Critique of Finnish Bolshevik’s “Analysis” of the Moscow Trials

This article aims to critique Finnish Bolshevik’s analysis of and his blatant apologia for the three Moscow
Trials held between 1936 and 1938. Firstly, contrary to what Finbol(Finnish Bolshevik) claims, Nikolai
Bukharin had never plotted a coup against Lenin and neither had he ever talked about such a plot
involving him, only the Left SRs proposed to him such an idea, of which there is no proof of his
acceptance. Even Lenin laughed at the idea of the Left communist faction led by Bukharin jointly plotting
a coup against his government in conjunction with the Left SRs. (Debate between Domenico Losurdo
and Jean-Jacques Marie at historicalmaterialism.org). Also, Finbol seems to misinterpret Bukharin’s
boast and exaggerations about two factions threatening to turn into two parties to warn about
“factionalism”, in January 1924 during the Bolshevik party’s discussion of 1923-1924. (Was there an
Alternative: Trotskyism- A Look Back Through the Years 245).

Leon Trotsky had supported Vladimir Lenin multiple times, both held similar views on the peasantry,
especially on the middle peasantry (Was There an Alternative 71). Also, contrary to what Finbol believes,
there exists no proof for any of the charges of the Moscow Trials barring that of a brief united left-right
bloc being formed between Trotskyists, Zinovievists and the Sten-Lominadze group and the Safarov-
Tarkhanov group was going to join this united bloc. (Bolsheviks Against Stalinism 471) There is little
evidence of this bloc existing after 1933. Sergey Kirov’s assassin, Leonid Nikolayev was never involved
with this bloc. Also, there is no proof that Karl Radek replied to Leon Trotsky’s letter to him and/or
joined the Trotskyist bloc of 1932-1933. The same goes for Georgy Pyatakov. Also, Leon Trotsky had
multiple criticisms of Soviet industrialization but he never said that it would inevitably fail. However, as
he believed that socialism could not be built in one country, he never believed that the industrialization
alone could lead to Soviet Union achieving socialism. Trotsky also never said that the USSR would
definitely lose the coming war (the Second World War). He had considered multiple scenarios.
(Revolution Betrayed 227-230) The group which Grigori Tokaev claims to be a part of seemed to lean
towards liberalism and Tokaev was absolutely opposed to Trotskyism. The group which he claims killed
Kirov was not Zinovievist and neither did Tokaev have any contact with any Zinovievist. (See Comrade X
by Grigori Tokaty)

There is no proof that Leon Trotsky wanted to restore the New Economic Policy (NEP) introduced in
1921. Instead, he argued for balanced and more democratic planning with workers participation.
(Bolsheviks Against Stalinism 284 and 286, 290-291) Also, Trotsky did not oppose the NEP in the 1920s
but he probably wanted to gradually move away from it to a planned economy while advocating for a
greater use of planning inside the framework of the NEP along with greater taxation of Nepmen and
kulaks along with restrictions on the size and privileges of the Soviet bureaucracy. (Bolsheviks Against
Stalinism 359, 456-460 and 462) (Bolsheviks Against Stalinism 516-517,563) Trotsky and the left
opposition never wanted a return to war communism, in fact, Trotsky proposed the NEP in 1920, which
Lenin opposed at the time (but would adopt in 1921). (A Review of Stephen Kotkin’s Stalin- wsws.org)
Also, the Clemenceau thesis does not promote a coup, it only wants an incompetent government to
hand over power to the opposition in a war to ensure victory. Trotsky had called for a revolution in the
USSR only in 1933 and not in 1927. Before 1933, he only argued for reform of the Bolshevik party and
the voting out of Stalin from power. There exists ample amount of proof that the Moscow Trials were
staged and defendants were tortured or threatened in to confessing what their interrogators wanted
them to say. (http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2019/08/again-about-stalinist-deniers-
yes.html) Nikolay Bukharin only “confessed” to crimes in the Moscow show trials after his family was
threatened. (Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution 374, 376 and 398) Also, no mailing receipts contain
or indicate towards a letter to any rightist. J Arch Getty’s analysis of Yagoda is logical and seems correct
to me. Also, the Ryutin Platform called for a revolution against Stalin’s regime not terror. Lastly, Nikolay
Krestinsky initially refused to “confess” to the crimes he was accused of, he later did so only after
torture. Although, it has to be mentioned that he was a Trotskyist even after a supposed break with
Trotsky in 1927. (Bolsheviks Against Stalinism 596)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1 Was There an Alternative: Trotskyism- A Look Back Through the Years by Vadim Rogovin(pdf version)

2 Debate between Domenico Losurdo and Jean-Jacques Marie at historicalmaterialism.org:

https://www.historicalmaterialism.org/book-review/losurdos-stalin-debate-between-jean-jacques-
marie-and-domenico-losurdo

3 Vladimir Lenin’s Push for the Treaty of Brest Litovsk by Andrey Fursov on YouTube

4 Revolution Betrayed by Leon Trotsky

5 Bolsheviks Against Stalinism by Vadim Rogovin(pdf version)

6 https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/06/01/kot1-j01.html (A Review of Stephen Kotkin’s Stalin)

7 http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2019/08/again-about-stalinist-deniers-yes.html

8 Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution by Stephen F Cohen

9 Comrade X by Grigori Tokaty