism, in particular.
Some comrades ask us about the correct attitude towards such former Bolshevik leaders who have, in the end, lost their revolutionary spirit . Our attitude is clear: we defend their merits, and we criticize their lost revolutionary spirit. No Bolshevik is born into the world as a master of Bolshevism. And not every Bolshevik leader died automatically as a Bolshevik. So, if we speak about "corpses of Bolshevism", we must ask us, ourselves, what kind of Bolshevist leader Kaganovich really had been, namely before he became a "corpse of Bolshevism". And this is the reason why we honour the Bolshevik period of Kaganovich's life on his 25th Anniversary of death.
The Comintern (SH) draws a demarcation line towards those who deny the correct attitude of comrade Enver Hoxha on Kaganovich and who try unavailingly to revive this "corpe of Bolshevism". The Comintern (SH) criticizes also those who want to forget the former merits of those Bolshevik leaders who proved to be not strong enough and who gave up the fight. The first attitude is a rightist deviation and the second attitude a "leftist" deviation. "Corpes of Bolshevism" must be burried, but Bolshevist merits will never die. Bolshevist merits can neither be forgotten, nor can they be burried.
We must criticize Kaganovich especially that he has not followed the path of Enver Hoxha, who had hoisted and defended the Stalin banner. If Kaganovich had really been a Bolshevik opponent of the Soviet revisionists, he would have supported socialist Albania and would strengthen a Hoxhaist opposition in the Soviet Union. Kaganovich has not done this, namely as opposed to the "Revolutionary (Bolshevik) Communists of the Soviet Union" [programmatic call, 1969 (?)].
Well, all has not been said and done on Kaganovich, and the last chapter of the history of Bolshevism is not yet written. We will continue to search for the historical truth, obtaining more knowledge and expand our horizons, to make us a more objective picture of all the collaborators of the Classics of Marxism-Leninism, and we will, of course, correct our misinterpretations necessarily.
New Bolsheviks will follow the old Bolsheviks, this is for certain - and history has shown that not all of them died or will die as Bolsheviks. This is inevitable, because we must never forget that the class struggle can not be carried out otherwise than under the harmful influence and anti-communist pressure of world capitalism. And that also applied to the class struggle in the former Soviet Union, against the power of the new bourgeoisie under the leadership of the Soviet revisionists. One must judge on Kaganovich according to his position and role opposite to the modern revisionists in the Soviet Union.
How do we fight today for Bolshevism, which was created by Lenin and Stalin ? We keep Bolshevism alive by firmly relying on its historical pillars which must be continuously further developed. We must learn to master the Bolshevist method for the destruction of the globalized world of capitalism, and after that, for the construction of the globalized world of socialism.
For us international Bolshevists it is always the duty to learn not only from the mistakes and weaknesses of the old Bolsheviks, but above all, from their great heroic deeds. Above all criticism we must not forget: Without the old Bolsheviks, there were no October Revolution. Without the old Bolsheviks there would be no emancipation of the working class from capitalism. Without the old Bolsheviks there would be no dictatorship of the proletariat. Without the old Bolsheviks there would be no socialist society. Without the old Bolsheviks there would be no victory over fascism. Without the old Bolsheviks Bolshevism could not be spread all over the whole, and so on ... Let's never forget the slogan of Lenin: "Bolshevism is a method for all."
We are not Trotskyists who demonize Stalin and the Stalinist leaders and who drag the Stalin-Era in the mud. And we are not Trotskyists who obtain the confidence of Stalin by fraud. Both the open anti-Stalinists and hidden anti-Stalinists collaborate for the purpose to vilify shamefully the Bolshevist achievements of Stalin and his close comrades at the top of the party before the masses. So there are a number of Trotskyite-bourgeois writers who dragged the name Kaganovich through the mire. We vehemently pillory these dirty writers and unmask their lies. Finally, it was also a merit of Comrade Kaganovich, having been at the forefront of the fight against the "Block of Rights and Trotskyites" and defended Bolshevism against opportunism honorably. Those who have forgotten this historical truth, can not be true Bolsheviks because this is grist to the mill of the anti-Bolshevists. And we criticize simultaneously those who have forgotten Enver Hoxha's meaningful characteristic words about the "corpses of Bolshevism". Kaganovich's gave up the Bolshevist fight against the social-fascist, social-imperialist Soviet Union, and therefore he became an accessory to the crimes of the modern revisionists. This debt remains and can not be extinguished. We Stalinist-Hoxhaists do not grant Kaganovich amnesty, and as well not similar veteran Stalinists. Nobody can repay historical debt through former merits. Nevertheless, Bolshevik merits can be extinguished by nothing and nobody, even not by fatal historical mistakes which have been made by Kaganovich and others later on. This is the reason why we Stalinist-Hoxhaists have the historical duty to defend the Bolshevik merits unconditionally, both in general and in particular - no ifs, no buts. Otherwise we would deny our own history of Bolshevism. And this is, what the Trotzskyite really aim for. But we will do this service neither to the bourgeoisie, nor to her fifth column ! We are the ones who hold high the banner of Bolshevism. And we defend the banner of Stalin against all those forces that try to drag it through the dirt - no matter directly or indirectly. The world bourgeoisie has not stopped and will never stop, blaming Kaganovich for incredible "crimes" in the period of Lenin and Stalin. We Stalinist-Hoxhaists, however, criticize first and foremost the mistakes that he had made after Stalin's death, thus under the dictatorship of the new Soviet bourgeoisie.
It belongs to the long-known warfare of bourgeois propaganda against communism to condemn the merits of the Bolsheviks as an alleged "crime". Therefore we must fight back such anti-communist attacks, in general, and especially concerning the name of Kaganovich. Kaganovich's great contributions to Communism will remain unforgotten and unassailable. The open enemies of Bolshevism deny the merits of the Bolsheviks while the hidden enemies praise them, however only as a means for camouflage. You can never be a Bolshevik if you do not fight for the defense of the history of Bolshevism. And you can not fight for the defense of the history of Bolshevism, if you deny simultaneously the history of the Bolshevik leaders, such as Kaganovich, who lived and fought for Bolshevism. After all, we defend Kaganovich for the period when he was called by the party of Lenin and Stalin on his post - namely with the date when he became a member of the Bolshevik Party in the year 1911.
Now, let us enumerate some stages of his Bolshevist life:
On November 22, 1893 Lazar Kaganovich was born. He was the oldest Bolshevik and reached the proud age of almost 100 years. His birthplace is the village Boars (Chernobyl region). He grew up in a poor family of dealers (suppliers of cattle to the slaughterhouse). He attended primary school and went to Kiev in search of work when he was 13 years old. He found work in a tannery (shoe factory). He played an active role in the unions of tanners.
In 1911 he participated in the revolutionary movement, together with his older brother Michael. Kaganovich was a member of the RSDLP (B) Kaganovich since 1911. Exactly 50 years later the Khrushchevites expelled him as a member of the "anti-party group" after the XXII Congress of the CPSU in 1961. And all his applications for reentry into the revisionist party were rejected.
In 1915, Lazar Kaganovich was arrested and deported to his native village Boars. From there, he went into hiding and moved with his wife Maria Yuzovka (marriage in 1924) to the city of Donetsk, where he was Deputy Chairman of Yuzovsky Council and Chairman of the unions of tanners after the February Revolution. In the spring of 1917, the party called Kaganovich to the army. In March and April 1917, he was the chairman of the military organization of the Bolsheviks in Samara. In June 1917 he participated in the meetings of the All-Russian conference of military organizations of the RSDLP (B) in Petersburg, where he was elected to the All-Russian military organization office. After he returned from the army, Kaganovich was arrested again. After his release, he was sent back to the front. Kaganovich became an active fighter of the Red October.
After the Great October Socialist Revolution L. M. Kaganovich in 1918 belonged to the organizers of the Red Army and was commissioner of organizational and propaganda department of the Red Army, where he could take personal contact with a number of prominent Bolsheviks. In midsummer 1918 Kaganovich was sent to Nizhny Novgorod, which was a frontline city then. Here he worked from May 1918 to August 1919 as chairman of the Nizhny Novgorod regional committee of the RCP (B) and Gouvernement's Executive Committee.
From September 1919 to August 1920 he defended the city of Voronezh, where he became chairman of the Voronezh Revolutionary Committee and the Executive Committee of the government.
In the years 1920 - 1921 he fought at the front in Turkestan, where he was a member of the Bureau of the Central Committee of the RCP (B), the CEC Turkestan, People's Commissar of the Workers 'and Peasants' Inspection of the Turkmen SSR and Chairman of Tashkent City Council.
Since 1921, he took over leadership roles in the union work as secretary of the Moscow Committee.
In his first publications he treated theoretical questions about ideology.
In 1922, after Stalin was General Secretary of the Central Committee of the RCP (B), Kuibyshev recommended him for work in the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the RCP (B). Kaganovich was entrusted with tasks of organization and supply. In this field he took over more and more responsible functions.
1923 L. M. Kaganovich was candidate of the Central Committee of the RCP (B) until he was taken as a full member in May 1924.
From June 1924 to December 1925 was Kaganovich member of the Organization Bureau of the Central Committee.
From June 1924 to April 1925 he was Secretary of the Central Committee of the RCP (B). Here, Kaganovich worked side by side with the other secretaries of the CC of the CPSU (B), such as Stalin, Molotov, Kuibyshev. He proved for Stalin as an indispensable aid in the top party leadership, especially in the fight against the "opposition". Kaganovich achieved great merit in the fight against the "Block of the Trotskyists and Rightists", in particular against Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin and Rykov, against the Trotskyists.
In April 1925 L. M. Kaganovich was appointed General Secretary of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine. Concerning the solution of the question of NEP, Kaganovich was fully on the side of Stalin and paved the way to building a socialist economy in Ukraine. In particular, he headed there the major project of the Dnieper Power Station.
In June 1926, L. M. Kaganovich became candidate of the Politburo of the CPSU (B).
In July 1928, the party called him back to Moscow, in order to work there again as a secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU (B).
In the first half of the 30s Kaganovich was at the height of his career.
With Molotov he participated in the all-Ukrainian Party Conference, in 1930, when he supported the collectivization policies of Stalin.
Since July 1930 he had been a member of the Politburo of the CPSU (B) (until 1952 !).
In December 1930 Stalin appointed him as deputy of the party, after Molotov was appointed Chairman of People's Commissars of the Council of the USSR. Lazar took over the top position in the Organization Bureau of the Central Committee of the CPSU (B) and in a number of key departments of the Central Committee. He even took over the chairmanship of the sessions of the Politburo of the CPSU (B) while Stalin was on vacation. Kaganovich chaired numerous committees of the Politburo.
In the years 1930 - 1935 L. M. Kaganovich was first secretary of the Moscow Committee of the CPSU (B).
In this responsible position, he mobilized the party organization and the working people of Moscow and the Moscow region for the implementation of the decisions of the Central Committee of the CPSU (B) concerning the capital master plan of reconstruction.
In 1931 Kaganovich brought the construction of the famous Moscow Metro into being. On May 13, 1935 it was decided on a proposal by Stalin CEC, to name the Moscow Metro "Kaganovich". Since 1955, under Khrushchev, the name "Kaganovich" was deleted . During his tenure as Secretary of the Moscow Committee of the Communist Party Kaganovich changed considerably the overall picture of the city of Moscow and its environment.
From 22 to 23 June 1931, the session of economists was held at the CC CPSU (B). At the consultation attended representatives of the Supreme Economic Council of the USSR, all its subordinated economic organizations and also the People's Commissariat for Supply of the USSR. Stalin delivered the speech. The work of the consultation was supported by Molotov, Voroshilov, Andreyev, Kaganovich, Mikoyan, Shvernik, Kalinin, Ordzhonikidze and Kuibyshev.
On October 25, 1931
Stalin, Voroshilov, Ordzhonikidze and Kaganovich received in the Kremlin the delegation of shock workers of the "Stalin" car factory (formerly "AMO" car factory) who produced the first trucks and buses in the USSR.
In the summer of 1932 Kaganovich traveled as head of a large government delegation to the North Caucasus, where he threw light on the sabotage of supplying the state with wheat and rye.
From 15 to 19 February 1933, the first Union Congress of shock workers of collective farms took place in Moscow. The Congress discussed the issue of Bolshevisation of collective farms and the tasks of the spring sowing. At the congress spoke Stalin, Molotov, Kaganovich, Kalinin, Voroshilov and Budenny.
In 1933, Kaganovich headed the agricultural department of the Central Committee of the CPSU (B). He led among others the political departments of the MTS and state farms, and this with great success.
On October 3, 1933
Stalin, Molotov, Voroshilov and Kaganovich congratulated the team of Stratostats "USSR" for the fulfillment of the governmental order to explore and conquer the stratosphere.
In October 1933
Stalin, Molotov, Voroshilov and Kaganovich welcomed the participants of the motor race on the route Moscow - Kara-Kum - Moscow.
On October 17, 1933
Stalin, Molotov, Voroshilov and Kaganovich congratulated the members of the expedition for undersea work for successful salvage of the icebreaker "Sasdko" from the seabed of the Arctic.
On November 20, 1933 Stalin, Molotov, Kalinin and Kaganovich received the delegation of shock workers of collective farms of the Odessa area and they had a talk with them on the work of the collective farms.
On December 23, 1933 Stalin and Kaganovich received the delegation of shock workers of collective farms of the Dnepropetrovsk region and they had a talk with them about the collective-farm construction and the supply of the village with industrial goods.
He was chairman of the Central Commission for controlling the ranks of the party. Kaganovich headed the purification of the party in the years 1933-1934.
From January 26 to February 10, 1934, the XVII. Congress of the CPSU (B) took place. At the XVII. Congress of the CPSU (B), L M. Kaganovich spoke on "Organizational matters of the party and the Soviets." L. M. Kaganovich's report was adopted by the congress and also the decisions on organizational questions (Party and Soviet construction). The new party statute was adopted, too.
After the XVII Congress of the CPSU (B), the Secretary of the CC of the CPSU (B), Kaganovich, was elected Chairman of the Party Control Commission of the Central Committee of the CPSU (B). Later, in the years 1937 - 1939, Kaganovich was significantly involved in the party purges.
In 1934 he directed the Transport Committee of the CPSU (B) and the Council of People's Commissars, later the Transport Department of the Central Committee of the CPSU (B).
In the years 1935 - 1944, L. M. Kaganovich was People's Commissar of Railways of the USSR.
Since 1937 he was also People's Commissar of Heavy Industry.
From January 1939 he was appointed to the post of People's Commissar of the fuel industry.
From October 1939 to July 1940 he was people's commissar for the oil industry.
From August 1938 to 1946, he officiated at the same time as deputy chairman of the Council of People's Commissars.
During the Great Patriotic War (1941 – 1945) L. M. Kaganovich was member of the State Defense Committee, and he was a member of the Military Council of the North Caucasus. He fought at the Transcaucasian fronts. His brilliant feats of arms against the fascist invaders in the Caucasus were legendary. The victory of the Battle of Stalingrad was possible, not least, through the defeats of the Nazis in the Caucasus. The war years were a difficult time for all Soviet peoples and the leaders of the Soviet state. Lazar Kaganovich was primarily responsible for the smooth operation of railways, which had a special meaning in the war. The widely diversified rail network in the USSR served in the war not only for the huge military transports but also for the relocation of thousands of factories to the eastern regions of the country (Siberia). It is thanks to organizational skills of Kaganovich that the railway functioned trouble-free during the war and that all the difficulties were mastered brilliantly. Undoubtedly, this was a personal merit of the "Iron Commissar", L. M. Kaganovich. During the Great Patriotic War, Kaganovich performed prodigies of logistics.
On November 5, 1943, Kaganovich was honored by decree of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR for his outstanding achievements in the field of rail transport under the difficult conditions of war. Kaganovich was bestowed with the title "Hero of Socialist Labor", and he reveived the Order of Lenin and the gold medal "hammer and sickle" (number 56). In the party, Kaganovich was considered the "fireman" or the "locomotive" of the Politburo, who solved problems and difficult situations with Bolshevik hardness and steely determination.
In December 1944 , L. M. Kaganovich was deputy chairman of the Transport Committee of Ministers of the USSR.
1946 - 1947 he was Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR.
In 1947, L. M. Kaganovich was elected first secretary and member of the Politburo of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine.
1947 - 1953 - Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR.
From 1947 he was responsible for the control of the Ministries of the complex of heavy industry, transport and reconstruction as Deputy Prime Minister.
1950, Kaganovich was deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.
L. M. Kaganovich was elected as a member of the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee by the Plenum of the CC of the CPSU in October 1952 (after the XIX. Congress of the CPSU).
1953 - 1957 was Kaganovich first deputy chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (thus,beside other leading posts in service under the revisionist leadership of Khrushchev after the death of Stalin !!)
* * *
It is known that Stalin, shortly before his death, was not contented with the old guard of the Bolsheviks (including Kaganovich). He sharply criticized them. Therefore they had to take a back seat, and were replaced by a younger leading group (among others: Khrushchev).
In regard of Khrushchev and Brezhnev, it is important to know that Kaganovich wasn't uninvolved in promoting their career and in their coming to power. Kaganovich knew Khrushchev quite good in the Ukraine - long before the October Revolution. In his memories, Kaganovich mentioned that Khrushchev was exposed even as an active Trotskyist in the years 1923 and 1924 .
What does that mean ? This means that Khrushchev was not on Stalin's side but on the hostile side of Trotsky. And this in the face of the critical moment of the decision on the successor of Lenin.
Secondly, Khrushchev rehabilitated the enemies of Stalin after his death (among others the Trotskyites). Khrushchev even manipulated the Collective Works of Lenin in defence of Trotsky (the alleged "Lenin's Testament")
Khrushchev fought against Stalin before he became leader of the Bolshevik party, and Khrushchev fought against Stalin after the death of Stalin. This proves that Khrushchev was fighting against Stalin secretly in the Stalin era, too [ "for Stalin in words - and against Stalin in deeds"].
It was possible to prepare the overthrow of Stalinism only behind the mask of the personality cult which was promoted and accelerated, especially by Khrushchev.
So, if the personal promotion of Khrushchev by Kaganovich was already a serious error in the early days, then the capitulation of Kaganovich after the death of STAlin is all the more grievous. It was a gross misjudgment of Kaganovich that this Trotskyist Khrushchev would have "perceived his error" and allegedly on track to Stalinism. Kaganovich did not realize, or underestimated the danger that this was just a deception of the enemies of Stalin. In consideration that Kaganovich was extraordinarily skilled in the struggle against the enemies of the party, especially in his responsible function as Chairman of the Party Control Commission of the Central Committee of the CPSU (B), his underestimation of the danger of Khrushchev was unpardonable.
Admittedly, we must give credit to Kagonovich that he removed Khrushchev from the post of the First Secretary of the Ukrainian Party organization, in the years 1946 and 1947 - when Kaganovich had to intervene for the reconstruction of agriculture after a drought.
Whether Kaganovich has or has not acted "in good faith", in the result Kaganovich had contributed to Khrushchev's career.
Kaganovich informed Stalin in time about the Trotskyist background of Khrushchev, that's right. And it is also true that Stalin was warned about Khrushchev. And it is also true that the "anti-Party group" succeeded to depose the Trotskyite revisionist Khrushchev, but only for "a few hours" as Comrade Enver Hoxha had described it in his book "The Khrushchevites" :
"The positions of the revisionist reactionaries were becoming stronger and their opponents in the Presidium, Malenkov, Molotov, Kaganovich, Voroshilov and others, now began to see more clearly the revisionist intrigue and the diabolical plans which Khrushchev hatched up against the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat. At a meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the party in the Kremlin, in the swnmer of 1957, after many criticisms, Khrushchev was left in the minority, and, as Polyansky told us from his own mouth, Khrushchev was dismissed from the task of the first secretary and was appointed minister of agriculture, since he was an «expert on kukuruza»*. *(maize (Russian in the original) However, this situation did not last more than a few hours. Khrushchev and his supporters secretly gave the alarm, the marshals surrounded the Kremlin with tanks and soldiers and gave orders that not even a fly was to leave the Kremlin. On the other hand, aircraft were sent to the four corners of the Soviet Union to gather up the members of the Plenum of the CC of the CPSU. «Then,» said Polyansky, this product of Khrushchev, «we entered the Kremlin and demanded admission to the meeting. Voroshilov came out and asked what we wanted. When we told him that we wanted to enter the meeting, he cut us short. When we threatened to use force he said: 'What does all this mean?' But we warned him: 'Mind your words, otherwise we shall arrest you.' We entered the meeting and changed the situation.» Khrushchev was restored to power.
Thus, after this forlorn attempt, these former co-fighters of Stalin's, who had associated themselves with the slanders made against his glorious work, were described as an «anti-party group» and received the final blow from the Khrushchevites. No one wept over them, no one pitied them. They had lost the revolutionary spirit, were no longer Marxist-Leninists, but corpses of Bolshevism. They had united with Khrushchev and allowed mud to be thrown at Stalin and his work; they tried to do something, but not on the party road, because for them, too, the party did not exist.
All those who opposed Khrushchev, in one way or another, or were no longer necessary to him, were to suffer the same fate."
Besides, it can't be denied that Kaganovich (in his speech at the XX. Congress of the CPSU), did not open the fire against Khrushchev, who slung mud at comrade Stalin in his criminal secret speech to the Congress.
The lesson is that the enemies of Stalin had secretly prepared their seizure of power for many years, aiming for the transformation of the dictatorship of the proletariat into the dictatorship of the new bourgeoisie, the greatest damage in the history of world communism.
Even the criminal Brezhnev began his path to power, on the recommendation of Kaganovich. Once come to power, the leaders of the Soviet expelled Kaganovich from the party as a member of the " hostile party group". Who was suspected to be a Stalinist, was eliminated by the modern revisionists in one way or another.
How should Kaganovich have lead the fight against the modern revisionists? To this end, there is only one clear answer:
Kaganovich should have to follow the Stalinist-Hoxhaist way, latest after he had been expelled in 1961. However, Kaganovich didn't do this.
A revisionist degenerated party can never be turned back into a Bolshevik Party. A revisionist party needs to be smashed and on its ruins the Bolshevik Party must be re-established. That is the only correct Bolshevik way to reconquer the power of the proletariat. The Bolshevik party can not be rebuilt with the revisionists, but only in the fight against the revisionists. Of course, you also have to try to penetrate the Revisionist Party. As a Bolshevik you must "take the fortress from inside." But Kaganovich submitted his applications for accession to the revisionist party is not with the intention of weakening and decomposing the Revisionist Party from the inside, and with the aim to gain suitable members for the reconstruction of the Bolshevik Party. Kaganovich was afraid of the necessary violation of the "unity", was afraid of the inevitable split, did not practice the tactics of factionalism with the revolutionary aim of destroying the revisionist party. Lenin was a hundred times right when he used the method of split and factionalism in the case if the majority in the party was lost. And this happened not only for one time in the history of the Bolshevik Party. Kaganovich did not practice this important Leninist doctrine of the Bolshevik Party after Stalin's death. Capitulation is tantamount to betrayal because, without the restoration of the Bolshevik Party, the proletariat can never escape from the clutches of the modern revisionists, can not win the socialist revolution to overthrow the new bourgeoisie, can the dictatorship of the proletariat not be restored, can the restoration of capitalism not be transformed into the restoration of socialism, etc., etc..
All this is not done. After the death of Stalin there is no longer a Bolshevik Party in Russia. Therefore, it is very important to create a Russian Section of the Comintern (SH). These are the main lessons from Kaganovich mistakes and failures.
The Comintern (SH) is well advised to always reckon with the risk of being transformed into a revisionist International and therefore we must always be prepared for such a dangerous situation. We must always be vigilant. If the revisionists have already penetrated into our party, then it is much harder to get rid of them afterwards. If the Comintern (SH) actually would fall into the hands of neo-revisionists, then we must not repeat the mistake of Kaganovich. A revisionist degenerated Comintern (SH) must necessarily be smashed by us. And if necessary, we would have to start again from scratch for the reconstruction of the Comintern (SH). However, if we always rely on the party doctrine of the 5 classics of Marxism-Leninism, then our Bolshevik world party will ultimately remain as the winner over all kinds of revisionists.
Let's always defend the Stalinist merits of Comrade Kaganovich, but simultaneously let us never forget to learn from the mistakes that Kaganovich has committed especially after Stalin's death.
July 25, 2016
XVII Congress of the CPSU (B)
L. M. Kaganovich
L. M. Kaganovich
STALIN LETTERS TO KAGANOVICH
This letter was published in part in the collection: J. V. Stalin, Marxism and the National and Colonial Question, Moscow 1934, pp. 172-173
To Comrade Kaganovich
and the Other Members of the Political Bureau
of the Central Committee, Ukraine C.P.(B.)
April 26, 1926
Works, Vol. 8, January-November, 1926, pp. 157-163
I have had a talk with Shumsky. It was a long talk, lasting over two hours. As you know, he is dissatisfied with the situation in the Ukraine. The reasons for his dissatisfaction may be reduced to two main points.
1. He considers that Ukrainisation is progressing far too slowly, that it is looked upon as an imposed obligation and is being carried out reluctantly and very haltingly. He considers that Ukrainian culture and the Ukrainian intelligentsia are growing at a rapid pace, and that if we do not assume control of this movement it may by-pass us. He considers that the movement should be headed by people who believe in Ukrainian culture, who are or want to be acquainted with it, who support and are capable of supporting the growing movement for Ukrainian culture. He is particularly dissatisfied with the conduct of the top leadership of the Party and trade unions in the Ukraine, which, in his opinion, is hindering Ukrainisation. He thinks that one of the principal faults of the top leadership of the Party and trade unions is that it does not draw Communists who are directly linked with Ukrainian culture into the direction of Party and trade-union work. He thinks that Ukrainisation should be carried out first of all within the ranks of the Party and among the proletariat.
2. He thinks that if these shortcomings are to be corrected, it is necessary in the first place to alter the composition of the Party and Soviet top leadership with a view to its Ukrainisation, and that only on this condition can a change of sentiment in favour of Ukrainisation be brought about among the cadres of our functionaries in the Ukraine. He proposes that Grinko should be appointed to the post of Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars and Chubar to the post of Political Secretary of the C.C., Ukr.C.P.(B.), that the composition of the Secretariat and the Political Bureau should be improved, and so forth. He thinks that unless these and similar changes are made, it will be impossible for him, Shumsky, to work in the Ukraine. He says that should the Central Committee insist, he is prepared to return to the Ukraine even if the present conditions of work are left unchanged, but he is convinced that nothing would come of it. He is particularly dissatisfied with the work of Kaganovich. He thinks that Kaganovich has succeeded in putting Party organisation work on proper lines, but he considers that the predominance of the organisational element in Comrade Kaganovich’s methods renders normal work impossible. He is convinced that the effects of the organisational pressure exerted by Comrade Kaganovich in his work, of his method of relegating higher Soviet institutions and their leaders to the background, will make themselves felt within the very near future, and he cannot guarantee that these effects will not take the form of a serious conflict.
Here is my opinion.
1. As regards the first point, there is some truth in what Shumsky says. It is true that a broad movement in favour of Ukrainian culture and Ukrainian public life has begun and is spreading in the Ukraine. It is true that we must under no circumstances allow that movement to fall into the hands of elements hostile to us. It is true that a number of Communists in the Ukraine do not realise the meaning and importance of that movement and are therefore taking no steps to gain control of it. It is true that a change of sentiment must be brought about among our Party and Soviet cadres, who are still imbued with an ironical and sceptical attitude towards Ukrainian culture and Ukrainian public life. It is true that we must painstakingly select and build up cadres capable of gaining control of the new movement in the Ukraine. All that is true. Nevertheless, Shumsky commits at least two serious errors.
Firstly. He confuses Ukrainisation of the apparatus of our Party and other bodies with Ukrainisation of the proletariat. The apparatus of our Party, state and other bodies serving the population can and should be Ukrainised, a due tempo in this matter being observed. But it is impossible to Ukrainise the proletariat from above. It is impossible to compel the mass of the Russian workers to give up the Russian language and Russian culture and accept the Ukrainian culture and language as their own. That would be contrary to the principle of the free development of nationalities. It would not be national freedom, but a peculiar form of national oppression. There can be no doubt that with the industrial development of the Ukraine and the influx into industry of Ukrainian workers from the surrounding countryside, the composition of the Ukrainian proletariat will change. There can be no doubt that the composition of the Ukrainian proletariat will become Ukrainised, just as the composition of the proletariat in Latvia or Hungary, say, which was at one time German in character, subsequently became Latvianised or Magyarised. But this is a lengthy, spontaneous and natural process. To attempt to replace this spontaneous process by the forcible Ukrainisation of the proletariat from above would be a utopian and harmful policy, one capable of stirring up anti-Ukrainian chauvinism among the non-Ukrainian sections of the proletariat in the Ukraine. It seems to me that Shumsky has a wrong idea of Ukrainisation and does not take this latter danger into account.
Secondly. While quite rightly stressing the positive character of the new movement in the Ukraine in favour of Ukrainian culture and Ukrainian public life, Shumsky fails to see its seamy side. Shumsky fails to see that, in view of the weakness of the indigenous communist cadres in the Ukraine, this movement, which is very frequently led by non-communist intellectuals, may here and there assume the character of a struggle to alienate Ukrainian culture and public life from general Soviet culture and public life, the character of a struggle against “Moscow” in general, against the Russians in general, against Russian culture and its highest achievement—Leninism. I shall not stop to prove that this is becoming an increasingly real danger in the Ukraine. I only want to say that even certain Ukrainian Communists are not free from such defects. I have in mind such a generally known fact as the article of the Communist Khvilevoy in the Ukrainian press. Khvilevoy’s demand for the “immediate de-Russification of the proletariat” in the Ukraine, his opinion that “Ukrainian poetry must get away from Russian literature and its style as fast as possible,” his statement that “the ideas of the proletariat are known to us without Moscow art,” his infatuation with the idea that the “young” Ukrainian intelligentsia has some kind of Messianic role to play, his ludicrous and non-Marxist attempt to divorce culture from politics—all this and much else like it sounds (cannot but sound!) more than strange nowadays coming from the mouth of a Ukrainian Communist. At a time when the proletarians of Western Europe and their Communist Parties are in sympathy with “Moscow,” this citadel of the international revolutionary movement and of Leninism, at a time when the proletarians of Western Europe look with admiration at the flag that flies over Moscow, the Ukrainian Communist Khvilevoy has nothing better to say in favour of “Moscow” than to call on the Ukrainian leaders to get away from “Moscow” “as fast as possible.” And that is called internationalism! What is to be said of other Ukrainian intellectuals, those of the non-communist camp, if Communists begin to talk, and not only to talk but even to write in our Soviet press, in the language of Khvilevoy? Shumsky does not realise that we can gain control of the new movement in the Ukraine in favour of Ukrainian culture only by combating extremes like Khvilevoy’s in the communist ranks. Shumsky does not realise that only by combating such extremes can the rising Ukrainian culture and public life be converted into a Soviet culture and public life.
2. Shumsky is right when he asserts that the top leadership (Party and other) in the Ukraine should be Ukrainian. But he is mistaken about the tempo. And that is the main thing just now. He forgets that there are not enough purely Ukrainian Marxist cadres for this as yet. He forgets that such cadres cannot be created artificially. He forgets that such cadres can be reared only in the process of work, and that this requires time. . . . What would be the effect of appointing Grinko to the post of Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars at this moment? How might such a step be assessed by the Party in general and the Party cadres in particular? Will they not take it to imply that our line is to depreciate the weight and prestige of the Council of People’s Commissars? For it cannot be concealed from the Party that Grinko’s Party and revolutionary standing is considerably lower than Chubar’s. Can we take such a step now, in the present period of the revitalisation of the Soviets and of increasing weight and prestige of the Soviet bodies? Would it not be better, both in the interest of our work and in the interest of Grinko himself, to forego such plans for the time being? I am in favour of the Secretariat and Political Bureau of the C.C., Ukr.C.P.(B.), as well as the top Soviet bodies, being reinforced with Ukrainian elements. But it is wrong to represent matters as if there were no Ukrainians in the leading organs of the Party and Soviets. What about Skrypnik and Zatonsky, Chubar and Petrovsky, Grinko and Shumsky—are they not Ukrainians? Shumsky’s mistake is that, while his perspective is correct, he disregards the question of tempo. And tempo is now the main thing.
With communist greetings,
26. IV. 1926
To Kaganovich, Molotov.
Pravda fell flat on its face with its articles about the trial of the Zinovievites and Trotskyites. Pravda failed to produce a single article that provided a Marxist explanation of the process of degradation of these scum, their sociopolitical complexion, and their real platform. It reduced everything to the personal element, to the notion that there are evil people who want to seize power and there are good people who hold power, and fed this paltry mush to the public.
The articles should have said that the struggle against Stalin, Voroshilov, Molotov, Zhdanov, Kosior, and others is a struggle against the Soviets, a struggle against collectivization, against industrialization, a struggle, consequently, to restore capitalism in the towns and villages of the USSR. Because Stalin and the other leaders are not isolated individuals but the personification of all the victories of socialism in the USSR, the personification of collectivization, industrialization, and the blossoming of culture in the USSR, consequently, the personification of the efforts of workers, peasants, and the working intelligentsia for the defeat of capitalism and the triumph of socialism.
They should have said that whoever fights against the party and the government in the USSR stands for the defeat of socialism and the restoration of capitalism.
They should have said that talk that the Zinovievites and Trotskyites have no platform is a fraud on the part of these scum and a self-deception by our comrades. These scum had a platform. The gist of their platform was the defeat of socialism in the USSR and the restoration of capitalism. It wasn't to these scum's advantage to talk openly about such a platform. Hence their claim that they don't have a platform, which our bumblers took at face value.
They should have said, finally, that the degradation of these scum to the level of White Guards and fascists is a logical outgrowth of their moral decline as opposition leaders in the past. As far back as the X party congress, Lenin said that if a faction or factions persist in their errors in their struggle against the party, under the Soviet system they will, without fail, slide down to the level of White Guardism, the defense of capitalism, a struggle against the Soviets, and must, without fail, merge with the enemies of Soviet rule. This proposition by Lenin has now been brilliantly confirmed. But Pravda, unfortunately, failed to make use of it. That is the spirit and direction in which agitation should have been conducted in the press. All this unfortunately has been missed.
Nos. 29 and 30
6 September 1936
September 6, 1936 (Sent from Sochi on 6 September at 4:05 a.m. (RGASPI, f. 558, op. II, d. 94, l. 31.))
Address to the Solemn Meeting on the Opening of the L. M. Kaganovich Metro
14th May, 1935
Comrades, wait! Do not applaud in advance, said Stalin jokingly, – you do not yet know what I am going to say to you. (Laughter and applause).
I have two corrections dictated by the comrades sitting right here. (Comrade Stalin made a large sweep of the hall with his hand). The matter can be presented as follows.
The Party and the State have given decorations for the success of the construction of the Moscow Metro, the first with the Order of Lenin, the second with the Order of the Red Star, the third with the Order of the Red Flag of Labour, the fourth with the Charter of the Central Committee of Soviets.
But here is the question. What to do with the others, what to do with the comrades who worked just as hard as those who have been decorated, who have put as much into their work with their ability and strength? Some among you seem to be happy and others are perplexed. What should we do? That is the question.
Therefore, we want to repair this mistake of the Party and of the State in the face of all honest people. (Laughter and lively applause). I am not an amateur in making long speeches, therefore allow me to expound on the corrections.
First correction: for the successful work of the Metro construction, congratulations on behalf of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the U.S.S.R., to the shock workers, the whole collective of mechanics, technicians, working men and women of the Metro construction. (The hall greets the propositions of Comrade Stalin with cheers and a loud ovation – all rise).
Even today, it is necessary to correct our mistake by congratulating the workers of the construction of the Metro (applause). Do not applaud me: it is the decision of all the comrades.
And the second correction, I tell you it directly. For the particular merits in the cause of mobilization, deserved by the Komsomols in the successful construction of the Moscow Metro, I decorate with the Order of Lenin, the organization of Komsomols of Moscow. (More applause and ovations. Smiling, Comrade Stalin applauds with all the people assembled in the Hall of Collonades). It is also necessary to correct this mistake today and publish it tomorrow. (Holding up the paper of corrections, Comrade Stalin addressed the audience simply and warmly). Perhaps, Comrades, it is a small thing, but we have not been able to invent anything better.
If we could do something else, go ahead, tell us!
Saluting the workers and builders of the Metro, the director leaves the tribune. The operators of the concrete mixers, the shaft sinkers from the mines, the welders, the engineers, the foremen, the professors, the working men and women, happy people, leave the hall filled with joy, applauding and shouting "Hurrah for beloved Stalin!"
In the sixth row, a young girl in a pink sweater stood up on a chair and addressing herself to the presidents, shouted with emotion, "A Komsomol Hurrah for Comrade Stalin!"
The ovation continued for several minutes, and when finally the cheering stopped, Comrade Stalin asked the assembly once again "What do you think? Are these enough corrections?"
And again the hall responded with a lively ovation.
15 May 1935
To the Collective of the Constructors of the Moscow Underground
I congratulate the men and women workers and the technical engineering workers of the construction of the Moscow Underground; the Order of Lenin is av/arded them for their successful achievements during the difficult conditions of war, the construction of the third section of the Moscow Underground.
The construction of the Underground in the conditions of war is not only of economic and cultural significance, but also of defensive significance. The Party and the Government greatly appreciate the self-sacrificing work of the Underground construction workers.
I express the firm conviction that in the future the builders of the Underground will, by their heroic work and the intensity of their efforts, ensure the realization of the task of the State Committee for Defence - the completion of the fourth section of the Moscow Underground.
I wish the utmost success to the Collective of the Moscow Underground Construction.
Выступление народного комиссара путей сообщения Лазаря Моисеевича Кагановича на празднование дня железнодорожника в 1938 году (кадры из фильма "Честь").