V. I.

Lenin

172

To:   MAXIM GORKY

To A. M., private

March 24, 1908

Dear A. M., I have received your letter concerning my fight with the Machists. I quite
understand and respect your feelings and I ought to say that I get something
similar from my St. Petersburg friends, but I am very deeply convinced that you
are mistaken.

You must understand—and you will, of course—that once a Party man
has become convinced that a certain doctrine is grossly fallacious and
harmful , he is obliged to come out against it. I would not be kicking
up a row if I were not absolutely convinced (and I am becoming more and more
convinced of this every day as I study the original sources of wisdom of
Bazarov, Bogdanov and Co.) that their book is ridiculous, harmful, philistine,
fideist—the whole of it, from beginning to end, from branch to root, to
Mach and Avenarius. Plekhanov, at bottom, is entirely right in being
against them, only he is unable or unwilling or too lazy to say so
concretely , in detail, simply, without unnecessarily frightening his
readers with philosophical nuances. And at all costs I shall say it in my own way .

What kind of “reconciliation” can there be here, dear A. M.? Why, it
is ludicrous even to mention it. A fight is absolutely inevitable. And
Party people should devote their efforts not to slurring it over, putting it off
or dodging it, but to ensuring that essential Party work does not suffer in practice. That is what you should be concerned about,
and nine-tenths of the Bolsheviks in Russia will help you in this and heartily
thank you for it.

How is this to be done? By “neutrality”? No. There cannot and will not be any neutrality on such an issue. If it is possible to speak of
neutrality, it can only be in a relative sense: we must
separate all this fight from the faction. So far, you have been writing
“from the outside”, keeping away from the factional publications; go on
writing in this way. Only so will the faction not be committed, not be
involved , not be compelled tomorrow or the day after to
decide , to vote , i.e., to turn the fight into a chronic, protracted, hopeless affair.

That is why I am against allowing any kind of philosophy in
the journal. [2] I know I am being abused for this: he wants to stop other
people’s mouths, while he has not yet opened his own! But just think it
over coolly.

A journal with philosophy. No. 1—three articles of Bazarov, Bogdanov and
Lunacharsky against Plekhanov. One article of mine saying that Studies in the Philosophy of Marxism =Berdayevism and reactionary clericalism.

No. 2—three times three keyed up articles of Bogdanov, Bazarov and
Lunacharsky against Plekhanov and Lenin. One article of mine, proving from
another angle that Studies in the Philosophy of Marxism=reactionary
clericalism.

No. 3—howling and cursing.

I could write six or a dozen articles against Studies in the Philosophy of Marxism , one article against each author and each aspect of his views. Can
this drag on in this way? flow long? Will this not make a split
inevitable through endless exacerbation and embitterment? Will
this not bind the faction to make a decision: decide, analyse, and end
the “discussion” by a vote....

Think this over carefully, if you fear a split. Will the practical workers
undertake to distribute books with such a “fight”? Isn’t another way
better: go on writing as before, outside the factional publications. Do your scrapping on the side, for the time being the
faction can wait. If there is a chance of weakening the inevitable
animosity, it can only be in this way, I think.

You write: the Mensheviks will gain from a fight. You are mistaken, deeply
mistaken, A. M.! They will gain if the Bolshevik faction does not dissociate
itself from. the philosophy of the three Bolsheviks. In that case ,
they will definitely win. But if the philosophical fight goes on out side the faction, the
Mensheviks will be definitely reduced to a political line and that will be the
death of them.

I say: separate the fight from the faction. Of course, such a
separation, on living persons, is rather difficult and painful. It needs
time. It needs solicitous comrades. Here the practical workers will help, here
you should help, here it is a question of “psychology”, and you know
best. I think you could help a lot here—provided that, on reading my book
against the Studies ,
[1]

you don’t become as furious against me as I became against them.

As regards the journal, think it over carefully and answer me soon. I am a
little doubtful whether it is worth while for us to make the journey to you
together at present . Why jangle nerves unnecessarily? Why draw out the
torture there is no avoiding a fight. Would it not be better to settle this business of
the journal simply, without long negotiations and ceremonial and futile
meetings. I am merely putting questions to you in order to consult you.

Best regards to M. F. I shall most certainly come to Capri and try to bring my
wife along, only I should like to do this independently of the philosophical
fight.

All the very best.

Yours, Lenin

P.S. I enclose important information about a spy among you.