Monday, October 30, 2017


On the next day after meeting with Trotsky I was in Leningrad with my family. It was the eve of the year 1928-th. We celebrated it at home, everybody was present, which was then rare. When my son and daughters were sleeping, Dina and I discussed the situation. We decided that I had to leave Leningrad, as mass arrests were expected. On the next day we invited A.L. Bronstain and I told her of my meeting with her late husband at A. Beloborodov’s flat. I told sincerely, that I considered Trotsky’s position strange, I did not understand his wish to convince his supporters not to leave the Party, to dismiss themselves. Alexandra Lvovna considered, that Trotsky understood the situation, but did not want to acknowledge it and did not want to act. She thought that Trotsky’s and hid numerous supporters’ arrest was inevitable. I agreed with her and we could not explain Trotsky’s position. After Alexandra Lvovna left Dina said that I would better stop to be interested in political problems and to speak in public. She wanted me to pay more attention to family. I explained that now it was late to speak of it, as “a case” was started on me in the Central Committee, I was excluded from the Party and lost work. Now arrest is to be expected, it is inevitable, but can be postponed. I really cannot be indifferent, when the dreams of freedom, that people of our generation cherished, are destroyed, and the most progressive people, who struggled for many years for social ideals, are now repressed. My wife understood me very well.

Before leaving Leningrad I called upon Misha Ivanov. I met there his friends, workers of Lenin works, where he lately was Party secretary. The workers estimated the situation very critically: they thought, that it was necessary to finish with the dream of socialism, another revolution was to be done, but it was beyond their powers. When they left, Misha told me the last Leningrad news. The journalists of “Bukharin school” wrote in “Leningrad Pravda” of a big victory over the opposition, cited extracts from Stalin’s, Molotov’s, Shkiryatov’s reports at the XY-th Party congress. Misha noted, that in some articles critical remarks on N.I. Bukharin appeared, that Bukharin did not totally approve organizational conclusions related to opposition at the XV-th congress. All the works by Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Preobrazhensky and even the first “Leniniana”, edited by Kamenev, are excluded from libraries. Teachers cite less Lenin’s and Bukharin’s works an anted to recommend it to the journal “Under the Banner of Marxism”. In this case I would help my family with money. But then Deborin was suddenly abused to be a “Menshevist idealist”. Idealism as philosophic trend was Plato’s and Aristotle’s science. There were many trends: objective and subjective idealism, rational and empirical and so on. But there was no “Menshevist idealism”. New philosophers-politicians invented this term to compromise A.M. Deborin, one of Plekhanov’s disciples. He was charged in denying Lenin’s period in Marxist philosophy, did not acknowledge Marxist- Leninist dialectics. Just then a quick rise of such “philosophers”- falsifiers as Mitin, Yudin, Raltsevich, Rozental, who did not hesitate to acknowledge Stalin a great philosopher, historian, biologist and so on. Under a vigilant supervision of the Central Committee ideologists a huge army of ignorant scientists and teachers of natural and humanitarian d prefer “theoretical pearls” by gensec. Some especially prompt “historians” try to present Stalin as a theorist of socialism, organizer of October revolution and a great military strategist. Misha said, that he was dismissed from work, he was a locksmith. He compared it with tsarist power: if you were dismissed from one place, you could go to another one, but now there are directions not to take oppositions to work. Now we have to leave Leningrad and not to spend night at home. Yet I went home, said good-bye to my wife and children and early in the morning left Leningrad. I did not think, that I was parting with family for rather long time.

In Moscow D. Ryazanov sheltered me for the first time in Socialist Academy, I was sleeping on a sofa in one of the rooms. Ryazanov gave me work for translations from German. A.M. Deborin, editor in chief of “Under the Banner of Marxism” journal often called to the Academy, I knew him from the time of studying at the Institute of Red Professorship. Ryazanov and Deborin were acquainted with my monography on B. Spinoza. In this monography I mentioned that Spinoza influenced Marx and Engels. Ryazanov did not consider Spinoza a materialist, he considered him a rationalist and Pantheist,according L.I. Axelrod opinion. Deborin considered Spinoza a materialist. I also then considered Spinoza’s philosophy as a materialistic one. Ryazanov and Deborin adviced me to supplement my monograph, they wanted to recommend it to the journal “Under the Banner of Marxism”. In this case I could help my family with money. But suddenly situation changed. A.M. Deborin was absurdly called “a Menshevist idealist”. There were many trends of idealism: objective, subjective, rational and so on. There was no “Menshevist idealism”, this is not philosophy. New “philosophers”-poiticians invented this term to compromise Deborin, one of Plekhanov’s apprenticies. He was charged with denial of Lenin’s stage in Marxist philosophy. In those years in philosophy an epoch of total absurd began, the science was substituted with politics, a special pseudo-scientific terminology was invented. “Menshevist idealists” were charged with many “sins”: support of “Trotskism,” support of the second International ideas and so on. The journal “Under the Banner of Marxism” was called a mouthpiece of counter-revolution. All this influenced badly on A.M. Deborin, he tried to drown himself in Moskva-river. He was taken out and put to psychiatric clinic. The scandal acquired an international character, after that Deborin was elected an academician (!) The real reason of Deborin’s and his apprentices persecution was that they did not over-oriented themselves, did not say that a new “philosopher” Stalin “rose Marxist-Leninist philosophy to unprecedented height”. Just at this time a quick growth of “philosophers-falsifiers”, as Mitin, Udin, Raltsevich, Rosental began. They promptly acknowleged Stalin a great philosopher, historian, biologist. Under diligent supervision of the Central Committee ideologists a huge army of ignorant scientists and teachers of natural and humanitarian sciences was created.

In such conditions I could not abuse Ryazanov’s hospitality, and looked for a new place. My old friend Nikolay Vikhirev offered me to live in his summer-cottage near Moscow, where it was possible to live in winter. I felt easy there, sleuths did not call there. Vikhirev gave me materials on the XY-th Party congress and I began to study them.

No comments: