Letter to Members of the CC of the RCP(b), January 17, 1923

To all members of the CC
To Deputy Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars Comrade Tsyurupa
To Deputy Chairman of Gosplan Comrade Pyatakov
(Regarding Comrade Trotsky's new letter of 15/I-23)

Factual remarks

1. Comrade Trotsky writes of an "independent Collegium of Deputies" as one of the leading and coordinating organs at the center. I maintain that no independent Collegium of Deputies, supposedly directing and so forth, exists or has ever existed. There is the Finance Committee, as one of the coordinating organs at the center, but it, both in its composition and in the character of its work, has nothing in common with what Comrade Trotsky imagines the Collegium of Deputies to be.

2. Comrade Trotsky again returns to the question of what was proposed or said in the Politburo two years ago by individual members of the Politburo on the question of improving our planned economy, and in connection with my proposal he remarks that it was introduced by me in passing, in the course of criticizing Comrade Trotsky's repeated proposals. I must state that in making my proposal I had in mind primarily the practice of the STO and, especially, the practice of the Finance Committee, which in the course of its work is turning into a de facto directing organ. I consider that the practice of the Finance Committee has demonstrated the necessity of transforming the STO from a conciliatory organ into a directing one. That is precisely why I proposed the well-known change in the composition of the STO and the abolition of the Finance Committee (see my letter of January 6). To have in mind in this connection Comrade Trotsky's proposal, submitted, as he asserts, two years ago, I could not, if only because two years ago, when Gosplan (formally established in February 1921) had not yet taken shape as a fully established organization in the course of its work, there were as yet no deputy chairmen, no Finance Committee, and, obviously, no practice of these organs. I am generally against appeals to the past, if only because they introduce into the matter an unnecessary element and call to mind the old disputes between Comrade Lenin and Comrade Trotsky and the old, unfounded doubts of certain CC members regarding the durability of Soviet power. I recall, for example, how Comrade Trotsky, about a year and a half ago, assured us in the Politburo that "the days of Soviet power are numbered," that "the cuckoo has already cuckooed," and so forth. Surely there is no need to resurrect all these memories in order to resolve the current questions of improving our planned economy? I very much doubt it.

3. It is correct that Comrade Lenin never proposed placing the VSNKh under Comrade Trotsky's supervision. But I did not assert that in my letter. In my letter of January 6 it says: "Appoint Comrade Trotsky deputy chairman of the Council of People's Commissars (Comrade Lenin's proposal), placing the VSNKh under his special care." It is clear to anyone that the words in parentheses -- "Comrade Lenin's proposal" -- refer to the preceding phrase about appointing Comrade Trotsky as deputy chairman, and not to the second phrase that follows the parenthesis. So where, then, is the "inaccuracy" of Stalin's communication? I once again affirm that Comrade Lenin proposed Comrade Trotsky as deputy chairman; the proposal to place the VSNKh under Comrade Trotsky's care is my own, not Comrade Lenin's.

4. As to whether Comrade Lenin submitted to the Politburo a proposal to appoint Comrade Trotsky as deputy chairman or not -- let the following documents speak to that:

a) "To the Secretary of the CC, Comrade Stalin.
In view of the fact that Comrade Rykov has received leave upon Tsyurupa's arrival (his arrival is expected on 20/IX), and my doctors promise me (naturally, only in the event that nothing bad happens) a return to work by 1/X, I think that it is impossible to burden Comrade Tsyurupa alone with all the current work, and I propose the appointment of two more deputies (deputy chairman of the Council of People's Commissars and deputy chairman of the STO), namely: Comrades Trotsky and Kamenev. To distribute the work among them with my participation and, of course, that of the Politburo as the highest authority."
September 11, 1922
V. Ulyanov (Lenin).

Voting by Politburo members by telephone:
"I am for" -- (Stalin)
"I categorically refuse" -- (Trotsky)
"For" -- (Rykov)
"I abstain" -- (Tomsky)
"No objections" -- (Kalinin)
"I abstain" -- (Kamenev)

b) Extract from the minutes of the Politburo session of September 14, 1922. No. 26.
HEARD RESOLVED
16. On deputy chairmen 16. a) Accept Comrade Lenin's proposal
of the Council of People's on the appointment of two deputy
Commissars and STO chairmen of the Council of People's
(Comrade Lenin's proposal). Commissars and the STO.
b) The Politburo of the CC notes with
regret Comrade Trotsky's categorical
refusal and proposes that Comrade
Kamenev begin performing the duties
of deputy upon Comrade Tsyurupa's
arrival.
c) Grant Comrade Kamenev leave until
Comrade Tsyurupa's arrival.
Secretary of the CC
I. Stalin.

From these documents it is clear that:
a) Comrade Trotsky's statement that the proposal to appoint Comrade Trotsky as deputy "was never brought before the Politburo" is completely inaccurate (see Comrade Trotsky's latest letter, p. 3);
b) the proposal to appoint Comrade Trotsky as deputy was made not "several weeks after Comrade Lenin's return to work," as Comrade Trotsky asserts, but before his return.

On the substance of the matter

1. My proposal to abolish the Finance Committee and transform the STO from an interdepartmental conciliatory commission into a supradepartmental directing economic commission of the Council of People's Commissars I consider fundamental;

2. I have no objection to including in the STO, in addition to the deputy chairmen, the chairman of Gosplan, and the People's Commissar of Finance, a representative of the VSNKh as well;

3. I believe that the number of deputy chairmen will have to be not reduced, as Comrade Trotsky proposes, but increased, by appointing two more deputies: Comrade Trotsky and one from Ukraine (the practice of the deputies' work shows that one or two deputies -- Comrade Trotsky's proposal -- cannot manage);

4. I agree that Gosplan should provide recommendations or elaborate assignments given by the STO, while the STO should constitute the sole directing and coordinating organ for the planned economy;

5. I object to combining in one person the chairmanship of the VSNKh and the chairmanship of Gosplan, for the reasons set forth in my first letter;

6. I proposed placing the VSNKh under Comrade Trotsky's special care in accordance with the method of distributing work among deputy chairmen established by Comrade Lenin, and I disagree with Comrade Trotsky's assertion that such a method (the method of placing particular commissariats under the supervision of a particular deputy) supposedly diminishes the sense of responsibility of the corresponding people's commissars. However, in view of the disagreements that have arisen on this question, I would not object if Comrade Trotsky were appointed simultaneously either as deputy chairman of the Council of People's Commissars and chairman of the VSNKh, or as deputy chairman of the Council of People's Commissars and chairman of Gosplan.

I think it would be advisable to discuss all these questions at one of the nearest Politburo sessions, even if only in a preliminary fashion.

Member of the CC
I. Stalin
January 17, 1923

Sakharov V.A. "The Political Testament" of Lenin: Historical Reality and Political Myths. Pp. 663-665.
RGASPI. F. 5. Op. 2. D. 275. L. 4-6.