V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:PSS/v47; en:MT;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

To Comrades Yuli, Vanya, Savely, Ivan, Vladimir, Stanislav and Foma.
August 30, 1909 (new style)

Dear Comrades, Having received from you the school programme and two letters, the last of which puts to me the question of the motives for declaring the school a new faction, I consider it my duty once again to explain my view to you. “The factional background of the school is a sheer fiction,” you write. “Hegemony over the school is unthinkable, for the majority of the Council is ourselves.”

I maintain that this is a clear case of self-deception on your part. The point is not at all that you are accused of “direct factionalism”; the point is not at all who has the majority in the Council. The point is that the school was organised 1) on the initiative of the new faction;—2) exclusively with the funds of the new faction;—3) in a place where there are only lecturers of the new faction;—4) in a place where, with very rare exceptions, lecturers of other factions cannot be.

All these conditions do not depend on your will. You cannot change them. And these conditions already predetermine the character of the school, predetermine it to such an extent that no good intentions on your part and no decisions of your Council are in any way capable of changing anything essential.

In every school the most important thing is the ideological and political direction of the lectures. What determines this direction? Entirely and exclusively the composition of the lecturers. You understand perfectly, comrades, that any “control”, any “guidance”, any “programmes”, “statutes”, etc.—all this is empty sound in relation to the composition of the lecturers. No control, no programmes, etc., are absolutely capable of changing the direction of the studies which is determined by the composition of the lecturers. And never and nowhere in the world has a single self-respecting organisation, faction or group undertaken to

Now look at the composition of the lecturers, which predetermined the character and direction of the school. You, comrades, signed your letter to me, but your letter to the C.C. (a copy of this letter was received by me together with the school programme) on behalf of the pupils and lecturers of the school does not contain the signatures of the lecturers. Therefore I cannot know the composition of the lecturers with complete accuracy. But even what I know is sufficient for judging the composition of the lecturers.

We were informed from Russia by local organisations of the Central Industrial Region that the most energetic, if not the only, agitator for the Capri school was Comrade Stanislav, who was already elected as a lecturer by some Social-Democratic circles that had heard his report. This Comrade Stanislav is the most determined recallist and “critic” of Marxism in philosophy. It is enough to recall (1) how he tore Kautsky to pieces in his well-known philosophical booklet; (2) how he stood out at the Party Conference in December 1908 as a separate faction of recallists together with the St. Petersburg recallist Vs.; (3) how an article edited by him, “The Worker” recallist, in No. 5 of *The Workers’ Banner* was itself recognised by *The Workers’ Banner* as imbued with the views of anarchism.

Look further at those lecturers whom you now see before you on Capri.

There are no Bolsheviks among them. But almost all the supporters of the new faction (the faction of the defenders of recallism and god-building) are represented. I shall hardly be much mistaken if I say that among the Capri lecturers you see Comrades Maximov, Lunacharsky, Lyadov, Alexinsky. This is precisely that group of comrades who, since the spring of 1908, formed an opposition to *The Proletarian*, carried on agitation against it in Russia and abroad, stood out as a separate faction (or supported it) at the Party Conference in December 1908, and, finally, definitely separated into a special faction.

To deny that this whole group of comrades is carrying on agitation against *The Proletarian*, supporting and defending the recallists, would be to mock at facts known to all in the Party. To deny that the island of Capri has already become known, even in general Russian literature, as a literary centre of god-building, would be to scoff at facts. The entire Russian press long ago pointed out that Lunarsky from the island of Capri began preaching god-building. He was assisted in Russia by Bazarov. Homogeneous philosophical views were defended in a dozen Russian legal books and articles, in a dozen foreign reports by Bogdanov. I was on the island of Capri in April 1908 and declared to all these three comrades my absolute disagreement with them on philosophy (at the same time I proposed to them then to use common means and efforts for a Bolshevik history of the revolution, as against the Menshevik-liquidator history of the revolution, but the Caprians rejected my proposal, wishing to occupy themselves not with a common Bolshevik cause, but with the propaganda of their own special philosophical views). Of the group of your Capri lecturers, the majority are literary men, and not one of these literary men has ever attacked in the press the god-building propaganda of Lunacharsky and Bazarov!

If, despite all this, you write to me, comrades, that to consider the school connected with god-building and recallism is a “misunderstanding”, and moreover a “complete” one on my part, for “such aims were not only not set here in the school, they could not even be spoken of”—then I can only marvel at your extreme naivety. I repeat: the real character and direction of the school are determined not by the good wishes of local organisations, not by the decisions of the “Council” of students, not by “programmes”, etc., but by the composition of the lecturers. And if the composition of the lecturers is entirely determined and has been determined by the circle of members of the new faction, then to deny the factional character of the school is simply ridiculous.

To finish with the question of the composition of the lecturers, I will give you one more fact, told me by Comrade Innokenty, and showing to what extent what you are trying to deny, namely, the special factional character of the Capri school, is obvious to everyone in the Party. Shortly before the last meeting of the extended editorial board of *The Proletarian* Comrade Maximov in Paris approached Trotsky, inviting him to be a lecturer at the Capri school. Trotsky told Comrade Innokenty about this and declared to him: if this is a Party matter, I will gladly take part; if it is a special undertaking of the Capri literary men, Maximov, Lunacharsky and Co., then I will not participate. Innokenty replied: wait for the decisions of the editorial board of *The Proletarian*; I will send you these decisions. Thus even the non-factional Comrade Trotsky immediately understood (as will any Party worker with any experience) that to organise a school on the island of Capri means to hide the school from the Party, means to link the school in advance with one special and precisely the new faction.

Now I will pass to the question of Paris. I wrote to you that if you are really interested in lectures by me and my like-minded comrades, you should come to Paris. You reply to me: “a trip to Paris, taking into account the expenses, would be quite inexpedient.”

Let us see which of us is really saying something inexpedient.

You came to the island of Capri via Vienna. If you return by the same route, you will have to turn from northern Italy to Paris, and from there go straight to Vienna. This will make the trip more expensive, probably, by no more than 60 francs per person (I judge by the fact that from Geneva, where I lived for a long time, the ticket to Paris costs 30 francs). Your letter is signed by 8 names, with one declaring that he “refrains from further correspondence”, i.e., obviously does not even have the desire to listen to my talks. There remain 7 comrades.

Expenditure = 7 . 60 = 420 francs.

You invited four lecturers from Paris (Leva, myself, Grigory and Innokenty).

Expenditure on a trip from Paris to Capri and back—about 140 fr. Total 4 . 140 = 560 fr.

It is cheaper for 8 pupils to come to Paris than to send 4 lecturers to Capri.

But the financial question, as I already wrote to you in my previous letter*, is far from the most important. Think, is it easier for the visiting pupils or for the local lecturers to choose the place? You came abroad specially for studies at the school. That means you cannot have any obstacles to coming to where there is a large number of lecturers, where a genuinely Party organisation of the work is possible.

But the lecturers cannot go from the Party centre to the island of Capri. I will speak for myself. I cannot abandon the editorial board of *The Proletarian*—I cannot abandon the editorial board of the Central Organ—I cannot abandon the commission for assisting the Social-Democratic Duma faction founded in Paris—I must speak at the *Proletarian* club in the working-class districts of Paris, where hundreds and thousands of Russian workers live, etc. A trip of Party literary men from Paris to the island of Capri is an absolutely impossible thing.

But for a school, as a Party matter, not only Bolshevik lecturers are important. Paris is the largest émigré centre, where public reports of all factions are constantly given, discussions take place, various circles are conducted, there are 2-3 fairly good Russian libraries, there are dozens of Social-Democratic organisers who have long worked in the Party, etc. In Paris three Russian Social-Democratic newspapers are published. In a word, for anyone who is even slightly acquainted with life abroad, it is as clear as clear daylight: he who goes to study Social-Democracy in Paris goes to study real Social-Democracy. He who goes to study on Capri goes to study a special factional “science”.

He who organises a school in Paris organises a genuinely Party school.

He who organises a school on the island of Capri hides the school from the Party.

* See present volume, pp. 183-184. *Ed.*

The school on Capri is a school deliberately hidden from the Party.

No control, no “ideological guidance” in relation to the Capri school is absolutely possible either on the part of the C.C., to which you apply today, or on the part of the editorial board of *The Proletarian*, to which you applied yesterday. To speak here of control and ideological guidance is empty words. No one will conceive the absurd idea of sending Party “inspectors” over the school to Capri; the sending of genuinely Party lecturers to Capri can never be carried out (with the most insignificant exceptions). If the local Russian organisations did not know this, the organisers of the school knew it perfectly. That is precisely why they organised the school on Capri—to cover up its factional character, to hide the school from the Party.

Take the non-factional Russian Social-Democrats who are outstanding for their knowledge of the working-class movement abroad: Parvus and Rosa Luxemburg (Germany), Ch. Rappoport (France), Rothstein (England). Take non-factional Social-Democratic literary men like Ryazanov—you will see at once (if you do not want to close your eyes in order not to see) that in Paris they will in most cases be able to give lectures, with some efforts on the part of the Party, but on Capri they will be absolutely unable to come. The money that has been thrown away by the organisers of the school for sending pupils and lecturers to the most remote foreign point (Capri) would have been sufficient for organising lectures by at least some of these lecturers in Paris.

Take, further, the new groupings among the Social-Democrats, groupings with which it is so important for Russian comrades to become acquainted (the struggle of Party and liquidator elements in the Bund; the struggle of the Bolshevik part of the Letts with the Menshevik part; the R.S.D.* with the Left wing of the P.P.S.**; the split in Menshevism, Plekhanov’s appearance with his *Diary*, exposing the liquidatorism of Potresov and the official Mensheviks; attempts to create a “revolutionary Menshevism”, etc.). On Capri it is impossible to become properly acquainted with these Party-important phenomena. In Paris there is every opportunity to learn the state of affairs at first hand, not merely by hearsay.

*—P.S.D.—Polish Social-Democracy. *Ed.*

**—P.P.S.—Polish Socialist Party. *Ed.*

Take, finally, the programme of studies of the Capri school. Of the four sections, one (III) is entitled: “Philosophy of the Proletarian Struggle”. In international Social-Democracy there are dozens and hundreds (if not thousands) of programmes of propagandist studies of a similar type. But you will nowhere find a “philosophy of the proletarian struggle”. There is the philosophical materialism of Marx and Engels, but nowhere is there a “philosophy of the proletarian struggle”. And no European Social-Democrat will understand what that means. Only those who are acquainted with the works of the philosophers Stanislav (A. Volsky), Bogdanov, Lunacharsky, Bazarov will understand it. Before teaching the “philosophy of the proletarian struggle”, such a philosophy must be invented. And the invention of this special philosophy, which swears by the word “proletarian” the more often the further it is from the proletarian world outlook, has been and is being engaged in only by the indicated group of members of the new faction.

I conclude: if you, comrades, insist on your unwillingness to come to Paris (while at the same time assuring me of your desire to hear my lectures), you will thereby finally prove that the narrow circle policy of the new god-building-recallist faction has infected not only the lecturers, but also some of the pupils of the Capri school.

With Social-Democratic greetings, *N. Lenin*