V. I.

Lenin

1900

8

To:   NADEZHDA KRUPSKAYA [1]

I have long been intending to write to you about affairs,
but various circumstances have always interfered. My life
here is all bustle, even painfully so—and this (N.B.) despite
the extraordinary precautions taken against it! I live almost, one might say, in solitude—and yet there is this
bustle. But then I suppose it’s unavoidable in every new
situation, and it would be a sin to complain, seeing that
I am not half as nervy as our dear bookseller [2] who succumbs
to black melancholy and momentary prostration under the
influence of this bustle. But there is much that is good
besides the bustle. Well, I shall now tell you something about
the affairs of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats
Abroad, and I shall do so on the basis of facts and accounts
of the other side....

In the first place, a completely wrong idea of Vademecum prevails in Russia as a result of the cock-and-bull stories
of the Rabocheye Dyelo supporters. To hear them—it is nothing but indulgence in personalities, and so forth,
nothing but acting general and making mountains out of molehills for the sake of denigrating individuals, nothing
but the use of “impermissible” methods, etc. Actually, this
thing is a major issue of principle , and the attacks on
individuals are merely an appendage, an appendage that is inevitable in view of the confused relations which the
“young” have tried to create and aggravate to the utmost.
Vademecum is an outcry, a forthright outcry against banal Economism, against the “shame and disgrace” of
Social-Democracy. “I never thought I would have to experience such shame,” exclaims Plekhanov at the end
of the preface to the documents he has published. “We must get out of this chaotic and disgraceful situation
at all costs. Woe to the party that patiently tolerates such
confusion!” And against all the various accusations levelled
at Plekhanov we must first of all categorically establish
that the whole essence of his pamphlet is precisely a declaration of war against the “disgraceful” principles of
“Credoism” and “Kuskova-ism”, precisely a split over principles,
and the split and “fracas” in the Union are merely a side effect of this dissension over principles.

If the split over principles has been combined with this
“fracas” (at the Congress of the Union of Russian
Social-Democrats Abroad in April 1900, things literally came to
the pitch of brawling, hysteria, and so on and so forth,
which led to Plekhanov’s resignation), if things took this
turn, the blame for it rests with the young . It was from the
standpoint of Economism that the young waged a systematic, stubborn and dishonest struggle against the
Emancipation of Labour group during 1898—“dishonest” because
they did not show their colours openly , because they baselessly put all the blame on “Russia” (keeping silent about
the anti-“Economist” Social-Democrats of Russia), and because they have used their connections and practical resources
to push aside the Emancipation of Labour group in order
to declare the latter’s unwillingness to let in “disgraceful”
ideas and disgraceful stupidity to be an unwillingness to let
in all “young forces” in general. This struggle against the
Emancipation of Labour group, this pushing it aside, was
carried out on the sly, in a “private” fashion, by means
of “private” correspondence and “private” conversations—plainly
and bluntly speaking, by means of intrigue , because the role of the Emancipation of Labour group in the
Russian Social-Democratic movement never was, never will
be and never can be a private matter. The young proclaimed
“new” views against the old, but concealed those views so artfully and diplomatically (thereby showing that for
them the very question of views was a private matter) that
it was left for the old to set forth the gist of the disputes.
“We sent to St. Petersburg an account of our disputes with
the young ones” writes Plekhanov (p. XLVII of Vademecum
Thus, as early as 1898 the Emancipation of Labour group
proved that for it the whole question lay in the vacillation over principles on the part of the young, who were capable
of sinking as low as complete denial of socialism. As early
as 1898 the Emancipation of Labour group came out with an appeal to Russian Social-Democrats against ideological
waverings, [3] but this appeal proved to be the voice in the
wilderness, since after the arrests in the summer of 1898
all outstanding leaders of the Party were swept from the
battlefield and only the voice of the Economists responded
to the appeal.

It is not surprising that after this the Emancipation of
Labour group resigned from the editorial board, it is not
surprising that open war against Economism became more and more urgent and inevitable. But here, to the aid of the
Economic trend, came people who were united to these
Economists by long-standing hostility towards the
Emancipation of Labour group and these people did not shrink
from the attempt to abet Economism, without washing dirty linen in public, and to enable the Economists to
continue, with greater convenience than ever before, the tactics
of “private” propaganda of their views under the flag of
Social-Democracy and under cover of ambiguous statements
by the new editorial board, which wanted to imitate that
dear little calf who sucked two mothers at once.

In the very first issue of Rabocheye Dyelo the new editors
declared that they “do not know what young comrades
P. B. Axelrod is talking about” in attacking the
Economists. They declared this despite the fact that the whole
history of the Union in recent years was a history of its
struggle with the “young”; they declared this despite the
fact that one of the members of the editorial board of
Rabocheye Dyelo was himself an adherent of the Economic trend
(Mr. V. I—n). [4] To an outsider, to one who has not pondered over the history of Russian Social-Democracy and
the Social-Democratic Union Abroad during the last few years, it may seem quite incomprehensible and strange
that such a slight and ( apparently ) casual remark dropped
by the editors of Rabocheye Dyelo “(we do not know what
young comrades P. B. Axelrod is talking about”) could spark off the most passionate polemics, ending in the split
of the Union and its disintegration. Yet there is nothing
strange about this seemingly strange phenomenon. The slight remark of Rabocheye Dyelo’s editors in connection
with their publication of Mr. V. I—n’s articles fully and
clearly revealed the cardinal distinction between two conceptions of the immediate tasks and most urgent demands of Russian Social-Democracy . The first conception can be
expressed in the words laissez faire, laissez passer in relation to
Economism. These are tactics of a conciliatory attitude
to Economism, the tactics of concealing the “extremes” of
Economism, of defending Economism against open struggle
against it, the tactics of “free criticism”, i.e., free
criticism of Marxism on the part of all overt and covert
ideologists of the bourgeoisie. The other conception required
a resolute struggle against Economism, an open protest against the threatening vulgarisation and narrowing of
Marxism, an irrevocable break with bourgeois “criticism”.

---
Notes:
[1]
Krupskaya, Nadezhda Konstantinovna (1869-1939)—a professional revolutionary and outstanding member of the Communist
Party and the Soviet Government; the wife of V. I. Lenin. Joined the
revolutionary movement in 1890. In 1895 was one of the organisers of
the St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the
Working Class. In 1901 emigrated and worked as secretary of the
Iskra editorial board. Took an active part in preparing the
Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. which she attended as a non-voting
delegate. After the Congress she was secretary of the editorial boards
of the Bolshevik newspapers Vperyod and
Proletary . During the first Russian revolution (1905-07)
worked as secretary to the Central Committee of the Party in
Russia. Took an active part in preparing and carrying out the October
Socialist Revolution. p. 44

[2]
Apparently this refers to A. N. Potresov. p. 44

[3]
This refers to the announcement concerning the resumption of
publications by the Emancipation of Labour group issued at the end of
1899. The date given by Lenin is a slip of the pen. p. 46

[4]

( V. I—n ) Ivanshin, Vladimir Pavlovich (1869-1904)—one of the editors of the journal Rabocheye Dyelo , organ of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad;
maintained close contact also with Rabochaya Mysl , the
newspaper of the St. Petersburg Economists. In his articles he drew a
line between the immediate economic interests of the workers and the
political tasks of Social-Democracy.

After the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (1903) he joined the
Mensheviks. p. 46