The Daily Worker Newspaper, December 11, 1930, Page 6

Page Two destroyed little by little. e) “The conflict arising in the CPSU, aroused hopes that counter-revolutionary ef- forts might be successful, in view of the pros- pect of a Communist Party weakened by in- ternal struggles.” We read further: ft) “The enmity and hatred of-the capital- ist countries against the Soviet power fur- nished the actual basis permitting active sup- port from outside to be calculated upon—to the extent of military intervention—and thus gave reason for hoping in the complete pos- sibility of realizing a counter-revolutionary upheaval in the immediate future. 2) “The deterioration of the standards of living already observable in 1927, the dissatis- faction among the masses of the peasantry, the ever clearer signs of crisis and economic difficulties, and the prospect of continued developments in this direction, created a soil favorable for the counter-revolutionary up- heaval within the country itself.” Ramzin fails to state the main cause—the fact that almost all the important person- ages in the “Cenire” had either been big in- dustrialists and capitalists (Rabinovitch) be- fore the revolution, or had occupied the high- est paid commanding positions under the jeading captains ef industry whose right bands they had been. With respect to the “crises,” the following data gathered by the inquiry show the role played by the imme- diate work of precisely the defendants, and of the counter-revolutionary organization fermed by them, in bringing about these “crises.” The personal composition of the central | sabotage organization is stated by Ramzin te have been as follows: The members of the ‘Engineering Centre’ °° chinsky; the chief leader of re,” in whose hands lay the vce of the activities of the organization, including military mud £ .4] questions, and the most im- portant foreign connections. “L. G. Rabinovitch; coal industry, small ches of industry and general plan of | industry. 3. “Engineer Chrennikow *); smelting and metal industry. 4. “Professor Charnovsky; metal industry and smelting industry. 5. “Engineer Fyedotow; textile industry. 6. “Engineer Kuprianov; textile industry. v. “Engineer Laritchev; oil industry and fuel supplies. %. “Professor L. K. Ramzin; fuel supplies and power service.” Besides these, Ramzih includes in this Centre P. I. Krassovsky *), who’ conducted the sabotage in the traffic service, although he cannot decide, as he expressed it, “to draw a final line of demarcation between the members of the “Centre” itself and the mem- bers of it groups in the separate branches of industry.” The more so as ‘neither the “Oentre” itself nor its presidency were for- mally elected. But the “Centre” had an ac- tuel presidium, consisting of-ghe following persons: Engineer P. A. Paltchinsky, engineer L. P. Rabinovitch, and engineer Chrennikoy, ° Rabinovitch being replaced after this arrest as stated by Ramzin—in actual practice, by Fyedotow (statement made 2lst October).’ The accused Laritchev has made a somewhat different gstatement on this last point with regard to the leadership of the sabotage or- ganization. On the whole“he confirms Ram- zin’s statement on the composition of the Yeading centre, but adds: “The leading group actually played the role of a central committee, and consisted of: Chrennikow, Kalinnikov, Ramzin, me, Char- novsky, Fyedotow. Although we did not se- AAW DAILY WORKER, NEW YORK, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1930 up on the principle of isolated chain con-| power of the sabotage organization, as at- nections, in such manner that individual head | tained by it in about 1928—at the beginning| the interests of* the industrial bourgeoisie sub-organizations existed in the separate|of the Shakhty trial, at the time when the]and of the strong individual peasant farms, branches of industry, and played the part] first blow was dealt the organization by the of corresponding centres for these branches, | discovery of the Shakhty branch of sabotag-| attained by the aecomplishment of the poli~ establishing contact with below, that is, with | ers in the coal mines. the lower and peripheral nuclei. “Thanks to this system of organization, the members of the various chain sub-organiza- tions did not know each other, and even the heads and the lower members of one and the same chain sub-organization were not in immediate contact with one another. This. system of chain connections guar- anteed a minimum of exposure for the or- ganization being discovered... “,..Judging from my impressions, the’ gen- eral extent of the Moscow organization, di-_ rectly connected with the Centre, can be estimated at forty to fifty men, and the total number of the members of the organizations directly connected with the Centre at four to five hundred men. The total number of participants in this organization, including }marchy. But in the course of the discussions The Political and Tactical Program of the Sabotage Center. At this time the political and economic program of the sabotagers was as follows; the accused Ramzin states: “The form of leadership was conceived as a bourgeois-demogratic republic. In this question various proposals were submitted, going as far as the restoration of the mo- this standpoint was abandoned, as the old} dynasty is completely discredited; the set- ting up of a fresh dynasty would have in- volved entering on a dangerous adventure, and above ajl a monarchist restoration would have encountered energetic protest on the part of the broad masses, and would have the lower functionaries, was about 2000.” (Statement made 21st September. According to Ramzin’s statement, besides tite accused already mentioned, the follow- ing persons held the leading positions in the above-mentioned head sub-organizations of this chain in the various branches of indus- try. - “Coal mining—I. I. Fedorovitch, engineer Skorutto, Nasimov, and A. D. Volkovitch. “Oil industry—Professor I. N. Strishov, engineer Pokrovsky (State Planning Commis- sion of the Soviet Union), and engineer N. N. Smirnow (People’s Supreme Economic | Council of the SU.) “Metal industry—Grzimailo, Byelonoshkin, | Yulamov, Kaufmann, Neumeier, engineer P. M. Kutsky, engineer R. J. Gartvan, List, Lip- hardt, and Podlakonov. “Textile industry—Kuprianov, Lebedyev, Lopatin, Nolde. “Chemical industry—Engineer W. P. Kra- vetz (Supreme Economic Council of SU), and engineer W. N. Kamsolkin, fessor LS. Schwedov, Professor Shpitalsky, Lotavsky, Lebedkin, Buglakov. “Peat-cutting—W. N. Valyashinkov, Kir- ritchnikov. “Wood industry—W. P. Maier and Kviat- kovsky. Es Cement industry—M. M. Porossov and A. I. Stavrosky. Electric industry—W. I. Ugrimov. “Economic -Group—Guryevitch, Byeloser- kovsky, Sokolovsky (Supreme Econ. Council of SU). “Fuel Supplies—Proschvitch and Pokrov- | sky (Supreme Econ. Council SU), Zwanziger, S. N. Ukrainzev-Zelibyel. “General survey of the industrial plan as a whole and of the smaller branches of in- | dustry—Profesgor I. A. Kalinnikov. “Power service—M. L. Kamenetzky, N. N.| Vachkov, Professor A. A. Gorev, Engineer | Kukel-Krayevsky, N. I. Osadchin, Suschkin. | “Leningrad group-—-Professor M. W. Kir- pitschev, A. A. Fomin, W. N. Schregel. “Moscow Power Works — Kirpitchnikov, Yapovitsky, Krylov, Savelyev, myself. “Power service for the war indystry— &. E. Yevreinov and Engineer W. N. Domon- tovitch Cheat technics institute). Power service for transport—A. K. Besya- | dovsky and N. F. Lavrov. Workers—S, D. Schein. “Association the Engineers of the S. U. | and the Polytechnical Society—N. N. Livov, A. A. Schadrin *), 4 j owners of the works and factories. repelled these masses from the Centre. “The legislative organ was planned in the form of a parliament with universal suffrage, but with the aid of an electoral system com- plicated in such a manner that the desirable composition of the parliament would have been secured. “Both of the above proposals were, however only conceived for the period following the final consolidation of the new regime; a mili- tary dictatorship was held to be necessary for the preliminary period after the counter- | revolutionary upheaval. “In the sphere of industry the main prin- ciple consisted of the return to their former Great | | difficulties were, however, to be reckoned | mt of this inten- | with in the accompli tion, since the majority of the former under- | takings had undergone fundamental changes, a number of them had been completely liqui- | dated or reduced to a condition in which work | was impossible, whilst on the other hand} other undertakings had become so greatly enlarged, or had been subjected to such a radical reconstruction, that their value was | frequentig greatly increased. And finally, | after the October revolution a large number | of entirely new undertakings sprang into be- | ing, and the total value and productive cap- | acity of these greatly exceeded the fotal value | of the former pre-revolutionary undertak- | ings. Therefore it was agreed with the lead- jing circles of the industrial emigres that a! peculiar method should be adopted—the re- organization and concentration of the new and extensively reconstructed undertakings in joint stock companies. By this method | these undertakings would be depersonified, and the former owners of the liquidated or radically altered undertakings were to be considerable imcrease of the total capital value of the undertakings at the moment of the counter-revolutionary upheaval, as com- pared with the pre-revolutionary value, even | the. application of artificial methods of as- sessment would still have left the possibility that after the former owners had been com- pensated @ considerable number of free shares and meams would remain in the hands | of the State. These free means were to be employed in part for the partial compensa- tion of the former owners, and in part for the general requirements of the state. rejected, and the possession of the land by the peasants, in the form of individwal farms cially during the carrying out of collectiviza-_ tion by the Seviet power, which the Centre ; ists. “Hence the program given above defended “The fulfilment of this program was to be tical chief task consisting in the main of the overthrow of the Soviet power with the aid of armed counter-revolutionary forces, inter« yention from outside being calculated upon,'t This program deserves being delt with in detail. The phrase about the democratic rep ublic cannot conceal the fundamental aim of which the sabotagers dreamed—the set- , ting up of a military dictatorship in the per- iod- immediately following the seizure of power in order that the working class, and | of course the Communists, might be ruthless- ly dealt with. Nor can the phrases about universal suffrage and parliament conceal the fact that the chief task is to obtain a parlias ment appearing “desirable” to the industriale The essence of this program is the ree storation of not only capitalism itself, but of the former owners, or at least the giving of compensation in some form or other to these former owners, and in Ramzin’s own words it defends “the industrial bourgeoisie and the strong individual. peasant (read: kulak) farms.” The content of this program is such that it led objectively to the inevitability of “calculating upon intervention from out- side,” as Ramzin writes. Within their own country the sabotagers could find rio allies among the broad masses of the working pop- ulation willing to aid them in the fulfilment of this program. The sabotagers state fairly candidly how | it came about that precisely the members of the counter-revolutionary organizations re- garded it as indispensably necessary to re sort to an armed intervention from outside, why they deemed it needful to adapt theix activities accordingly, to adjust themselves to these circumstances, and to enter into re- lations with the representatives of foreign states: Professor Ramzin states: “During the first period of the existence of the Engineers’ Centre, which coincided with the conclusion of the restoration period of Soviet national economy, the line of tech- nical orientation adopted by the Centre, in so far as I am informed by the statements of others, lay in preserving as far as possible those great industrial 1 undertakings maintain« ing contact with the Centre. Besides pree serving these undertakings from destruction, the Centre‘at this time aimed at having these undertakings improved at the expense of the state, so that the former industrialists would not only receive their former capital value back again after the counter-revolution, but at the same time the greatest possible addi- tion to this value. “The successful period of the reconstruction of the couniry, following the restoration period, as also the rapid consolidation of the economic situation of the country and of the Soviet power, upset all of the calculations on a counter-revolutionary upheaval by means of inner forces, of peasant or military ris- ings, and at the same time diminished to a great extent the chances of a favorable ree sult of an intervention, since parallel with the growth of the economy of the Soviet Union there had proceeded the growth of its military pcwer and therefore of its powers of resistance to an intervention. Therefore, the Centre altered its tactics and came to the conclusion that it was necessary to accelerate actively the accomplishment of coumter-rev- olution by means of artificial damage to the economic life of the Soviet Union. That is to say, it adopted the tactics of sabotage. The nature and methods of this sabotage varied with the general situation.” (State- ment made 2ist September.) In another place (statement made 16th of October) ‘he expresses himself even more plainty: , “The chief aim of the activities of the In- dustrial Party growing out of the united sabotage organization of the engineers was the overthrow of the Soviet power by means means tor the consummation of the counper-fevoliition.” the peri-}s . “Therefore,” the *-continues, “the Contre 4 elas ta “A comiined | = « “mafic verviee, and has not deen exiled te Tmve been called to account by i,j} “En Gee xphere of forcign tomde—the abeli- : count in the present case. for the sume his own branch of @p@ustry, and sire | tion of forcign monopoly end the introduc- 2-asens as those applied to Rabinovitch not included in the present trial. ‘tion of a system of protective tariffs. oe .