Everyone knows that great disagreements sometimes grow out of the smallest—at first even insignificant—differences. Everyone knows that a tiny wound or even a scratch, of which everyone has had dozens in his life, can turn into a most dangerous, and even certainly fatal, disease if the wound begins to fester, if blood poisoning sets in. This happens in all sorts of conflicts, even purely personal ones. It happens in politics as well.

Any, even insignificant, difference can become politically dangerous if there is a possibility of its growing into a split, and moreover a split of just that kind which is capable of shaking and destroying the whole political edifice, leading—to use Comrade Bukharin’s comparison—to the wrecking of the train.

It is clear that in a country which is passing through the dictatorship of the proletariat, a split among the proletariat or between the proletarian party and the mass of the proletariat is not only dangerous, but most dangerous, especially if in that country the proletariat constitutes a small minority of the population. And splits in the trade union movement (which, as I strove with all my might to emphasise in my speech of December 30, 1920, is a movement of the proletariat almost wholly organised in trade unions[22]) mean splits precisely in the mass of the proletariat.

That is why, when “the fat was in the fire” at the Fifth All-Russia Conference of Trade Unions on November 2–6, 1920 (and it was precisely there that it happened), when immediately after this conference… no, I am mistaken, during this conference, Comrade Tomsky appeared in the Political Bureau in a state of unheard-of excitement and, with the full support of the most imperturbable Comrade Rudzutak, began to relate how Comrade Trotsky had spoken at that conference about “shaking up” the trade unions, and how he, Tomsky, had polemicised with him—when this happened, I immediately and irrevocably decided for myself that the essence of the dispute was precisely in politics (i.e., in the Party’s policy towards the trade unions) and that Comrade Trotsky, with his policy of “shaking up” against Comrade Tomsky, was fundamentally wrong in this dispute. For the policy of “shaking up”, even if it were partially justified by “new tasks and methods” (Trotsky’s thesis 12), is a policy utterly inadmissible at the present moment and in the present situation, as one threatening a split.

Comrade Trotsky now thinks that to ascribe to him a policy of “shaking up from above” is “a sheer caricature” (L. Trotsky: “Reply to the Petrograd Comrades” in *Pravda* No. 9 of January 15, 1921). But the little word “shaking up” is a genuine “winged word” not only in the sense that, having been uttered by Comrade Trotsky at the Fifth All-Russia Conference of Trade Unions, it has already, so to speak, “flown around” both the Party and the trade unions. No. It remains, unfortunately, true even today in a much deeper sense. Namely: it alone expresses, in the briefest form, the whole spirit, the whole tendency, of the pamphlet-platform “The Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions”. From beginning to end, this entire pamphlet-platform of Comrade Trotsky is permeated through and through precisely with the spirit of the policy of “shaking up from above”. Suffice it to recall the accusation against Comrade Tomsky or “many trade unionists” that they are “cultivating in their midst a spirit of hostility towards new workers”!

But if at the Fifth All-Russia Conference of Trade Unions (November 2–6, 1920) an atmosphere threatening splits was only just beginning to be created, then at the beginning of December 1920 the split in Cektrans became a fact.

This event is the basic, main, fundamental one for assessing the political essence of our disputes; and it is in vain that Comrades Trotsky and Bukharin think that hushing it up will help in any way. Hushing it up does not “buffer” but inflames in this case, for the question has not only been put on the order of the day by life, but also emphasised by Comrade Trotsky in his pamphlet-platform. For it is precisely this pamphlet that repeatedly, in the passages I have cited, especially in thesis 12, poses the question: is the essence of the matter that “many trade unionists are cultivating in their midst a spirit of hostility towards new workers”, or that the “hostility” of the masses is legitimate in view of certain unnecessary and harmful extremes of bureaucracy, for example, in Cektrans?

Comrade Zinoviev, in his very first speech on December 30, 1920, with full justification, put this question squarely, saying that the split had been brought about by “the immoderate supporters of Comrade Trotsky”. Perhaps it was for this that Comrade Bukharin called Comrade Zinoviev’s speech “verbiage”? But any Party member who reads the verbatim report of the discussion of December 30, 1920, and sees that it is precisely Comrade Zinoviev who cites precise facts and relies on precise facts, whereas it is precisely Trotsky and Bukharin who predominate with intellectualist “wordiness” without any facts, will now be convinced of the injustice of this reproach.

When Comrade Zinoviev said: “Cektrans stands on feet of clay, it has already split into three parts,” Comrade Sosnovsky interrupted him with the exclamation:

“And you encouraged that” (Verbatim Report, p. 15).

This is a serious accusation. If it were proved, then, of course, anyone guilty of encouraging a split in even one of the trade unions would have no place either in the Central Committee, or in the R.C.P., or in the trade unions of our republic. Fortunately, a serious accusation has been put forward in an unserious form by a comrade who has, unfortunately, already more than once shown examples of his unserious polemical “infatuations”. Comrade Sosnovsky has sometimes been able to equip even his excellent articles, say, in the field of production propaganda, with a “spoonful of tar” which far outweighed all the pluses of the production propaganda itself. There are such fortunate natures (like Bukharin, for example) who, even in the greatest sharpness of struggle, are least of all capable of infecting their attacks with poison; there are such, not very fortunate natures, who all too often infect their attacks with poison. It would be useful for Comrade Sosnovsky to look after himself in this respect, and even to ask his friends to look after him.

But—it may be said—the accusation has nonetheless been brought forward. Let it be in an unserious, unsuccessful, clearly “factional” form. But it is better to state the truth unsuccessfully than to hush it up, if the matter is a serious one.

The matter is, undoubtedly, serious, for here, I repeat, is the crux of the whole dispute, more than is thought. And we have, fortunately, sufficiently convincing and sufficiently objective data to give a reply on the substance of the question raised by Comrade Sosnovsky.

In the first place. On that same page of the verbatim report we read a statement by Comrade Zinoviev, who not only answered Comrade Sosnovsky: “Not true!”, but also gave precise references to decisive facts. Comrade Zinoviev pointed out that Comrade Trotsky had attempted to bring forward (I will add on my own account: clearly being in a factional infatuation) far from such an accusation as Comrade Sosnovsky had brought forward, but an accusation against Comrade Zinoviev, that he, Zinoviev, by his speech at the September All-Russia Conference of the R.C.P., had contributed to the split or had provoked the split. (An accusation, I note in parentheses, which is unfounded if only because Zinoviev’s September speech was approved in essence both by the Central Committee and by the Party, and has never once been formally protested by anyone.)

And Comrade Zinoviev replied that Comrade Rudzutak, at a meeting of the Central Committee, with the minutes in his hands, proved that “this question (the question of certain unnecessary and harmful extremes of bureaucracy in Cektrans) was examined in Siberia, on the Volga, in the North, and in the South long before any of my (i.e., Zinoviev’s) speeches and long before the All-Russia Conference”.

This is a perfectly clear, precise, factual statement. Comrade Zinoviev made it in his very first speech before thousands of the most responsible members of the R.C.P., and neither Comrade Trotsky, who spoke twice after that speech of Zinoviev, nor Comrade Bukharin, who also spoke after that speech of Zinoviev, refuted Zinoviev’s factual references.

In the second place. An even more precise and official refutation of Comrade Sosnovsky’s accusation is the resolution of the Plenum of the Central Committee of the R.C.P. on the question of the conflict between the communist water transport workers and the communist faction of the Cektrans conference, adopted on December 7, 1920, which is published in the same verbatim report. That part of this resolution which is devoted to Cektrans reads:

“In connection with the conflict between Cektrans and the water transport workers, the Central Committee resolved: 1) To create a section of water transport workers within the united Cektrans. 2) To convene a congress of railwaymen and water transport workers in February, at which normal elections to the new Cektrans shall be held. 3) The previous composition of Cektrans shall continue to function until then. 4) Glavpolitvod and Glavpolitput shall be immediately abolished, with all their forces and means transferred to the professional organisation on the basis of normal democracy.”

The reader sees from this that not only is there no talk of condemning the water transport workers, but, on the contrary, their correctness is recognised in everything essential. Meanwhile, not one (except Kamenev) of those Central Committee members who signed the joint platform of January 14, 1921 (“On the Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions”. Draft Resolution for the Tenth Congress of the R.C.P., submitted to the Central Committee by a group of members of the Central Committee and members of the Trade Union Commission. Lozovsky signed as a member of the Trade Union Commission, though not a member of the Central Committee; the others: Tomsky, Kalinin, Rudzutak, Zinoviev, Stalin, Lenin, Kamenev, Petrovsky, Artyom Sergeyev) voted for that resolution.

This resolution was carried against the named Central Committee members, i.e., against our group. For we would have voted against the temporary retention of the old Cektrans. And the inevitability of our group’s victory compelled Trotsky to vote for Bukharin’s resolution, for otherwise our decision would have been carried. Comrade Rykov, who in November was for Trotsky, took part in December in the work of the Trade Union Commission on examining the conflict of the water transport workers with Cektrans, and became convinced of the correctness of the water transport workers.

Conclusion: the December majority of the Central Committee (December 7) consisted of Comrades Trotsky, Bukharin, Preobrazhensky, Serebryakov, etc., i.e., Central Committee members whom no one will suspect of partiality against Cektrans. And this majority, by the substance of its decision, condemned not the water transport workers, but Cektrans, refusing only to immediately remove it. Hence, the groundlessness of Sosnovsky’s accusation is proved.

So as not to leave any room for ambiguity, one more point must be touched upon. What did the “certain unnecessary and harmful extremes of bureaucracy”, to which I have repeatedly referred, consist of? Was there and is there no groundlessness or exaggeration in this accusation?

Again: the reply was given by Comrade Zinoviev in his very first speech on December 30, 1920, and a reply that leaves nothing to be desired in precision. Comrade Zinoviev quoted an extract from a printed order of Comrade Zof on water transport (of May 3, 1920) containing the statement: “the committee system is dropped”{118}. Comrade Zinoviev correctly called this a fundamental mistake. That is a specimen of an unnecessary and harmful extreme of bureaucracy and “appointmentism”. At the same time, Comrade Zinoviev immediately made the reservation that there are “much less tried and less experienced comrades”—appointees—than Comrade Zof. I have heard in the Central Committee an appraisal of Zof as a most valuable worker, and my observations in the Council of Defence fully confirm this appraisal. No one thinks either of undermining the authority of such comrades or of making them “scapegoats” (as Comrade Trotsky suspected in his report, p. 25, without having the slightest grounds for it). The authority of “appointees” is undermined not by him who corrects their mistakes, but by him who would take it into his head to defend them even when they make mistakes.

We see thus that the danger of splits in the trade union movement was not invented, but real. We also see clearly wherein the unexaggerated essence of the differences lay: in the struggle to ensure that certain unnecessary and harmful extremes of bureaucracy and appointmentism should not be defended, not justified, but corrected. That is all there is to it.