The Daily Worker Newspaper, December 11, 1930, Page 7

fiw esa iss 6 e Raa A ‘ rage .nres oe 3 % Be Patriotic, ge ANT) SHOOT) >. HIM: 1 i tS. ‘ nomic crises affecting the whole national _ economy of the country.... “The above-described influence possessed by the Centre in the organs of planned eco- nomics placed in its hands an almost un- limited freedom of action in the sphere of planning.” In this connection, in about 1928 the grow- fng hope of a speedy realization of a counter- revolutionary upheaval led to the employ- ment of still another special method of sabotage: “The lying idle of capital for long periods by means of investing money in buildings whose erection took considerable periods, or in undertakings which could only be utilized in the distant future, when other necessary factors had become obtainable....Such a method as this for the lying idle of capital and for its investment at slight profit would have: (1) cut off this capital, and limited the extent of profitable buildings and the tempo of the economic development of the country; (2) increased the legacy to be in- herited by the new government, for these new buildings, though bringing little profit at the moment, were to be built at the ex- pense of restrictions placed on current needs, thereby accomplishing the additional task of Causing discontent among the broad masses of the population.” (Statement made 2ist September.) How firmly the sabotagers were convinced that their final aims would be realized may be seen from the following two characteristic facts relating to the counter-revolutionary organization now under examination: Its po- litical development into 4 party, taking place in 1928, and the selection of the members of the future government. Profoundly convinced that the leading roles would fall to them after the counter-revolution, the sabotagers devoted no little time and squabbling to the timely apportioning of seats in the cabinet, and resolved to come forward openly as the Political party representing industrial cap- ital. Ramzin states: “The steady growth of the influence gained by the Centre over the different branches of industry, and the simultaneous increase in the number of members, forced the raising of the question of the form of party to be taken by the whole organization. “This question cropped up at the end of 1927, and was brought forward by P. A, Pal- tchinsky, I. G. Rabinovitch, and others. - “The occasion for the discussion was given by the consultation with Professor Chayanov, who informed the’ Centre of the existence and programmatic orientation of his organi- gation. The further work of the Centre was in the direction of the formation of a new “party ‘for which a various number ‘of’ names’ were at first proposed. “The commonest designation of the newly organized party was the ‘Industrial Party.’” (Statement made 21st September.) : The defendant. Laritchey. speaks-of.this-in . greater detail in his statement of 12th Octo- ber, 1930, in which we read: “...As the Engineering Technical Centre is carrying on a definitely outlined fight for the overthrow of the Soviet power, it is na- tural that the engineering circles represent- ing the interests of industrial capital at the given time must in the event of a counter- revolution come forward as a united political power, and must take a clearly defined and even leading role in the formation of the future government....This conclusion was further dictated by the consideration that in the political struggle against the Soviet pow- er other sections of the population too were taking part in the form of the peasants’ party, and the question of the influences exercised on the formation of the future gov- ernment, and with this on its tactics and policy, would be bound up with the inner struggles of the anti-Soviet forces.” “...These general considerations were so important that the question of the formation of a party became urgent, this party to rep- resent the definite class group of engineering and technical circles (these circles retaining their class character). Since at the given moment this group was a political force de- fending the interests of industrial capital, Rabinovitch and others proposed that it should be named the ‘Industrial Party.’” Charnovsky, referring to the formation of the Industrial Party, its program and its tactical perspectives, made a similar state- ment on October 9th, 1930: “From 1928 onward, when the organization of the sabotage centre had been completed in the different branches of industry and the membership of these groups was growing, contact with the sabotage groups of the econ- omists had already been established by the intermediation of Chayanov, Groman, Kon- dratyev, and others. The sabotage centre of the engineers«strove to convert itself into a party. Whilst this conversion had not yet been carried out formally, the actual trans- formation into a political party was essen- tially effected at the beginning of 1929. The party, embracing broad technical and econo- mic circles belonging to many official centers, was given the name of the Engineers In- dustrial Party’ in accordance with the char- acter of the force binding it together. This name was abbreviated to the ‘Industrial Party.’ The Engineers Centre, uniting a num- ber of centres in various branches of in- dustry, became the united centre for the whole party. “...The leading central committee heading the organization and possessing the leading functions, comprised the members of the En- gineering Centre in the following branches of economics: fuel industry, smelting industry, machine’ building: ~ to’ which I: Charnotsky belonged.... “The leading role in the central commit- tee was played by Chrennikov, after his ar- rest by Ramzin, who had connections with the greatest number of official-eentres- and act gta, bu ae branches of industry.” Charnovsky describes the party program in approximately the same terms as Ramzin. This same Ramzin presents most clearly the agreement arrived at by the sabotagers in the question of the composition of the future government: “The question of the composition of the future government,” he states, “was dealt with at different conferences in the period 1927-28. A final selection of the members of the government was not made. At various consultations the following candidates for the ministerial posts were proposed: “Prime minister: P. A. Paltchinsky. “Ministers for war: P. A. Paltchinsky and General Lukomsky. Industry and trade: P. P. Ryabuschinsky and L. G. Rabinovitch, engineer Chrennikoy and Professor Kalinnikov. “% “Home affairs: P. P. Ryabuschinsky, Prof. Worms; the candidature of Professor N. F. Charnovsky was cursorily considered. “Finance: Vichnegradsky, Prof. I. Ch. Osye- dov, Prof. Davidov, L. G. Rabinovitch. “Transport: I. N. Borissov, P. I. Krassovsky, Meck. Agriculture: Candidates proposed by the TKP—A. W. Chayanov, Vilimovitch. “Foreign affairs: University professor Tarie. “P. A. Paltchinsky was proposed as dictator for the period of military dictatorship. This selection of candidates is extremely characteristic, like the program of the in- dustrial party of the sabotagers, The names Ryabuschinsky, of the tsarist General Lu- komsky, and finally of Palchinsky, the former dictator of the bourgeoisie in Leningrad be- fore the October revolution, speak for them- selves. For the restoration of the power of capital there were gathered together its cras- sest representatives on the one hand, and on the other the most revolting specimens of tsarist generals and leaders of the “Black Hundreds,” the leaders of the civil war. The second list of candidates for the pro- posed government is no less characteristic. This list dates from the beginning of 1929. It shows, first of all, that at this time the sabotagers had not lost hope of a speedy downfall of the Soviet power, and secondly, that their class hankerings had only become stronger in the intervening period. The new list, according to the statement made by Ramazin on November 3rd, 1930, proposed the following candidates: Prime minister: Ossadchi, Milyukov, or Ramzin. Minister for war: Lukomsky or Denikin. Trade and Industry; Kalinnikov, Chrenni- kov, Laritchev, Konovalov, Denniagov, Tre- At the same time it already differed from the former Engineering Technical Centre in its sharper trend in the question of foreign military intervention. The Attitude of the “Industrial Party” Towards the Question of Intervention. The growing success of economic recone struction in the Soviet Union, striding fore ward in spite of the wide extent of the sab- otage, caused the “Industrial Party” not only to place the question of the armed interven- tion of the imperialists in the foreground, sand to stress it much more decisively than the former Centre of counter-revolutionary engineers, but to subordinate the whole of their sabotage activities to this question. Ramzin’s statements contain the following reference to this question: “The general adjustment to the intervene tion, which was expected about 1930, naturale ly made our chief aim the causing of a gene eral crisis and a paralyzing of the economie life of the country in preparation for the moment of the intervention, by which this could be considerably facilitated and its suce cess ensured with slight effort.” (Oct. 16.) . Laritchev’s statement on this subject agrees with Ramzin, but is more detailed: “In spite of the sabotage carried on in various places and in various branches of na- tional economy, the process of restoratjon proceeded with considerable success and we did not succeed in putting a stop to this success, although the sabotage, in the form of the Engineering Technical Centre, had ale ready been given a certain leadership and direction. In proportion as the restoration of the separate branches of national econ- omy was attained, the inner situation of the country and the Soviet power became more firmly consolidated. And in proportion the hope dwindled more and more that there was a possibility of the inner collapse of the Sove iet power and of its abandoning its posi= tions. At the same time the speculation on an extensive participation of concéssion cap- ital, in which the counter-revolutionary en- gineers saw the possibility of a so-called ‘peaceful intervention,’ proved unjustified.” In this connection: “,.,.the Industrial Party, which united the whole of the counter-revolutionary sabotage organizations of the Centre of the engineers and technicians, regarded—from the come mencement of its activities—the intervention as the greatest force which could lead to the overthrow of the Soviet power. This view was shared by both ideological leaders of the ‘Industrial Party’ and by the trade and in+ dustrial committee in Paris (the so-called i dere the association of the former s' of 'tsatist ‘Russia’”)'’ (Statement made October 16, 1930.) The same statements are contained in the deposition made by the defendant Kalinni- kov on October 16, 1930: “When it became. apparent, in 1926, that CF wees om heme Sawada 0k ’ aed Oh Rights ot vane « i ue OO bE Ty 49th 5 ‘roga Catgrroid