V. I.
Lenin

To: MAXIM GORKY

To Al. Max.

April 11, 1910

Dear A. M., I did not receive the letter from you and M.F. sent through M. S. Botkina until
today. Before I forget: you can write to me at my private address
(Oulianoff, 4, Rue Marie Rose, 4, Paris, XIV) and at the address of the
Party—in which case it is safer to use two envelopes, the inner one
marked: for Lenin, private (110, Avenue d’Orléans, Mr. Kotliarenko, Paris, XIV).

I shall try and send you tomorrow the publications you ask for.

Did I criticise you, and where? It must have been in Diskussionny Listok
No. 1 [1]

C.O.). [2] I am sending you a copy. If this is not what your informants had in mind, then I
don’t remember anything else at the moment. I wrote nothing else during
that period.

Now about unity. You ask: is this a fact or an anecdote?
I shall have to go back a long way to tell you about this,
for there is something both “anecdotal” (rather trivial)
about this fact, and something serious, in my view.

There have been deep and serious factors leading to Party unity: in the
ideological field—the need to purge Social-Democracy from liquidationism
and otzovism; in the practical field—the terribly difficult plight of the
Party and of all Social-Democratic work, and the coming to maturity of a new
type of Social-Democratic worker.

At the C.C. plenum (the “long plenum”—three weeks of agony, all
nerves were on edge, the devil to pay!) to these serious and deep-lying
factors, which were by no means generally recognised, were added minor, petty
factors—a mood of “conciliation in general” (without any
clear idea with whom, for what, and how); hatred of the Bolshevik Centre
for its implacable ideological struggle; squabbling on the part of the
Mensheviks, who were spoiling for a fight, and as a result—an infant
covered with blisters.

And so we have to suffer. Either—at best—we cut open the blisters,
let out the pus, and cure and rear the infant.

Or, at worst—the infant dies. Then we shall be childless for a while
(that is, we shall re-establish the Bolshevik faction) and then give birth to a
more healthy infant.

Among the Mensheviks, those working for serious unity are the Plekhanovites
(not quite consciously, rather slowly and waveringly, but they are nevertheless
working for it, and, what is most important, they cannot help working for it),
the pro-Party -ists and the workers. The Golos people, however, are fencing, causing confusion and making mischief. They are building
up a strong, legal, opportunist centre in Russia (Potresov &
Co. in the press: see Nasha Zarya [3] No. 2—what a scoundrel
this Potresov is!—and Mikhail, Roman, Yury+the sixteen authors of the
“Open Letter” [4] in No. 19/20 of Golos —in practical, organisational work).

The C.C. plenum wanted to unite everyone . Now the Golos people
drop out . This abscess must be removed. It can not be done without squabbling, rows, nervous strain, mud and “scum”.

We are just now in the thick of this squabbling. Either the C.C. in Russia iops
off the Golos supporters by removing them from important bodies
(such as the Central Organ, etc.)—or our faction will have to be re-established.

In No. 11 of Dnevnik , Piekhanov has given an appraisal of the plenum
which clearly shows that the sincere and serious desire to fight opportunism
now prevails with him over the minor, petty desire to utilise
the Golos opportunists against the Bolsheviks. Here, too,
things take a com plex and protracted course, but the Mensheviks’ legalistic,
liquid ationist centre that has been built up in Russia will inevitably lead to serious Social-Democrats turning away from them.

Now about the Vperyodists. At one time it seemed to me that within this group,
too, there were two trends: towards the Party and Marxism, towards
renouncing Machism and otzovism, and the opposite. As far as the first;
trend is concerned, Party unity would enable the patent absurdities of
otzovism, etc., to be corrected in a convenient and unembarrassing Party
way. But, apparently, the second trend is getting the upper hand among them. Alexinsky (a mere babe-in-arms in politics, but one who has
turned angry and is committing one stupidity after another) kicked up a row and
resigned from both the editorial board of Diskussionny Listok and
from the Party’s School
Committee.418^^ They will probably organise a school of their own , again a factional one, again on
the side. If they do, we shall fight again and win the workers away from them.

And so it works out, that in the matter of unity the “anecdotic”
predominates at the present time, is brought into high focus, gives
occasion for sniggering and sneering, etc. It is said that the
Socialist-Revolutionary Chernov has even written a farce about unity among
the Social-Democrats entitled “A Storm in a Tea-cup”, and that this farce
will be performed here in a day or two before one of the groups of the
emigrant colony, who are addicted to sensationalism.

It is sickening to be stuck in the midst of this “anecdotic”
situation, this squabbling and row-making, nervous strain and
“scum”; to observe all this is also sickening. But one should not
allow oneself to succumb to the mood. Life in exile is now a hundred times
harder than it was before the revolution. Life in exile and squabbling are
inseparable.

But the squabbling will pass away; nine-tenths of it remains abroad; it is an
accessory feature. The development of the Party, the development of the
Social-Democratic movement goes forward despite all the devilish
difficulties of the present situation. The purging of the Social-Democratic Party from its dangerous “deviations”, from liquidationism and otzovism goes forward steadfastly; within the
framework of unity it has progressed considerably farther than before. As a matter of fact, we had finished with otzovism ideologically
before the plenum. We had not finished with liquidationism at that time; the
Mensheviks succeeded temporarily in hiding the snake , but now it has
been dragged out into broad daylight, now everyone sees it, now we shall kill
it!

And this purging is by no means only an “ideological” task, a labour
of armchair workers as that fool (or rogue) Potresov thinks, who stands up for the Machists the way the Mensheviks at the plenum stood up for the
Vperyodists. No, this purge is inseparably bound up with the mass working-class movement, which learns how to organise Social-Democratic work in
the present difficult period, learns precisely by rejection, finds the
right path by rejecting liquidationism and otzovism. Only that windbag
Trotsky imagines that this rejection can be avoided, that it is superfluous, that it does not concern the workers, that the issues of
liquidationism and otzovism have been posed not by life itself, but by the wicked polemicists.

I can imagine how distressing the sight of this painful growth of the new
Social-Democratic movement must be to those who have not seen and lived through
its painful growth in the late eighties and early nineties. At that time such
Social-Democrats were to be counted by the score, if not in individuals. Now
there are hundreds and thou sands of them. Hence the crisis and crises. And the
Social-Democratic movement as a whole is coping with them openly and
will overcome them honestly.

All the very best.

Yours,

Lenin

---
Notes:
(published as a supplement to the =
[1]
See “Notes of a Publicist”, Section One, “The
Platform” of the Adherents and Defenders of Otzovism (present edition,
Vol. 16).— Ed .

[2]
Diskussionny Listok (Discussion Bulletin) was started by decision
of the January 1910 (“Unity”) Plenum of the C.C. Its editorial board was
composed of representatives of all the existing trends and national
organisations in the Party. It appeared as a supplement to the Central
Organ Sotsial-Demokrat in Paris from March 6 (19), 1910, to
April 29 (May 12), 1911. Three issues were put out.

[3]
Nasha Zarya (Our Dawn)—a monthly legal journal of the Menshevik
liquidators, published in St. Petersburg from 1910 to 1914. It became the
centre of the liquidators in Russia.

[4]
The “Open Letter” was by a group of prominent Mensheviks, who proposed
liquidating the Party.