Letter to Members and Candidate Members of the Politburo of the CC of the VKP(b), A.A. Zhdanov, N.I. Bukharin, A.I. Stetsky, July 14, 1934

Strictly confidential

July 14, 1934

To Members and Candidate Members of the Politburo of the CC: Comrades Andreyev, Voroshilov, Kaganovich, Kalinin, Kirov, Kosior, Kuibyshev, Mikoyan, Molotov, Ordzhonikidze, Petrovsky, Postyshev, Rudzutak, Stalin, Chubar.

To Comrade Zhdanov.

To Comrades Bukharin and Stetsky.

In Izvestiya of May 12, 1934, an article by Comrade Bukharin, "The Economy of the Soviet Country," was published.

The article prompted critical remarks by Comrade Stetsky, circulated to Politburo members on May 16. Following my suggestion to Comrade Bukharin, the latter sent me at the end of June a "Reply to Comrade Stetsky," to which the latter responded with a counter-reply, "On the New Critical Exercises of Comrade Bukharin."

I believe that these last documents deserve to be circulated to the members of the Politburo.

In circulating them to the members of the Politburo, I consider it necessary to note that in the dispute between Comrades Bukharin and Stetsky, Comrade Stetsky is right, not Comrade Bukharin.

1. One cannot reduce industrialization to the creation of "funds" in general, as Comrade Bukharin does, since such a reduction obscures the difference between the "funds" of heavy industry, which are leading and reorganizing the entire national economy, and the "funds" of other branches of the national economy, which are neither leading nor reorganizing. For our policy, the whole crux lies precisely in this difference.

2. One cannot make even a remote hint that our heavy industry was developed supposedly by some partial devouring of light industry and agriculture. One cannot, because this does not correspond to reality, smacks of slander, and discredits the policy of the Party. And such a, admittedly remote, hint is unquestionably present in Comrade Bukharin's article.

In this connection, it cannot be left unnoted that the former Rights sometimes try to reduce the difference between the positions of the Party and the Rights to the claim that the Party allegedly went toward its goal by frontal assault, while the Rights went toward the same goal by a roundabout but less painful path, that if the Rights had been given the opportunity, they would have arrived at the goal with fewer sacrifices. It hardly needs proving that such a "theory" has nothing in common with Marxism. In reality, the Rights were heading not "toward the same goal" but into a trap set by the class enemy, and had the workers listened to the Rights, they would have been sitting in a trap... It seems to me that the vestiges of precisely this counter-revolutionary "theory," from which Comrade Bukharin has evidently not yet freed himself, played their role in his article "The Economy of the Soviet Country."

3. One cannot reduce the policy of collectivization to the concept of an "agrarian revolution," as Comrade Bukharin does. One cannot, since such an "operation" obscures that which is fundamental, that which favorably distinguishes the policy of collectivization from any other "agrarian" policy with respect to the peasantry. For our Party, the whole crux lies precisely in this difference. This is, of course, not a dispute about "words." This is a question of clarity and precision in formulations. Bolsheviks are strong because they do not neglect the demands of clarity and precision.

4. One cannot speak of "classical" and non-classical NEP. One cannot, since this confuses the question and may confuse people. "New" words are needed if they are called for by necessity, create clarity, and provide obvious advantages. They are harmful if they are not called for by necessity and smack of contrivance. Bolsheviks have no need for playing with "new little words."

I. Stalin.
July 14, 1934.

Sovetskoye rukovodstvo. Perepiska. 1928–1941. Moscow, 1999. Pp. 293–295.
RGASPI. F. 82. Op. 2. D. 198. L. 77–79.