On the Workers' Strike Movement and the Activities of Opposition Political Groups as of September 1, 1923

In early August of this year, widespread unrest and growing discontent emerged among workers in several industrial centers (primarily Moscow) and railways. The pace and scale of the strike movement, as they have become evident to date, indicate that the movement is of a serious nature and is driven by the dire material conditions of the working class. The following overview provides a summary of data on workers’ unrest in recent weeks and the activities of underground opposition anti-communist groups, which are increasingly attempting to exploit the workers’ mood for their own purposes.

According to the information available to the GPU, the situation appears as follows:

The Workers' Movement at the Moscow Railway Junction

The general mood of workers at the Moscow railway junction until July of this year can be considered relatively calm, as only isolated incidents occurred in March and April, particularly at the Moscow stations of the Belorussian-Baltic and Kazan-Voronezh railways. However, starting in July, dissatisfaction among workers at the Moscow junction began to grow due to low wages compared to similar work in state institutions and enterprises. This movement, especially on the Northern Railway, began to intensify and manifest as open unrest. The primary cause of the workers’ discontent on the Northern Railway is the extremely low wage rates, even compared to other railways. This is evident from the following figures: in July, an unskilled worker on the Northern Railway earned between 1,500 and 2,500 rubles, while a skilled worker earned between 3,000 and 5,000 rubles; in contrast, on the Belorussian-Baltic Railway, an unskilled worker earned 3,300 rubles, and a skilled worker earned between 5,000 and 12,000 rubles. The workers’ dissatisfaction was further exacerbated not only by these extremely low wages but also by the fact that certain categories of transport workers in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd categories (non-pieceworkers) earned less than even the unemployed. Additionally, discontent was fueled by ill-considered articles and even promises—both in the press and from trade union representatives—about wage increases that went unfulfilled.

These objective conditions naturally created fertile ground both for the workers’ dissatisfaction to take on the character of a mass movement and, in some cases, for anti-Soviet elements to exploit this movement, attempting to give the workers’ unrest and dissatisfaction an organized form with a distinct anti-Soviet slant.

This conclusion is most applicable to the Northern Railway, where, in addition to the aforementioned factors, several other circumstances highly favorable to the strike movement emerged: weak party and trade union work, a lack of connection between responsible officials and the masses, and confusion and disorganization within the communist ranks. This reached such an extent that, for example, at a general meeting of workers from the first section of the Northern Railway on August 30, communists clashed with one another and even nearly came to blows. It must also be noted that there were instances of communists collaborating with non-party workers, reminiscent of the behavior of certain cells in Petrograd and Kronstadt in the spring of 1921. It can be stated that the railway party and trade union organizations (such as those on the Northern Railway) failed to notice the growing discontent among workers since July and did not take timely measures to address it.

Turning to the specific circumstances related to the strike movement on the Northern Railway, the following notable incidents stand out: as early as July, the Central Transport Committee ("Cektran") received a protocol purportedly from a general meeting of an initiative group aimed at improving the living conditions of transport workers. This protocol, based on a report by a fictitious "Yurchenko," allegedly resolved to form a union to fight for better conditions for railway workers. However, no concrete measures were taken in response to this. Meanwhile, vague and unclear rumors about government measures to equalize railway wages with those in heavy industry continued to circulate among the workers. As the workers saw no real action, their dissatisfaction grew, culminating on August 9 in a tumultuous meeting of workers and employees from the 18th section.

This meeting passed a resolution requesting that the Railway Trade Union (Dorprofsozh) take steps to equalize railway workers’ wage rates with those of metalworkers. However, neither Dorprofsozh nor the Transport Workers’ Committee (Uchkprofsozh) took (or were able to take) measures to calm the workers, leading to an intensification of unrest among them. It should also be noted that the RCP cell of the 18th section, consisting of 58 members out of 1,750 workers and employees, similarly took no steps to pacify the workers. On the contrary, a certain degree of confusion was evident within the cell in the face of the growing worker unrest.

Subsequent meetings of the 18th and 1st sections on August 29 and 30 were heavily attended and extremely turbulent; individual speeches at these meetings already bore a clearly anti-Soviet character. On August 30, a portion of the workers from the 18th section did not report to work. Other workshops either ceased operations or engaged in slowdowns, though a shift in attitude was observed among some workers, who resumed work by the end of the day in hopes that their demands for a wage increase would be met.

In summary, it can be noted that the strike movement on the Northern Railway, which arose purely on economic grounds, grew to significant proportions due to the failure of trade union and party organizations to take control of it in time. In certain instances, it took on the character of anti-Soviet actions. These were particularly pronounced at the meeting of the 18th section on August 29, attended by 1,200 people, including worker groups from the Kazan, Kursk, Alexandrovsk, and Nikolaev railways. The meeting was chaired by a former communist, Yezhak, who had since become a Black Hundred member and anti-Semite. Communists were barely allowed to speak at the meeting; calls were made to halt work across the entire Moscow junction and to hold a gathering of all railway workers at Kalanchevskaya Square ("since, they say, there’s no one to defend the Soviet bourgeois"), effectively amounting to calls for an open, demonstrative action.

These circumstances, particularly the presence of individuals unrelated to the railways at the workers’ meeting, lead to the conclusion that the strike movement, initially sparked by workers’ demands for higher wages, is now taking on an organized character and reveals the existence of specific groups aiming to provoke a strike across the entire Moscow junction based on the dire material conditions of railway workers.

On September 1 of this year, the GPU intercepted an appeal to Dorprofsozh bearing several hundred signatures from Northern Railway officials, collected covertly, calling for a struggle to improve the desperate plight of railway workers and employees. This appeal also included a call for a general meeting of Moscow junction workers on September 3. It has been established that this appeal was passed by Northern Railway employees to the management of the Kazan Railway.

In addition, the GPU identified a group of 19 individuals playing an active role in the strike movement. Information has been received about preparations for a strike at the Kiev railway junction, significant unrest at the Ekaterinoslav junction, and renewed unrest at the Kharkov junction. On August 31 of this year, a slowdown occurred at the main workshops of the Kursk Railway.

Strike Movement at Industrial Enterprises

Regarding the strike movement at Moscow’s factory and plant enterprises, the following data is available: over the past three months, a sharp increase in workers’ dissatisfaction with low wages has been observed in Moscow. This discontent has led to slowdowns and strikes at various enterprises (similar reports have also come from Sormovo, where a strike broke out at the Sormovo plant on August 24 for the same reason, as well as due to delays in wage payments). In Moscow, however, until the second half of August, such incidents (slowdowns and strikes) were isolated and largely confined to printers. The second half of August saw a sharp rise in the number of slowdowns and strikes, affecting nearly all branches of production. In August, strikes and slowdowns occurred at the following factories and plants: Serp i Molot (formerly Guzhon), Krasny Put, Russkabel, Morze, 1st State Prosthetic Factory, Uritsky Textile Factory, Tsindel Calico Printing Factory, 1st State Sausage Factory, Krasny Bogatyr, 7th Mospoligraf Printing House, Novaya Derevnya Printing House, Michelson Factory, Prokhorov Manufacture, Parastroy Factory, and other enterprises.

Among all the listed cases of slowdowns and strikes, the most notable in terms of organization are the strikes that took place at the Guzhon and B. Tsindel enterprises.

The strike at Guzhon lasted two days and was only halted after the factory administration declared that the plant would be closed if work did not resume. (According to a report from Comrade Lutovinov dated August 7 (see below), this factory has a strong cell of Myasnikov’s "Workers’ Group.")

No less significant is the strike at the B. Tsindel factory. Unrest there began in the second half of August, triggered by workers’ dissatisfaction with their wages. After demanding a wage increase, the workers announced that if their wages were not raised within three days, they would go on strike. When the trade union and trust rejected their demands, the workers declared a strike at a general meeting. The strike continued until August 29 and, as at Guzhon, was only ended after the administration threatened to close the factory if work did not resume. A particularly notable aspect of this strike is that all workers were drawn into it and that it was openly led by a strike committee of four identified individuals, which established contacts with workers at the Trekhgorny Manufacture and organized worker meetings. It is also worth noting that, as on the Northern Railway, one of the main leaders of the strike and a member of the strike committee was a former RCP member. In connection with this strike, there was some unrest at the Trekhgorny Manufacture, where leaflets were posted calling for support of the striking Tsindel workers.

Several other reports from factories in recent days draw attention to an incident at the Bratsevo sawmill, where a worker named Druzhinin, with the complicity of worker Levitsky and the knowledge of three other workers, murdered a Jewish mechanic, Shteinwuk, on anti-Semitic grounds. Regarding this case, it has been established, among other things, that the murder was premeditated, and the group of workers openly threatened to beat Jews.

When comparing all this data with Comrade Lutovinov’s statement to Comrade Dzerzhinsky on August 27 of this year (see below) that Myasnikov’s "Workers’ Group" is currently seeking to closely align with the working masses, adopting the fight for wage increases as its primary slogan, one might hypothesize the direct involvement of the "Workers’ Group" organization in the strike movement, although such involvement has not yet been confirmed by concrete facts. However, phenomena such as the anti-Semitic sentiments among workers at meetings—artificially fostered by individuals attempting to give the strike movement an anti-Soviet character—and calls for direct action in the form of a mass demonstration at Kalanchevskaya Square allow for the assumption that Myasnikov’s "Workers’ Group" may be involved in the strike movement. This is plausible given that, according to various well-verified sources, the group is tainted with anti-Semitic attitudes, and, per Lutovinov’s words, it is preparing a mass workers’ demonstration akin to that of January 9, 1905.

Equally suspicious, in terms of the highly likely involvement of the "Workers’ Group" in the growing strike movement in Moscow, is the fact that the movement is now taking on the form of an organized effort with strike committees (e.g., at Tsindel), leaflets, and so forth—features that can only exist with the presence of a guiding and organizing center.

The most agitating element, both on the railways and in conflicts at enterprises, consists of workers sent from the Labor Exchange. In conflicts at the Moscow-Kazan Railway, B. Tsindel, and Trekhgorny Manufacture, they played an active role, sometimes acting as instigators and leaders.

Activities of the "Workers’ Group of the RCP," "Workers’ Truth," and "Revolutionary Communist Workers’ Opposition of Russia" (Communist Workers’ Party)

‎

1. "Workers’ Group of the RCP"

In late December 1922 (November-December), the distribution of the first issue of "Workers’ Truth" began. This literature was sent to the addresses of factory and plant committees at various enterprises. For instance, on a single day (December 11, 1922), the GPU’s political control intercepted twelve packages containing the "Workers’ Truth" journal in Petrograd, addressed to the factory committees of the following enterprises: Baltic, Rosenkrantz, 1st State Tobacco Factory, Pipe Factory, Artillery Factory, Okhtinsky, Laferi, Skorokhod, Nevskaya Thread Manufactory, Putilov, and Triangle. At the same time, political control detected the distribution of "Workers’ Truth" to major factories and printing houses in Moscow and the provinces, including Yaroslavl, Tula, Penza, Nizhny Novgorod, Kostroma, and other cities. In nearly all discovered cases, "Workers’ Truth" was sent to factory committees; additionally, two instances were recorded of the journal being sent to provincial proletkults in Tver and Ivanovo-Voznesensk.

The copies of "Workers’ Truth" intercepted by political control were mailed from Petrograd, providing some basis to assume that the distribution center for "Workers’ Truth" is located in Petrograd. However, it is also possible that Petrograd was chosen as the primary mailing point to conceal the organization’s center, which may be located in Moscow.

Overall, the widespread distribution of the first issue of "Workers’ Truth" can be confirmed. However, there is no evidence that it has deeply penetrated the working masses. The authors of "Workers’ Truth" appear to have primarily aimed to announce their existence by broadly distributing their work to institutions and factory committees.

Investigations conducted locally in connection with the distribution of "Workers’ Truth" revealed the following notable fact: in Kostroma, a "Revolutionary-Communist" group of the Communist Youth Union (Komsomol), consisting of 53 individuals, was uncovered. This group aims to combat (through terrorist means) representatives of Soviet power who have succumbed to the influence of NEP and deviated from communist ideology.

Turning to the most significant findings in the investigation of "Workers’ Truth" and the "Workers’ Group," the following is noted: Myasnikov’s pamphlet "Urgent Questions" was discovered in March 1923 during a search of an active Menshevik, Belovsky, who testified that he received it from a communist whose name he refused to disclose.

An investigation into this matter established that Belovsky had connections with Mitin, who, according to his own testimony, has known Belovsky since 1917. During an interrogation on March 19 of this year, Mitin described Belovsky as a prominent figure in the RSDLP. Nevertheless, Mitin petitioned Comrade Kalinin and the GPU for Belovsky’s release from custody. A search of Mitin’s premises uncovered two copies of the "Workers’ Group" appeal and one copy of the "Workers’ Group" theses. During questioning, Mitin stated that the "Workers’ Truth" meeting was personally handed to him by Mikhail Ivanovich Lovanov, and the theses were provided by Vladimirov (Deputy Chairman of Glavmetall), asserting that "Workers’ Truth" is undoubtedly linked to the "Workers’ Group" theses. Mitin also claimed that the pamphlet "Urgent Questions," seized from Belovsky, belonged to Vladimirov, who had made some annotations in the text. Further investigation into Mitin’s ties with Mensheviks revealed a note found at the home of an active Menshevik, Sandomirskaya—Belovsky’s wife (whom Mitin, during interrogation, acknowledged knowing as an old Menshevik)—addressed to another active Menshevik, Lurie. The note instructed Lurie to approach Mitin, who in turn was to contact Ryazanov to secure Belovsky’s release. This fact, establishing Mitin’s connections with Mensheviks, gains further significance given a report from the Southern District of the TO GPU on May 22 of this year, which noted that appeals from the "Workers’ Truth" group were found among several members of the Odessa RSDLP organization.

As for Ryazanov, who filed a complaint with the Central Committee alleging that the GPU had placed him under surveillance, the GPU previously indicated that Ryazanov’s claims were entirely baseless. It should also be noted that Ryazanov himself admitted to the Central Committee of the RCP his involvement in editing and revising the text of Myasnikov’s "Urgent Questions."

Between January and March of this year, the GPU received reports that, prior to the 12th RCP Congress, several meetings of former "Workers’ Opposition" members took place in Moscow at the apartments of Orlov, Kashkarev, Chernov, Medvedev, and Mikhailov (from "Metron"). Orlov (Deputy Chairman of GUVP) played a particularly active role at these meetings. Attendees included Medvedev, Shlyapnikov, Lutovinov, Nevsky, Vladimirov, Pravdin, Zalessky, Kushner, Chernov, and others. At one of these meetings, a group of delegates from the ongoing Military Industry Congress was also present. These gatherings were closed in nature. At one meeting, Orlov reported that, in addition to his faction, three other underground groups currently exist within the RCP: 1) Youth, 2) Bogdanov’s group, and 3) the Petrograd group.

According to reports, in addition to the aforementioned individuals, the following attended Orlov’s group meetings: Pireiko, Kayurov, Shutko, Syrtsev, Chelishchev, Tolokontsev, Golosimov, Smirnov, Shitov, Ershov, Temberg, Martynyuk, Karpov, Stankevich, and several others. The GPU deemed it impossible to verify this information or take measures to more closely monitor these meetings, as all these individuals are RCP members.

Reports about these meetings reveal, among other things, a notable instance of anti-Semitism, which appears to have taken firm root even within this circle.

Generally, in the period leading up to the 12th Congress, Orlov’s group focused primarily on organizational efforts to formalize the group. At a meeting on March 27, 1923, Vladimirov, Medvedev, Shlyapnikov, and Nevsky were tasked with drafting the group’s platform. However, the GPU has not established whether this platform was adopted.

Several reports about these meetings indicate that in late February or early March of this year (during the Military Industry Representatives Congress), a meeting took place at Orlov’s apartment with representatives from the provinces. Attendees included representatives from Donbass, Petrograd, the Urals, Nizhny Novgorod, Arkhangelsk, Vologda, and Siberia. Orlov delivered a report in which he outlined the following points: the leadership has been corrupted by power and NEP; it no longer represents the needs and will of the working class; the masses neither trust nor should trust it; this is not a sickness of the party but a collapse of its policy; a new revolution from below is needed; the party operates using secret police methods; it is necessary to acknowledge the need to go underground. During the discussion of the report, it was noted, among other things, that Jews have seized leadership positions and that their portfolios must be wrested from them, as this is the will of the working class; instead of a dictatorship of individuals and groups, a dictatorship of the class is needed. Representatives from Petrograd and Arkhangelsk, as well as Comrade Pravdin, opposed Orlov’s declaration. The meeting highlighted that the group has ties with many provincial organizations and leading circles of trade union central committees, particularly those of chemists, metalworkers, food industry workers, textile workers, and builders.

Alongside this, Myasnikov had already issued a manifesto on behalf of his newly formed "Workers’ Group" of the RCP by the 10th Congress. This was uncovered by Comrade Nikon, to whom the Baku delegation handed over the manifesto, received from RCP member Makha (a member of this "Workers’ Group").

Among other reports about "Workers’ Group" activists, a statement by Shlyapnikov and Medvedev to Comrade Foma in July of this year is noteworthy. According to Shlyapnikov and Medvedev, the "Workers’ Group" appeal was written by Myasnikov in prison. Medvedev further reported that he and Shlyapnikov attended two workers’ meetings (one in a forest), where they both spoke against the organizers’ fantastical program. While flipping through "Workers’ Truth" No. 2 and the appeal "Where Is the Truth," Medvedev remarked to Shlyapnikov that "Workers’ Truth" had used his critique and speeches on economics, incorporating them into its section on wages. Medvedev and Shlyapnikov also stated that "Workers’ Truth" is a group of decayed intellectuals involving Bogdanov, with some workers from Proletkult also connected to it. According to them, the center of "Workers’ Truth" is in Petrograd, from where its literature is distributed. They claimed that the Central Committee and GPU are well aware of the "Workers’ Group" and "Workers’ Truth."

Shlyapnikov and Medvedev declared that if the Central Committee demanded it, they would denounce "Workers’ Truth" and the "Workers’ Group" as provocations.

Turning to the activities of individuals likely affiliated with Myasnikov’s "Workers’ Group" at specific Moscow factory and plant enterprises, the following incidents are noted. At the Ikar factory, where Demidov and Berzina—now expelled from the RCP and the Metalworkers’ Union—previously worked, an active "Workers’ Group" cell exists, frequently holding meetings in the office of the factory director, Petrov. These meetings are highly conspiratorial. Identified members of this group include Demidov, Berzina, Glagolev (a former Socialist Revolutionary now in the RCP), Baranov, and others.

The headquarters of this organization in the Baumansky District was Berzina’s apartment (previously, meetings were held at Demidov’s apartment). One such meeting took place on July 20 of this year, with up to 35 participants. It should be noted that in August of the previous year, Shlyapnikov, Medvedev, S. Demidov, Yakovlev (former head of social welfare in the Baumansky Soviet), and others were apparently present at a meeting at Berzina’s apartment. Appeals from the "Workers’ Group" were distributed at the Ikar factory, and individuals likely involved in the "Workers’ Group" cell there, besides Berzina and Demidov, include Dorin, Semenov (expelled from the Komsomol), Anisimov, Markov (technical secretary of the RCP cell), and Potapov (a cell member). Incidentally, the Ikar communist cell recently failed to pass a resolution on the gold loan at a meeting.

Another probable "Workers’ Group" cell in the Baumansky District is at the Mastyazhart factory. This cell includes workers expelled from the RCP: Vasilyev, Miroedov, Khotyanovich, Abramov, Rakov, Badaev, Shnyrev, Ovchinnikov, Evsyukov, Zinoviev, and others. Meetings of this cell were held at the apartment of Kuraev (also expelled from the RCP). A notable aspect of this "Workers’ Group" cell’s work at Mastyazhart is its recruitment of a group of non-party workers previously registered by the RCP cell as sympathizers. The factory has up to 40-50 individuals expelled from the RCP.

Demidov and Berzina are also linked to this "Workers’ Group" cell. While Berzina was the secretary of the RCP cell, Myasnikov was invited to one of the cell’s meetings but did not attend, leading to the meeting’s dissolution.

According to reports, in addition to the aforementioned, probable "Workers’ Group" cells exist in the Baumansky District at the following factories:

1. Amstro Factory: Participants include former RCP member and former factory committee chairman Mironov, and district council member Kashtaurov. The group maintains ties with Berzina and Demidov.

2. Russo-American Factory: Participants include Makarus, Afanasyev, and others. They openly criticize the Communist Party and Soviet power at meetings.

3. Oktyabr Factory (Krase, finishing plant): The group includes RCP expellees Lisov and Semenova-Krgolskaya. They organize non-party workers around themselves and influence some RCP members (I. I. Kutuzov is attached to the RCP cell at this factory).

4. Baumansky District Branch of Tsentrosoyuz: An opposition group exists within the communist cell itself. Active members include Shavtovalova (a former Workers’ Opposition leader in the Baumansky District), Ilyin, and others. Shavtovalova was a Menshevik until 1919 and maintains constant contact with Berzina.

Some reports from the Baumansky District suggest that it may be the Moscow city center of Myasnikov’s "Workers’ Group." The group’s cells at factories are intensively working to recruit non-party workers into their ranks, leveraging the workers’ movement for higher wages and adopting the wage increase issue as their rallying cry.

Among other factories, enterprises, and institutions where individuals linked to the "Workers’ Group" have been identified, the following stand out:

1. "Metron": Its director, Mikhailov, hosted meetings at his apartment, likely for the "Workers’ Group," attended in the spring of this year by Medvedev, Shlyapnikov, Myasnikov, Demidov, and others. Mikhailov spoke against the gold loan at a workers’ meeting. Bogdanov appears to have some (not fully clarified) connection with "Metron," as he was observed visiting the factory covertly in late August.

2. Gabai Factory (Java): The distribution of the "Workers’ Group" platform has been confirmed here, suggesting the existence of a "Workers’ Group" cell.

3. Mashinotrest: Employee Valkov reported receiving the "Workers’ Group" manifesto and claimed that a cohesive intra-party underground organization exists within the Moscow Soviet of National Economy (MSNKh). He did not name the individuals involved.

4. Textile Institute: Bondarchik and Yakunin were involved in distributing the "Workers’ Group" platform. There is suspicion of Levitas’s involvement (a former Workers’ Opposition leader in the Baumansky District) and possible ties to I. I. Kutuzov. It should be noted that Kutuzov reportedly provided Berzina and Demidov with sanatorium vouchers in Crimea.

5. 1st Moscow State University: An opposition group exists, occasionally holding meetings secretly from the district committee and the Central Bureau of Students. Involved individuals include Zalikin, Efretov, and Klevlenko. In the spring, Zalikin invited Medvedev O. to a cell meeting, and he attended.

6. Moscow Higher Technical School (MVTU): On March 17, Afanasyev, a representative of the MVTU cell, visited Novov (a member of Orlov’s group) on Orlov’s behalf, requesting a speaker for an upcoming cell meeting to discuss V. I. Lenin’s letter on Rabkrin, with Kushner serving as the speaker. Other reports from MVTU include a mid-July secret meeting at the Rabfak dormitory on Domnikovskaya Street, involving RCP members Vestaka, Grechishnikov, Shekhanov, and Zayarny, which had a distinctly oppositional character. A report from August 30 confirmed that MVTU student Sornin (expelled from the RCP for ties to Myasnikov’s faction and previously arrested with him in Perm) influenced student Lazunin, an active Komsomol member, in the Myasnikov spirit at his apartment, providing Lazunin with "Workers’ Group" leaflets and the manifesto. Lazunin reported the existence of a Myasnikov organization at MVTU.

Among individual reports about the "Workers’ Group," the following are noteworthy:

1. Khokhlov, a veteran party member and worker from Likhobory on the October Railway, closely associated with Myasnikov and having received "Urgent Questions" from him, attempted to recruit Comrade Amosov (Central Committee of Railway Workers) into the "Workers’ Group." Khokhlov claimed to be part of an organization with up to 500 members, linked to several cells whose members are ready to leave the party at the first call. This report gains particular significance when compared to a statement by Mikhailov from "Metron," who claimed the group is connected to 14 cells in the Krasnopresnensky District, whose members are prepared to leave the party collectively upon directive.

2. Nikiforov, an RCP member recently arrived from Tomsk and working at Glavlit, told a Baumansky District party worker that he was invited to join an underground "Workers’ Group" organization structured in groups of five. When he tried to continue the conversation, Verkhoturov—an RCP member, old Makhayevist, and employee of the Khamovniki District Education Department—interrupted him, urging him not to talk about it. Recent reports indicate Nikiforov has joined this organization.

3. Maslennikov, a former Workers’ Opposition leader in the Baumansky District closely tied to Demidov, recently told Comrade Zelensky (Moscow Committee secretary) that he felt obligated to warn the party of the growing danger posed by the "Workers’ Group." He reported attending a group meeting in the spring with about 30 people, another three months ago before his vacation with around 60 people, and a recent one after his return with up to 400 attendees. Maslennikov stated that he and Shlyapnikov now oppose the group. The group decided to retain the name "Workers’ Truth," adopted the RCP’s charter and program, and accepted all party congress resolutions except the last three (10th, 11th, and 12th). Group members exhibit anti-Semitic attitudes. Maslennikov refused to name individuals but noted that the group is highly conspiratorial and organized into groups of ten.

4. A particularly noteworthy report comes from Comrade Lutovinov, made during a conversation with Comrade Dzerzhinsky on August 27, 1923:

"Workers’ Truth" is an intellectual organization somehow linked to A. A. Bogdanov. It poses little danger in terms of influencing or recruiting workers. While Bogdanov may not directly lead its activities, he participates in editing its publication.

The "Workers’ Group" poses a significant danger. It consists exclusively of workers and is led by workers, with almost no intellectual resources—lacking even individuals capable of articulating their positions and proposals. It is a relatively established organization with a Central Bureau and a Moscow Bureau. The Central Bureau includes, among others, two non-party members and one communist who recently joined the RCP. The organization has cells at several Moscow factories, including Guzhon, Michelson, List, Bromley, and others, with a particularly significant cell at Guzhon. In some factories, their cells outnumber RCP cells.

The "Workers’ Group" encourages workers—especially non-party workers and its supporters—to join the RCP and align with the "Workers’ Group" within communist cells. The organization is highly conspiratorial and has resolved not to act openly for now, instead building strength for future actions.

The "Workers’ Group" is exploiting the current workers’ movement for higher wages, which provides a favorable environment for its activities. The slogan of wage increases has been adopted by the "Workers’ Group." It plans to organize a workers’ demonstration in the near future, reminiscent of January 9, 1905—a march to the Kremlin with a petition outlining workers’ needs and demands. This demonstration might coincide with January 9, 1924, though it could occur earlier, in October or November of this year.

Comrade Lutovinov has attended meetings of both "Workers’ Truth" and the "Workers’ Group." Recently, a meeting in Moscow with up to 200 attendees took place, though he was not present. Lately, the "Workers’ Group" has established contact with the Fourth International. Myasnikov, working at our Trade Representation in Berlin, leads the main efforts to liaise with the Fourth International. Myasnikov has printed the group’s platform and appeal abroad, and these are now being distributed in Russia. The "Workers’ Group" adopts the Fourth International’s positions. Myasnikov’s primary assistant and link to the "Workers’ Group" in Moscow is Kuznetsov (expelled from the RCP).

Comrade Lutovinov believes that repression alone cannot dismantle this organization or its work, though he does not oppose repression in principle. He argues that significant propaganda efforts are needed to break up the group. He expressed a desire for the Moscow Committee and Central Committee to provide him with several comrades to connect with "Workers’ Group" cells—not for investigative purposes but to sow discord within them, deliver counter-theses at meetings, and so forth. The group would like Lutovinov as its leader.

This report, combined with Maslennikov’s statement to Comrade Zelensky, aligns with GPU data on the growth of "Workers’ Group" organizations and the existence of its cells at numerous factory and plant enterprises. These reports indicate that the ideology and organization of the "Workers’ Group" in its current form have surpassed some former Workers’ Opposition members, including Lutovinov and Shlyapnikov. Those former Workers’ Opposition figures—like Shlyapnikov, Orlov, and Vladimirov—who were initial instigators of underground cells and engaged in dissent at secret meetings before the 12th Congress, now recognize the true significance and danger of this opposition game. Unable to regulate or direct the emerging underground movement, they have made the aforementioned statements distancing themselves from the "Workers’ Group."

Comrade Bliznichenko, a former prominent Workers’ Opposition member recently returned from abroad, reported the following: from personal conversations with Myasnikov, it is clear that in Berlin, Myasnikov is working through Maslov, Schiller, and other left-wing German Communist Party figures to influence that faction. Myasnikov has contacted Ruminov (see below), a leader of the Fourth International group in Soviet Russia. The "Workers’ Group" manifesto has been translated into major European languages, reprinted, and distributed in hundreds of copies. Typists at our Trade Representation retyped the manifesto, which is transported to the USSR via diplomatic couriers. Myasnikov offered Bliznichenko 500 copies of the manifesto to distribute in the USSR. The "Workers’ Group" has a Temporary Central Bureau, operates extensively, receives funds in foreign currency from unknown sources, and is currently expanding its efforts beyond the USSR to England and France. In Moscow, Myasnikov’s main contacts are Kuznetsov and Myasnikov’s wife.

Regarding the distribution of "Workers’ Truth" and the "Workers’ Group" platform, it can be noted that while the first issue of "Workers’ Truth" and the "Workers’ Group" platform saw widespread distribution across Russia in late 1922, the second issue of "Workers’ Truth," the "Workers’ Truth" appeal, and the "Workers’ Group" appeal began circulating around May-June of this year. The second issue, like the first, was sent to various factory committees (Sormovo Factory, Yartsev Manufactory, Vyazma, water pump stations, etc.). A notable detail about the distribution of these publications is that "Workers’ Truth" was sometimes received by addressees alongside the "Workers’ Group" platform, suggesting contact between these organizations.

It is deemed necessary to note the publication in issues 28-29 of "Revolutionary Russia" (the Socialist Revolutionary Party’s central organ) for July-August of this year of the following note from Moscow: "The Workers’ Opposition is growing rapidly. Disillusioned with Bolshevism, it is seeking allies and wavering in all directions. Here’s a curious example: an illegal Workers’ Opposition group formed among workers at one of Moscow’s mechanical factories approached the Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs) with a request for coordinated efforts. The Moscow Bureau of the SR Party permitted its workers’ group at the aforementioned enterprise to provide explanations and guidance on issues where there are no fundamental technical or ideological differences between it and the Workers’ Opposition. Representatives of this Workers’ Opposition group state that the SRs are far closer and dearer to them than the bourgeoisified Communist Party, within whose ranks they not only served but shed blood for its ‘ideal.’ This incident did indeed occur. The GPU is conducting an agent-based investigation into this matter."

2. "Workers’ Truth"

Based on numerous reports from various sources, it can be confirmed that Bogdanov and his group, associated with Proletkult and "October of Thought," are directly linked to "Workers’ Truth."

The fact that Bogdanov is directly involved with underground factions, particularly "Workers’ Truth," is also evident from comparing Bogdanov’s theses on "Organizational Intelligentsia" with the core positions of "Workers’ Truth" (its appeal and two journal issues), which reveals an ideological connection between Bogdanov and "Workers’ Truth." This ideological link is supported not only by the overlap of certain positions but also by the external similarity in the use of analogous terminology in Bogdanov’s and "Workers’ Truth" theses.

Bogdanov has repeatedly explained to his circle of followers that between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat stands the class of technical intelligentsia—the class of organizers—to which power should pass after the bourgeoisie’s defeat. From Bogdanov’s perspective, it is erroneous to claim that a proletarian revolution is occurring in Russia or the West. In his view, the proletariat indeed carries out the revolution, but its fruits are reaped by the technical intelligentsia—the class of organizers. This leads Bogdanov’s followers to conclude that a second revolution is necessary for power to truly pass into the hands of the proletariat. They argue that Soviet power is not proletarian but rather the power of the technical intelligentsia, supported by workers and peasants.

Acknowledging that no other power is currently possible in Russia, Bogdanov’s followers believe that every fighter for a proletarian system must culturally develop and prepare the working class to assume power in the future.

The socio-political concept of Bogdanov’s followers differs from that of the "Workers’ Group" in that they do not prioritize workers’ entry into the state administration apparatus. On the contrary, they view such entry as a "leak" from the proletariat’s ranks, weakening and corrupting it as a class. While leaving governance to the RCP as the party of the dominant intelligentsia, Bogdanov’s followers deem it necessary to organize a new, purely proletarian party to defend the proletariat’s class interests.

Bogdanov himself considers the formation of a new workers’ party under current conditions somewhat premature, but the younger generation following him, eager to move from words to action, insists on hastening this transition. According to an informant, Bogdanov’s students have recently asked him, "Isn’t it time?" to which he reportedly responds negatively.

According to the same source, one of Bogdanov’s closest students, Arvatov, received the latest issue of "Workers’ Truth" in June and allegedly burned it.

Bogdanov’s closest students and supporters in his scholarly work include M. N. Smit-Falkner, Zander, Kann, Arvatov, and Milonov—all Proletkult affiliates. Bogdanov maintains a very close connection with Proletkult, serving as an advocate for a new form of workers’ movement—proletarian culture.

Similarly, an ideological connection has been established between "Workers’ Truth" and the "October of Thought" group, which has taken organizational form as a society with its own publication, "October of Thought."

"October of Thought" aims to "study and develop problems of contemporary culture related to the process of creating a new communist society." In pursuing this goal, "October of Thought" conducts cultural and educational work independently of relevant party and trade union organizations, sending representatives into the working masses (e.g., the Donets Basin) and establishing cells at production enterprises (e.g., the 1st Model Printing House of Mospoligraf).

A review of the five published issues of "October of Thought" reveals some external similarities between its programmatic positions and the theses of "Workers’ Truth," including the use of identical terms and definitions.

Observation of Bogdanov has revealed the following notable detail: he almost exclusively frequents communist institutions, most often the Socialist Academy, "October of Thought," Proletkult, and, to a lesser extent, the Institute of Karl Marx and Engels.

It is deemed pertinent to provide some details about a debate held in the Great Hall of the Conservatory on August 23, 1923. The topic was "Idealism and Materialism," with Comrade Lunacharsky as the speaker and Alexander Alexandrovich Bogdanov as the opponent. Both the speaker’s and opponent’s remarks were purely theoretical and philosophical. Despite presenting entirely opposing views, they did not engage in polemic with each other, nor did either address the other’s positions. In his closing remarks, A. A. Bogdanov, responding to a note from the audience asking why there were no workers among his supporters, only students and pure intellectuals, said: "This is a matter of personal experience. For example, I know many workers who support my ideas."

It is worth noting the speech by Professor Belousov of the Institute of National Economy named after Karl Marx (a professor of historical materialism). Belousov began by praising Bogdanov’s genius and vividly outlined one of Bogdanov’s general positions: in a class society, there have always been and still are two mutually opposing groups—organizers and executors. The group or class of organizers manages production and technology, forming the aristocratic segment of society (in a figurative sense), with idealism as its ideology. The group or class of executors, the democratic segment of society and direct producers, has materialism as its ideology and action as its ideology of struggle.

Efforts to uncover Bogdanov’s group have so far yielded no positive results, as the GPU has been unable to conduct surveillance or agent-based investigations among Bogdanov’s followers who are RCP members.

3. "Revolutionary Communist Workers’ Opposition of Russia" (Communist Workers’ Party)

On March 26 of this year, during a customs inspection at the Petrograd Trade Port of parcels arriving from Germany addressed to Mezhrapkomgol, a package addressed to a certain Nikolai Rumbesht was opened. Inside were materials from the "Group of the Revolutionary Workers’ Opposition" ("Communist Workers’ Party of Russia"), including Alexandra Kollontai’s pamphlet "Workers’ Opposition" with critical notes by R. Korpelinsky (a member of the Organizing Bureau of the Revolutionary Workers’ Opposition), bulletins Nos. 5, 7, 9, and 10, proclamations of the "Revolutionary Left Communists," and other leaflets and appeals.

The investigation into this matter established the following: the recipient of the parcel from Berlin was Nikolai Grigoryevich Rumbesht (non-party, a student), whose brother Vasily Grigoryevich Rumbesht (known in the RCP as Ruminov) resides in Berlin and sent the confiscated literature for distribution in Russia.

Further investigation revealed that V. G. Ruminov is one of the main leaders of the so-called "Revolutionary Workers’ Opposition" (Communist Workers’ Party). Ruminov is a former Comintern employee. His wife, Ketti Golshtein, a former delegate to the Third Comintern Congress, is actively involved in the organization. Ruminov maintains contact with the group in Russia primarily through Sofia Vasilyevna Krylenko and Lota Krause (RCP members). In Moscow, active participants in the group include Natalya Ruminova, driver Zaitsev, Glitsenshtein, and Arno Mundt (a Komsomol member). In Petrograd, the group’s key figures are German communists Rotkegel and Schneider. The group is small and currently focused on organizational work.

Searches conducted at the residences of S. V. Krylenko and Zaitsev uncovered foreign literature from this group and extensive correspondence shedding light on the organization. Ruminov repeatedly reproached Krylenko in letters for insufficiently energetic work and indifference to the organization’s interests. Krylenko received directives from Ruminov to establish contact with Myasnikov, Kuznetsov, and Mitin to connect with the "Workers’ Group." Ruminov views the opposition represented by Shlyapnikov and Kollontai skeptically, considering them opportunists likely to compromise with the ruling RCP. The correspondence reveals the "Revolutionary Workers’ Opposition"’s connections in the Urals, Volga region, and elsewhere. Ruminov used certain identified (by the GPU) non-party employees of the People’s Commissariat of Railways, Comintern, and Mezhrapkom to send literature to Soviet Russia.

A recently received bulletin No. 16 from Berlin of the "Revolutionary Communist Workers’ Opposition of Russia" (1923) includes significant excerpts from the "Workers’ Group of the RCP" manifesto (Myasnikov’s). The bulletin’s authors note that the manifesto is insufficient for understanding Russia’s current socio-political and economic situation and promise to soon publish objections to some of its points, yet they find it "more left-wing than the Comintern." The bulletin displays a clear sympathy for the manifesto’s positions. It is evident that the "Revolutionary Communist Workers’ Opposition of Russia" has taken on the printing and distribution of this manifesto.

In Bulletin No. 16, an appeal titled "Our Response" subtly references S. V. Krylenko, Zaitsev, N. Ruminova, and others in Soviet Russia affiliated with the organization, providing them with directives on organizing the Communist Workers’ Party, conducting agitation, propaganda, and more.

Thus, it has been established that the "Workers’ Group of the RCP" has entered into some connection with Fourth International organizations. This warrants particular attention, firstly, in light of the planned convening of the Third Congress of the "Communist Workers’ International" in September of this year, and secondly, due to the confirmed link between Myasnikov’s group and the left wing of the German Communist Party. Given the tense situation in Germany, this could adversely affect the German Communist Party.

The current situation demands heightened attention and proper evaluation from the Central Committee of the RCP(b).

‎
Chairman of the GPU, Dzerzhinsky