The repression of the late 1920s, though relatively mild, still made a gloomy impression on the party’s old guard and marked an important turning point in the party’s development. As had happened during the French Revolution—whose history the Bolsheviks knew well—the Russian Revolution had begun to eat its own children. The similarities provoked a sense of dejection and unease. On 1 January 1928, soon after the opposition had been definitively crushed, Valerian Osinsky, one of the Old Bolsheviks, wrote an anxious letter to Stalin reflecting the sense that an injustice had been committed.92
Dear Comrade Stalin,
Yesterday I learned that V. M. Smirnov93 is being sent somewhere in the Urals (evidently to Cherdyn District), and today, when I met Sapronov94 on the street, I heard that he is heading for Arkhangelsk Province for the same term. Furthermore, they have to leave by Tuesday, and Smirnov only just had half his teeth removed so they can be replaced with false teeth, and now he’ll have to leave for the Ural north toothless.
In his day, Lenin kicked Martov95 out of the country in comfort, first making sure that he had a warm coat and galoshes. This is because Martov was once a revolutionary. Our former party comrades who are being sent away are deeply mistaken politically, but they are still revolutionaries—there’s no denying this.… The question therefore arises: is it really necessary to drive them all up north and essentially pursue a policy of their spiritual and physical destruction. I don’t think so. And I don’t understand why we can’t (1) send them abroad the way Lenin did with Martov or (2) settle them within the country in places with a warm climate.…
These sorts of banishments only create unnecessary bitterness.… They intensify whisperings about similarities between our current regime and the old police state.96
On 3 January Stalin sent a curt response: “Com. Osinsky! If you think about it you’ll probably understand that you have no grounds, either moral or any other kind, for putting down the party or taking up the role of some sort of arbiter between the party and opposition. I’m returning your letter as insulting to the party. As for concern for Smirnov and other oppositionists, you have no grounds for doubting that the party is doing everything possible and necessary in this regard.”
Was Stalin’s promise to do “everything necessary” for the oppositionists a kind of black humor, a hint at the coming moral and physical destruction of his opponents? There is no evidence that in 1928 Stalin was planning the purges or terror of the late 1930s. How are we to interpret the apparently genuine anger with which he responded to Osinsky? Was it merely that he was sick of talking about the opposition, worn out from years of tense struggle during which he had to watch every step, exercise unrelenting caution, make no false moves, hide his intentions, and conceal his actions? At the time he corresponded with Osinsky, Stalin was evidently making a critical decision that no opposition would be tolerated and no collective leadership was needed. Perhaps he was curt with Osinsky because he was anxious. Or perhaps he was confident and felt no hesitation in making it clear to Osinsky that they were no longer on the same level and “heart to heart” talks between them were no longer appropriate.
Stalin’s alliance with Rykov, Bukharin, and other Politburo members, first against Trotsky and later against Zinoviev, was a tactical move in a struggle for power and influence. It is probably safe to say that the primary forces driving this struggle were the personal ambitions of Lenin’s heirs, their confrontational characters and outsized political ambitions, their nasty revolutionary habit of fighting for the sake of fighting, and a propensity to see enemies at every turn. That said, in their constant skirmishes the Bolshevik leaders were also guided by certain political ideas.
The Politburo majority, including Stalin, adhered to the so-called “rightist course.” This was a logical continuation of the NEP of 1921–1922. Once they saw that it would be impossible to immediately introduce a socialism free of money and markets, the Bolshevik leaders, with Lenin at their forefront, took a step backward. Keeping political power and heavy industry in the hands of the government, they allowed small industry and business owners (peasants first and foremost) relative freedom. Markets and money were rehabilitated. Nobody knew how or in what directions they should be moving. Only the general principles were clear: there would be a mixed economy combining market mechanisms, a strong state, and a monopoly on political power. There was also general agreement on the timetable: all shared Lenin’s vision of the NEP as a long-term policy lasting through the 1920s.
The issue of the NEP was bound to become entangled in intraparty squabbles. Trotsky, later joined by Zinoviev and Kamenev, criticized the NEP strategy that had been devised by the Politburo majority. While not urging a total abandonment of the NEP, the oppositionists felt too many concessions had been made to the peasants and the urban bourgeoisie, and they called for greater emphasis on the development of major industries. This criticism was typical of the opposition movement in its struggle to undermine the power of those in charge and gain more for themselves: it exploited popular desires for greater equality and nostalgia for a “heroic epoch.” Most important, it was short on details. Had they achieved power, the “leftist” leaders, who were fundamentally pragmatic, would most likely have shifted imperceptibly onto the “rightist” path, abandoning their radicalism under the force of the objective need to develop the economy. This assumption is supported by the past behavior of “leftist” leaders. During the Civil War, did not the ultra-revolutionary Trotsky use the tsarist officer corps as a foundation for the Red Army? Did not all the Bolshevik leaders originally support the NEP? While a member of the government, Kamenev, one of the leaders of the left opposition, always gravitated toward moderation and followed a perfectly “rightist” course. Grigory Sokolnikov, another member of the opposition, was a brilliant finance commissar under whose leadership the country stabilized its currency.97 Often it was not principled programmatic differences that spawned conflict but ties of friendship, sore feelings, or ambition.
The consequences of this battle of political wills were devastating. The Bolshevik party endured irreparable losses of personnel. The disinclination to show mercy or compromise and the desire to decimate opponents not only took time and energy away from real problems, but it also undermined the collective leadership’s will to conduct needed reforms and adjust social and economic policies. Every decision was examined under a magnifying glass, not only with an eye toward viability, but also to detect the slightest ideological vulnerabilities. Such an approach deprived the country’s leadership of the flexibility and initiative it needed.
Many of the decisions made in 1926–1927, a time of fierce struggle against the opposition, were politically motivated and destructive for the economy. Measures against “capitalist elements” were primarily targeted at relatively prosperous peasants and small-scale traders. Reckless and misguided economic decisions undermined stability. Yet these measures were not catastrophic or irreversible. The NEP, like any economic strategy, demanded constant adjustments, the elimination of mistakes, and an agile response to disparities as they arose. Lacking were the political preconditions for effective decision making. And the party infighting was only making the atmosphere worse.