On Preobrazhensky’s Article

Preobrazhensky sees the main cause of the shortcomings in inner-Party life in the incorrectness of the Party’s basic line in Party construction. Preobrazhensky asserts that “the Party has for two years now been pursuing a fundamentally incorrect line in its inner-Party policy,” that “the basic line of the Party in inner-Party construction and inner-Party policy during the NEP period” has proved to be incorrect.

What constitutes the main line of the Party during the NEP period? The Party, at its 10th Congress, adopted a resolution on workers' democracy. Did the Party act correctly in adopting such a resolution? Preobrazhensky thinks that it acted correctly. At that same 10th Congress, the Party adopted a most serious restriction of democracy, in the form of a ban on factions. Did the Party act correctly in adopting such a restriction? Preobrazhensky thinks that the Party acted incorrectly, since such a restriction constrains, in his opinion, independent Party thought. The Party, at the 11th Congress, adopted new restrictions of democracy, in the form of a specified Party standing and so on. The 12th Party Congress merely confirmed these restrictions. Did the Party act correctly in adopting these restrictions as a guarantee against petty-bourgeois tendencies under NEP conditions? Preobrazhensky thinks that the Party acted incorrectly, since these restrictions constrained, in his opinion, the independent activity of Party organizations. The conclusion is clear: Preobrazhensky proposes abolishing the main line of the Party in this area, adopted by the 10th and 11th Party Congresses in the context of NEP.

But the 10th and 11th Party Congresses were held under the direct leadership of Comrade Lenin. The resolution banning factions (the resolution on unity) was introduced and carried at the 10th Congress by Comrade Lenin. Further restrictions on democracy, in the form of a specified Party standing, etc., were adopted by the 11th Congress with the close participation of Comrade Lenin. Does Preobrazhensky not suspect that he is essentially proposing the abolition of the Party's line under the conditions of the NEP, a line organically linked with Leninism? Is Preobrazhensky not beginning to understand that his proposal to abolish the Party's basic line on Party construction under the conditions of the NEP is essentially a repetition of certain proposals of the notorious "anonymous platform"[91], which demanded a revision of Leninism?

It is worth posing these questions in order to understand that the party will not follow in Preobrazhensky’s footsteps.

What does Preobrazhensky propose? He proposes nothing more and nothing less than the restoration of party life "on the model of 1917-1918." How do the years 1917-1918 differ in this respect? By the fact that at that time groupings and factions existed in our Party, that there was then an open struggle of groupings, that the Party was then going through a critical moment, connected with the question of its life and death. Preobrazhensky demands that such an order in the Party, abolished by the Tenth Congress, be restored, at least "in part." Can the Party take this path? No, it cannot. Firstly, because the restoration of party life on the principles of 1917-1918, when there was no NEP, does not and cannot meet the needs of the Party under the conditions of 1923, when there is NEP. Secondly, because the restoration of the past order of factional struggle would lead to the inevitable undermining of the Party's unity, especially now, in the absence of Comrade Lenin.

Preobrazhensky has a tendency to depict the conditions of inner-party life in 1917-1918 as something desirable and ideal. But we know a mass of dark sides of this period of inner-party life, which cost the party the deepest upheavals. Never, it seems, did the inner-party struggle among the Bolsheviks reach such bitterness as in this period, the period of the Brest Peace. It is known, for example, that the "Left" Communists, who then constituted a separate faction, reached such bitterness that they seriously talked about replacing the then-existing Sovnarkom with a new Sovnarkom made up of new people who were part of the "Left" Communist faction. A part of the present-day oppositionists – Preobrazhensky, Pyatakov, Stukov and others – then belonged to the "Left" Communist faction.

Does Preobrazhensky think of "restoring" these old "ideal" practices in our Party?

It is clear, in any case, that the party will not agree to this "restoration".