V. I.

Lenin

A Letter to J. V. Stalin [1] (December 11, 1912)

Dear friend, local Polish papers report that Jagiello has been admitted
into the group, and has been granted a voice but no vote. [2] If that is true, it is a definite victory for the Party
principle. In view of the agitation carried on by Luch , it is
necessary:
(1) To publish an article in Dyen [3] (I am sending a draft
today), ... in the

Collegium [4] (we must by all means teach them—doing so while they are
with us here—to respond to everything with resolutions and immediately
send copies of them here). Here is a tentative draft of such a resolution:
“Having examined all the circumstances of Jagiello’s admission into the
Social-Democratic group, having studied the articles about it in the
Marxist organ, Pravda , and in the newspaper of the liquidators,
Luch , and taken into account So-and-So’s report on the debate
about it in the Social-Democratic Duma group and on the opinions of the
various Social-Democratic organisations of Russia, the Collegium resolves:

to recognise that the refusal to admit Jagiello with the right to vote was
the only proper way out from the point of view of Party principle, since
Jagiello is not a member of the Social-Democratic Party and was elected to
the Fourth Duma against the will of the majority of the electors in the
worker curia of the city of Warsaw. The Collegium condemns the anti-Party
agitation carried on by the Bund and the liquidators in favour of admitting
Jagiello into the group and expresses the hope that the granting of a
consultative voice to Deputy Jagiello may help in rallying all the
class-conscious Polish workers closer around the Polish Social-Democrats
and in merging them completely with the workers of all nationalities into
integral organisations of the R.S.D.L.P.”

If, contrary to expectations, the liquidators have won and Jagiello has
been admitted, it is still necessary, and doubly so, to have a resolution
similar in content, expressing regret and appealing to the Party as a
whole.

It is highly important, furthermore, for the Collegium to “correct
itself” on the well-known resolution of November 13 and adopt a new
one. Something like this: “Having examined all the circumstances of the
strike of November 15, the Collegium finds that the warnings against the
strike both from the Social-Democratic group and from the St. Petersburg
Committee were prompted solely by the fact that part of the organisation
was not ready to go into action on that day. However, events showed that
nonetheless the movement of the revolutionary proletariat assumed a large
scale and developed into street demonstrations in the name of a republic,
an eight-hour working day, and confiscation of the landed estates, thus
raising the entire working-class movement in Russia to a higher
plane. There fore the Collegium emphatically condemns the propaganda
against revolutionary strikes which the liquidators, their ... group and
Luch are carrying on, and recommends the workers to devote all
their efforts to more extensive, thorough and concerted preparations for
street demonstrations and political protest strikes, which should be made
as short as possible (one-day) and concerted. The Collegium will try to
develop a campaign for a strike and demonstration on January 9, 1913, with
a special protest against the 300th anniversary of the House of Romanov,
which enslaves Russia and drenches her in blood.”

Next, it is highly important and essential for the five (curia)
deputies to draft a well-grounded resolution on the Badayev case. Something
like this: “The five deputies from the worker curia, having considered the
baiting of Comrade Badayev by the liquidators in Luch and among
the St. Petersburg workers, have resolved:
(1) not to submit this matter to the Duma group, since the latter has
admitted Badayev and no objection was raised in the group to his admission; (2) to investigate the conditions of Badayev’s election, provided he
abstains from voting on this matter; (3) the fact, established and verified by the five deputies, that
(a) the anti-liquidationist mandate was printed beforehand, and was adopted unanimously by the delegates’ meeting, all the electors and
delegates who backed Badayev acting in concert and unity and as staunch
fellow-thinkers, at the request of the St. Petersburg Committee of the
R.S.D.L.P.;
(b) that at the meeting of the Social-Democratic delegates fifteen persons
voted for the St. Petersburg Committee’s list and nine for the liquidators
and that not all of the delegates and electors of Luch behaved as
fellow-thinkers of the liquidators, some of them (Sudakov and others)
vacillating; (c) that when three electors had been elected from each side, Badayev’s
supporters did their duty by moving that the matter be settled by drawing
lots to prevent the dispute from being revealed to the bourgeoisie;
(d) that the very fact that Badayev’s supporters tabled this motion and the
fact that the liquidators refused ... the question of P. and

M. [5] (a liquidator)—therefore we have resolved: to recognise that
Badayev is undoubtedly the elected representative of the majority of the
worker Social-Democrats of St. Petersburg and is in fact a candidate at the
request of the St. Petersburg Committee; that the entire responsibility for
the disorganisation of the Social-Democratic Party elections in the
St. Petersburg worker curia falls on the liquidators, who sought to
frustrate the will of the majority, knowing themselves to be in a minority;
and that the liquidators’ refusal to draw lots was an outrageous violation
of what is the duty of every

Social-Democrat, [6] a violation unheard of in the working-class
movement. We have resolved to publish this resolution in the press and to
take concerted action among the workers for Badayev and against
liquidationist agitation.”

This resolution is essential. The Badayev case has already got into the
world press. Steklov has printed evasive but foul things in Die Neue Zeit . And what is contained in the pamphlet which the liquidators have
published in the German language for the International Congress is simply
preposterous. We cannot keep silent. It is for the curia deputies to check
the facts and exonerate Badayev, with Badayev himself abstaining, of
course.