APPENDIX Pages from the Life and Creative Work of Economist I.I. Rubin (1992)*

In 1919 Isaak Il’ich’s scientific and teaching activity commences. Here is another excerpt from his Autobiography:

In 1919 I was invited by D.B. Ryazanov to translate the works of Marx. At that time I began, together with Sh.M. Dvolaitsky, to assemble the collection Osnovnye problemy politicheskoi ekonomii (which appeared in 1922). From mid-1919 until 19211 taught social sciences for the Moscow Military-Technical courses, and in the summer of 1920 I taught a course in political economy for teachers under the People's Commissariat of Education. From February 1920 until 19221 worked at the Commissariat of Education on a commission to create programmes for schools, on a commission to draft curriculum plans for universities, and as head of the department of social science at the Humanitarian-Pedagogical Institute.

By the early 1920s Rubin emerged as one of the country's leading scholars. He became an historian of economic thought, a translator and commentator on works by West- European economists, and a brilliant lecturer. And it was at precisely this time of Rubin's rapid scientific rise that he found himself, in February 1921, behind bars. In terms of his political convictions, he was a social democrat. He joined the ‘Bund' in 1904 and did active propaganda work amongst Jewish workers in the Pale of Settlement. In 1905 he was arrested, but he was amnestied after the tsar's Manifesto of 17 October.

Rubin had no enthusiasm for the October Revolution, fearing that counter-rev­olutionary forces would come to power if it were defeated. Following October he continued his activities in the Bund's Moscow organisation. When a split occurred at the Moscow conference in 1920, he remained with those who refused to merge with the RCp(B).Togetherwith this group, which declared itself successor to the Bund, Rubin left the meeting hall. In his address to like-minded thinkers on the tasks of the trade-union movement, he defended the need for ‘trade unions that are independent of the state, as organs of proletarian class spontaneity that are constructed from top to bottom on the electoral principle, preserving a constant and close bond with the working masses and accountable to those masses'.^[1701] Rubin was elected to the Central Committee of the Bund and became its Secretary. It was precisely on account of his being part of the Bund's leadership that he was arrested on 20 February 1921 and committed to the Butyrsky prison.

Citizen Rubin - his trial concluded - was arrested on 20.11 of this year, in the Vpered club, at a plenary meeting of the C[entral] C[ommittee].

12

This recommendation was implemented, and the arrestee was freed ‘on bail and with the obligation to appear immediately upon summons from the VChK [the Cheka]’?⁴

The next time Rubin was seized was on the night of 5-6 November of the same year, 1921. He was a deputy of the Moscow Soviet, and the Menshevik fraction of the Soviet protested: ‘We believe that this latest raid by the VChK can only be regarded as a continuation of the policy of short-sighted terrorism on the part of leading circles of the Communist party against the rsdrp [the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party], whose economic programme, in its essentials, the rkp [the Russian Communist Party] is currently attempting to implement?⁵

But his fellow scholars saved him. The investigation file includes a letter to the VChK from then Rector of mgu [Moscow State University], the famous historian V.P. Volgin. It is dated 6 November 1921 (i.e. it was sent on the day of the arrest), and it gives an account of Rubin’s teaching activity at mgu. Here is the text:

On the night of 5-6 November Isaak Il’ich Rubin, professor of the Faculty of Social Sciences and the Department of Political Economy, was arrested in his apartment. His arrest causes significant damage to the Faculty’s teaching as he gives classes there in the theory of Marxism, of which he is himself an adher­ent, and this course is an essential component of the basic programme of the Faculty’s teaching. In view of this fact it is vitally important to the Presidium of the University - in the interest of properly conducting the University’s educa­tional work - that Professor I.I. Rubin return as quickly as possible to his teaching duties, and for that reason the Presidium submits to the All-Russian Extraordin­ary Commission its urgent appeal for a most expeditious review of Prof. Rubin’s case and, as soon as possible, for a change in the measures of personal custody to which he is subject. Convinced of Professor Rubin’s loyalty to the governing authorities, the Presidium asks that the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission release him on bail to the members of the University’s Presidium, and takes upon itself full responsibility for ensuring that, in the event of his being released, Pro­fessor Rubin will be on call to the appropriate government organs and will not in any manner abuse the trust placed in him upon being released from arrest?⁶

The case also involved a letter from A.V. Lunacharsky to V.P. Menzhinsky, the vice­chairman of the VChK (dated 14 November 1921). Rubin, it says, ‘works intensively at Narkompros [the Commissariat of Education]', and it asks that ‘the review of his case be accelerated and, if circumstances permit, that he be returned as soon as possible to fulfilling his duties'. On 19 November the dean of the faculty of social sciences at mgu [Moscow State University], N.M. Dukin, also sent a letter to the VChK:

For this reason, and taking into account the fact that Professor Rubin is entrusted, as a valuable teacher and steadfast Marxist, with conducting a special seminar on ‘Marx's theory of value', which is attended by a large audience, the faculty office of the dean hereby requests the earliest possible release of Prof. Rubin from arrest so that he might continue to conduct classes, since a major interruption of them in mid-semester is extremely undesirable.^{[1706] [1707]}

The petitions from his academic colleagues were effective. On 22 November 1921, a resolution of the Presidium of VChK declared: ‘Citizen Rubin is released from custody on bail in the charge of the President of Moscow State University, comrade Volgin. The investigation of the case continues.⁴⁸ During his two brief stays in prison in 1921, I.I. Rubin continued his academic work. In letters addressed to the prison authorities, he asks permission to receive the books and notebooks etc. required for his work.

Following November 1921, I.I. Rubin was free for one year and three months. He taught again at mgu, ikp [the Institute of Red Professors] and other educational institutions, published a number of reviews and articles, and prepared the first edition of his major work, Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value.^[1708] On 27 February 1923 the professor was arrested anew. This time he spent more than three and a half years in prison and exile. On 13 April 1923, the nkvd commission on administrative exile resolved to intern Rubin in the Archangel concentration camp for three years.^[1709] The resolution was justified as follows by Ivanov, the assistant head of the second department of the ogpu [the Unified State Political Directorate]:

Taking into account that the investigation does not have sufficient evidence to bring I.I. Rubin to trial under article 62, but that his anti-Soviet activity has been fully demonstrated, I propose: that this case and its conclusion be submitted to the nkvd commission on administrative exile with the recommendation that citizen Rubin Isaak Il'ich be held in the Archangel concentration camp for a term of 3 years. The case is concluded and to be deposited in the sqgpu archive.²¹

For Rubin, this sort of decision was the equivalent of a death sentence. Avery sick man, he could hardly endure three years in a northern concentration camp. For a month there was a struggle for the scientist's life. His colleagues did everything to prevent him from being sent away. His wife, Polina Petrovna Rubina (1884-1958) made many efforts. On 19 April she sent a letter to the USSR ambassador to Germany, N.N. Krestinsky, asking that he help to secure a ‘review of the sentence and its immediate suspension'. She recalled that ‘For the past three years Isaak Il'ich has been involved in his work of studying Marx's theory of value, the result of which was the book by Isaak Il'ich, Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value, which appeared a month ago and was published by Gosizdat [the State Publishing House] in Moscow'.22 N.N. Krestinsky responded quickly to the letter: ‘I believe - he wrote to deputy chairman of qgpu, I.S. Unshlikht - that in his case it would be more proper to let him go abroad. When he is abroad, he can do no harm to us... For this reason I raise the question of reviewing the decision and of exiling Rubin from the country'?³ On 23 April, Polina Petrovna requested qgpu ‘to review the sentence and replace itwith exile abroad or to some provincial city'. She added: ‘If such resolution is not possible, I ask that he be left in one of the Moscow prisons'?⁴

On 10 May 1923, the qgpu commandant of Butyrsky prison received the order ‘to hold up until further notice, in view of his illness, the dispatch of citizen Rubin Isaak Il'ich, who has been sentenced to Archangel concentration camp'?⁵ True, the leader­ship of qgpu still sent him away in the autumn of 1923, but to the Suzdal concentra­tion camp rather than Archangel. The file of the investigation includes a letter from there, written by I.I. Rubin on 28 October 1923: ‘Eight months of imprisonment have severely undermined my already poor health (cardiac neurosis, pulmonary tubercu­losis, chronic stomach disease); in Suzdal I have been kept in abasement cell, with huge damp areas on the walls'. Rubin noted that his confinement in Suzdal was even more agonising and damaging to his nerves than the ‘very harsh regime' to which he had been subjected in Butyrka?⁶ Soon afterward Rubin was returned to Butyrsky prison.

The ogpu's severity towards the scholar was primarily due to the fact that he did not change his political views. He spoke of himself as a ‘political prisoner' and ventured dangerous demarches: ‘I hereby declare that today, 1 May 1924, the holiday of the international working class, I am undertaking a one-day hunger strike in mourning for the comrade-socialists who have perished in prison and exile and as a sign of protest against the unprecedented brutal regime (...) used by the Bolsheviks against socialists'.^[1710] In such circumstances it was very difficult for those who wanted to make things easier for Rubin to secure any positive results. The director of the Institute of K. Marx and F. Engels, academician D.B. Ryazanov, was even prepared to take responsibility for his bail. Later he recalled:

Despite all my attempts at persuasion, Rubin remained steadfast. He refused to be freed under my warranty, giving me his word that he disclaims any practical work and is prepared to devote himself entirely to scientific work. ‘And if one of the old comrades calls on me in Kashin - it was assumed that he would not be living in Moscow -1 will not inform on him and will only let you down.'

Rubin's sister, B.I. Zheltenkova, also pleaded for him. In the summer of 1924 she submit­ted a request to A.I. Rykov, the chairman of Sovnarkom [the Council of Ministers], for her brother's early release. ‘If it is not possible for him to be released', she wrote, ‘I ask that he be exiled for the remainder of his sentence to one of the cities near Moscow'?^[1711]

In November 1924 Rubin's fate took a definite turn. The intercessors finally managed to agree with the leadership of ogpu on a solution to the problem. On their advice, apparently, I.I. Rubin appealed to Menzhinsky on 4 September 1924, to replace his remaining sentence to the concentration camp with ‘exile to one of the provincial cities of European Russia. or to somewhere in Crimea'?^[1712] On 19 December 1924, a special meeting of the ogpu collegiate ordered that Rubin be released from prison and sent, for the remainder of his term, to the city of Karasubazar on the Crimean peninsula.^[1713]

In Karasubazar (renamed Belogorsk since 1944) the scholar and his wife had two rooms in a single-storey cabin. Their life was not serene. Moreover, during the winter Rubin's health deteriorated. The leadership of ogpu decisively refused a request to move him to some other locale in Crimea that would be better for his health. In April of 1926 the scholar wrote: ‘Due to the impossibility of a timely change of residence, I spent the winter of 1925-6 in a condition of permanent illness. I was bed-ridden for three months and suffered acute articular rheumatism, with the result that my health (especially my heart condition) seriouslyworsened and now requires long-term special treatment’.^[1714]

On 13 April 1926 the term of exile ended. Rubin’s colleagues did everything they could to secure his return to Moscow. This is how, on 29 March, Sh.M. Dvolaitsky justified the need for the scholar’s return to his work of teaching at the Institute of Red Professors:

Rubin is presently the leading expert (...) on Marxism (apart from Bukharin). His principal work, in my view, is a brilliant interpretation of Marx’s theory of value. In any event, I cannot think of a single other work in this field that is on the level of Rubin’s book. He is also involved with the history of economic thought. He has been able to do an excellent study not only of Marx’s predecessors and contemporaries but also of current bourgeois literature on economic theory. Of course, it would be impossible for us to find a second such teacher for the Institute. My opinion of Rubin, so far as I am aware, is the common view of our comrade-economists. Bukharin also holds him in very high regard^{[1715] [1716] [1717]}

On 9 April 1926, the rector of the ikp [Institute of Red Professors], academician and historian M.N. Pokrovsky, called for Rubin’s return to work at the Institute:

Since Professor Rubin is an outstanding expert in the area of Marx’s economic theory and in the history of economic thought, and since the ikp is lacking in precisely such leaders, it considers it permissible to request that he be allowed to reside in Moscow in order that he may be employed, as previously, to conduct seminars in the basic courses. Professor Rubin’s political position will have no influence on such highly qualified Party members as the students at the Institute of Red Professors.33

But these petitions were ignored. The conclusion of the case reads: ‘During his time in exile Rubin remained, as before, a Menshevik, adopting an implacable position towards the Soviet authority and maintaining contact with exiles in other cities, with the consequence that his residence in any of the central industrial areas, upon completing his exile, constitutes a social threat’^⁴ The scholar was forbidden, for a period of three years, to live in Moscow, Leningrad, Tula, Nizhny Novgorod or Ivanovo-Voznesensk. At the end of August he received permission to settle in Saratov. However, the ogpu received still more petitions. At this stage, in addition to academician D.B. Ryazanov, A.I. Rykov and N.I. Bukharin also pleaded on Rubin's behalf. In October their inter­cession had an effect. Rubin was allowed to visit Moscow for three weeks, and on 26 November 1926, a special meeting of the ogpu collegiate resolved: ‘to grant Rubin Isaak Il'ich early release from punishment and to allow him to reside freely anywhere in the ussr'.^[1718]

In Rubin's ‘Autobiography' we find these words: ‘From 1923 until 19261 was busy with literary-scientific work and wrote a number of scientific works'^{[1719] [1720] At first sight, this may appear curious. Indeed, throughout this time Rubin was in a cell at Butyrsky prison, in the Suzdal concentration camp, then again in Butyrka, and then in exile at Karasubazar. But when paging through the investigation of his case, one becomes convinced that during his confinement Isaak Il'ich really did work intensively. There is a record of all the books, journals and other materials that arrived for Rubin from 1923-6, and also of all the times when he was permitted to send out manuscripts that he had completed in prison. In addition, the case file includes voluminous correspondence that is indicative of his intensive scientific work. The prison authorities did not suppress the professor's scientific studies. Up to the time of his arrest he had completed a number of tasks and secured publications with various publishers, including the Institute of K. Marx and F. Engels. At that time, the heads of these institutions could still exercise influence upon the leadership of the ogpu.}

The case file includes numerous letters from individual scholars and institutions (above all, from the Institute of K. Marx and F. Engels) to the ogpu requesting the dispatch to Rubin of one or another publication. Here, for example, is a letter from Sh.M. Dvolaitsky dated 4 September, 1923:

Please send the enclosedbook [Ricardo undMarxals Werttheoretiker by I. Rosen­berg] to I.I. Rubin in Butyrsky prison and advise him that the book is being sent so that he might write his introductory chapter. The book, together with Rubin's introduction, will be published by the ‘Moskovskii rabochii' press and will be included in the ‘Economic Series' that I am editing. I ask you not to delay, so as not to postpone the appearance of the book.3⁷

And here is a letter from ime [the Institute of K. Marx and F. Engels] to the qgpu on 21 June 1924:

The Institute is entrusting comrade A.D. Markov with: 1) delivering for Rubin the translation of Marx's Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy in two copies (the manuscript of the translation and its typed version); and 2) with acquiring material for the Institute that we learned of from your Secret­ariat.^[1721]

During his captivity (from the spring of 1923 to the autumn of 1926) the scholar completed a total of approximately twenty scientific works, including monographs, translations of books and articles involving economics, forewords, articles in journals and in the bse [Great Soviet Encyclopaedia], and commentary on texts. This work included the second edition of Essays on Marx's Theory of Value (1924), expanded to twice the original length; the translation and foreword to I. Rosenberg's Teoriya stoimosti u Ricardo i u Marksa [ The Theory of Value in Marx and in Ricardo]; the second edition of the book (with R.M. Kabo) Narodnoe khozyaistvo v ocherkakh i kartinkakh (1924) [The National Economy in Essays and Pictures]; an introductory article for the book by W. Liebknecht, Istoria teorii stoimosti v Anglii (1924) [History of the Theory of Value in England] (Rubin was also scientific editor for the translation of this book); the translation of a book by G. Levy [with the Russian title] Osnovy mirovovo khozyaistvo [Foundations of the World Economy]; as well as the books Istoriya ekonomicheskoi mysly (1926) [A History of Economic Thought], Fiziokraty (1925) [The Physiocrats] and Sovremennye ekonomisty na Zapade (1927) [Contemporary Economists in the West]. During this same period I.I. Rubin prepared a new translation of Marx's Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy and a series of articles and reviews for the journal ArkhivK. Marksa iF. Engel’sa’ [‘Archive of K. Marx and F. Engels']; he also compiled the anthology Klassiki politicheskoi ekonomii otxvιι doxιx v. [Classics of Political Economy from the Seventeenth to the Nineteenth Century], providing each section with his own thoughtful introductory remarks. For the first edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia he wrote, while in prison, the articles on ‘The Austrian school', ‘Amortisation', and

‘Vulgar Political Economy'. In Butyrsky prison Professor Rubin began the manuscript on Ocherkipo teorii denegMarksa [Essays on Marx's Theory of Money]. There he developed further the ideas in his Essays on Marx's Theory of Value. This work continued in 1927­8, when the manuscript was completely rewritten and prepared for publication. In the scientific work of our country, this was the first special investigation of Marx's theory of money. However, the professor did not manage to publish the work, and it remains unknown to this day.^[1722] Fortunately, the manuscript has been preserved by I.I. Rubin's relatives.

Doing scientific work in the conditions of detention was a great feat for the scholar. In Suzdal concentration camp he had to write and read with the light of a kerosene lamp. A quite indicative episode occurred following 19 December, 1924, in Butyrsky prison. The order came to release him from prison and send him on to Karasubazar. But the prisoner requested... a postponement of his release. His motive:

I have in hand two large works, one of which is of an educational nature (Khresto- matiya po istorii politicheskoi ekonomii [A Reader on the History of Political Eco­nomy], some 450 pages long), which must be sent quickly to Gosizdat, and the final editing will take no more than 6-7 days. In case of a speedy departure, I will be deprived of the opportunity to send the only manuscript, the fruit of half a year's work, and at the least it will be delayed by 2-3 months.^[1723]

This unusual request from the detainee was granted, and his stay in the prison was extended by several days. By 27 December 1924, I.I. Rubin completed the entire work, and only then was he sent into exile.

In Karasubazar the professor worked no less intensively. In the director's archives of the Institute of K. Marx and F. Engels there are five Crimean letters by I.I. Rubin. They speak of receiving books from the ime [Institute of World Economy] library and of returning them, of the translation into Russian of K. Marx's Marginal Notes on A. Wagner’s 'Lehrbuch der Politischen Okonomie’ (second edition Volume I, 1879), and of the translation into German of Rubin's article ‘Shtol'tsman kak kritik Marksa' [‘Stolzmann as a Critic of Marx']^[1724] Concerning this article, he wrote on 14 August:

I hope that you will act expeditiously in order that all my corrections will quickly be made. In view of the difficulty and crucial character of the theme, appearance of the work without my corrections would be most undesirable and would inevitably provoke unfavourable criticism of carelessness in the work (technical terms, quotations, the title, etc). Hence, if the manuscript has already been sent to the press, I request that you urgently notify the editors, without waiting for the manuscripts, that corrections have been made to the article and that they absolutely must be included.^[1725]

The self-sacrificing scientific work of I.I. Rubin from 1923-6 certainly deserves recog­nition in the history of science. Of course, without the solidarity and assistance of his professor-colleagues he would not have been able to work, nor would he have man­aged to get out of his prison cell and then from exile to Moscow at the end of 1926. Had it not been for their assistance, not a single one of the numerous scientific works that he wrote from 1923-6 would have seen the light. In the foreword to the third edi­tion of Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value, Rubin wrote: ‘In the appearance of the first two editions of this work, I received significant assistance from D.B. Ryazanov and Sh.M. Dvolaitsky, to whom I extend my sincere appreciation’^{[1726] [1727] [1728]}

At the end of 1926 I.I. Rubin was given a position at the Institute of K. Marx and F. Engels. Here he enjoyed significant opportunities for fruitful scientific activity. He soon headed the office of political economy, which in those years was the centre for preparing K. Marx’s economic writings for publication and possessed a unique collection of approximately 14,000 books on problems of political economy and the history of economic thought.44 At the Institute from 1927-30, Rubin prepared for publication Marx’s Contribution to the Critique ofPolitical Economy?³ translated several other writings by Marx, began work on a new edition of Capital, and collaborated in compiling several thematically focused collective works. He translated the classics of political economy, in particular Adam Smith’s Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. He also continued his own research in the areas of economic theory and the history of economic thought, publishing several new articles^[1729] Each year saw republication of his History of Economic Thought, the most famous textbook used for this course.^{[1730] [1731]} He regularly produced detailed scholarly critiques of foreign and soviet literature on problems of political economy and the theory of Marxism?^[1732] He also resumed his teaching activity at ikp [the Institute of Red Professors] as well as at the Institute of National Economy, mgu [Moscow State University], the Institute of Economics and ranion [the Russian Association of Scientific-Research Institutes for the Social Sciences], giving lectures on political economy, Capital and the history of economic doctrines. His lectures always drew large audiences and attracted lively interest in scientific circles.

I.I. Rubin stood out among economists in the 1920s with his attempt to approach Marx's economic theory in a more scientific manner. He did not, of course, overcome the one-sided and apologetic interpretation of Marxism that had become the only per­missible social theory after 1917. However, as distinct from the overwhelming majority among the first generation of soviet economists, Rubin tried to see Marx's views within the context of the nineteenth-century system of economic science. This could not go unpunished.

In 1928 a discussion began concerning I.I. Rubin's book Essays on Marx's Theory of Value. The discussion initially took the character of a scientific dispute, but then the critical commentary on the book's ideas and positions passed over into political accusations. The author was condemned for falsification of the economic theory of Marxism, for an idealistic approach to economic categories, for detaching form from content, etc. His ideas were branded with the term ‘Rubinshchina?^[1733] and he was personally declared to be the leader of an idealistic tendency in political economy.^[1734] The discussion came to an end at the beginning of 1930 with an article by V. Milyutin and B. Borilin, ‘On the Disagreements in Political Economy', published in the journal ‘Bol'shevik',^{[1735] [1736] [1737] [1738] [1739] [1740]} the theoretical organ of the TsK vkp(b) [the Central Committee of the Communist Party].

Soon Rubin began to be hounded in the national press. In a Pravda article of 19 November he was labelled ‘a participant in a recently exposed Menshevik-kulak group of wreckers’.’² At the beginning of 1930 the scholar was compelled to end his teaching at ikp and other educational institutions. On 22 November he sent a letter to the editors of Pravda in which he denied participating in the activities of any groups of wreckers, but on 1 December he submitted his resignation from the Institute of K. Marx and F. Engels.’³

By the beginning of the 1930s it was difficult for any independently-minded social scientist to continue working. After securing victory over his political opponents in the leadership of the vkp(b), Stalin set the repressive machine in motion against dissidents both within the party and beyond. In these conditions the fate of a former political prisoner, an original scholar whose work had created a stir in economic science, was a foregone conclusion. The denouement was accelerated by two factors: first, by the organisation at the end of 1930 and the beginning of 1931 of a show trial, according to Stalin's script, against former Mensheviks; and second, Stalin's desire to do away with academician D.B. Ryazanov, whom he hated. Rubin's arrest did not take long, coming on the eve of 23-24 December 1930.

For nearly a month the officers of the qgpu failed to secure the evidence they needed. Rubin's sister, B.I. Zheltenkova, speaks of this in her recollections.’⁴ Her information is confirmed by the investigation, which includes Rubin's original response to the arrest order: ‘I acknowledge no guilt; I have had absolutely no relation whatsoever with the Menshevik party since 1923 and have not even had any contact with persons who might be assumed to be members of the Menshevik party'.’’

During trial preparations, savage methods were applied to extract the necessary depositions.’⁶ Stalin himself defined them as early as October 1930 in a letter to V.P. Menzhinsky: first, acquaint those accused with the ‘assigned’ testimonies, then ‘interrogate most severely' and put those who refuse to cooperate ‘through the sys­tem’.^[1741] Stalin was especially interested in the ‘depositions' of Rubin, who was subjected to the harshest methods of pressure - endless interrogation, beatings, solitary confine­ment in a stone cell the size of a man, humiliation and torture, sleep deprivation, and so forth.5^{[1742] [1743]}

Finally the scholar, seriously ill and exhausted by endless humiliations, could endure no more. B.I. Zheltenkova recalls:

My brother agreed to confess that he was a member of the programme com­mission of the Union Bureau, and that he, Rubin, had kept documents of the Menshevik Centre in his office at the Institute, and when he resigned from the Institute, he had handed them over in a sealed envelope to Ryazanov, as materials on the history of the Social-Democratic movement. Rubin had supposedly asked Ryazanov to keep these documents for a short time... He decided to make it look as if he had deceived Ryazanov, who trusted him totally. My brother stubbornly kept to this position in all his depositions: Ryazanov had trusted him personally, and he, Rubin, had betrayed that trust. No one could shake him from this posi- tion.59

On 8 February 1931, the ogpu investigators forced Rubin to write a letter to Ryazanov, in which he requested the latter to return the non-existing documents since they were supposedly needed for the investigation.^{[1744] [1745]} On the evening of 12 February Stalin summoned academician Ryazanov and, with V.M. Molotov present, presented him with the fabricated letter from Rubin. On the eve of 15-16 February Ryazanov was arrested. On 20 February a confrontation occurred. After the first three questions, Ryazanov broke it off. He saw the intimidated and trembling Isaak Il’ich Rubin, barely able to squeeze out a word, and apparently understood it all: ‘My brother right then was taken to his cell; in his cell he began to beat his head against the wall. Anyone who knew how calm and self-controlled Rubin was can understand what a state he had been brought to'.6i

Of course, one can accuse Professor Rubin of betraying the man who, in 1923-6, saved him from certain ruin, returned him to science and helped him right up to the time of his arrest. But one must also take into account the circumstances in which this drama occurred. What could a scholar do to oppose the deadly grip of the General Secretary and his henchmen? Even at the price of his own life he could not have saved Ryazanov.

At the trial of the ‘Union Bureau of the Tsk rsdrp (Mensheviks)' from 1-9 March 1931, I.I. Rubin was sentenced to five years of imprisonment. On 22 September 1933, the collegium of the qgpu decided ‘to amend the previous sentence of Rubin Isaak Il'ich and send him to Tugai for the remainder of his term'.^[1746] Then he found himself in Aktyubinsk [Kazakhstan]. Having visited him there, B.I. Zheltenkova recalls:

In Aktyubinsk my brother got work in a consumer co-operative, as a plan eco­nomist. In addition he continued to do his scholarly work... My brother told me that he had no wish to return to Moscow; he did not want to meet his former circle of acquaintances. That showed how deeply he was shaken by all that he had been through. Only his great optimism, which was characteristic of him, and his deep scholarly interests, gave him the strength to live^{[1747] [1748]}

. On 19 November 1937, Professor I.I. Rubin was again arrested. On this occasion he was charged with creating a counter-revolutionary organisation. On 25 November a ‘troika' sentenced him to be shot, and he was executed within a day. We are publishing for the first time the exact date of the scholar's death: 27 November 1937. We have managed to determine this date after studying the corresponding archival materials of the kgb, which are now declassified. Until now the dates for I.I. Rubin's life were given as: (1886 - year of death unknown). That is what is found in the ‘Political Economy' encyclopaedia to which we referred at the beginning of this article^⁴

In the years 1989-91 I.I. Rubin was unconditionally rehabilitated with respect to all the trials of the 1920s and 1930s.