V. I.

Lenin

526

To:   INESSA ARMAND

Dear Friend, Instead of “imperialist economism”, you write that, you don’t
understand the expression “economic imperialism”.

The old “economism” wrongly posed the question of the attitude of
capitalism to the political struggle.

The new “economism” wrongly poses the question of the attitude of
capitalist imperialism to the political struggle.

I am writing about this at greater length in my article against Yuri
(this “merchant” has “consented” to being published—that means, he
will go into Sbornik No. 3 or No. 4).

The differences with Radek are of more than mere theoretical
interest for Russia (as well as for Germany, Britain, for
countries with colonies). For Switzerland—yes.

Grimm is an insolent beggar and a swine: he meanly attacks, not me (as
Grigory mistakenly believes, being poorly informed by Zina), but
Radek . It was like this (entre nous): Friday evening we arranged a
meeting of the Lefts (where Radek and I acted fully in concert) and
adopted. (setting up a committee) a resolution on Kienthal. It was attended
by Platten, Nobs, Münzenberg and some others, i.e., all the
leaders of the Lefts. On Saturday afternoon, when the congress was
on (it started Saturday morning), a meeting of the “Young” (and also
congress delegates) was held outside the congress premises. Münzenberg was in the chair. The report on ( our )
resolution was made by Radek . I did not speak. The resolution was
adopted . To this meeting (the door not being locked!) some ladies
came uninvited —(Genossin Block (Bloch), a lady friend of Grimm’s
and a gossip), Dimka (another gossip and a lady friend of Martov’s) and
others. Obviously, they “reported back” to Grimm. And Grimm decided
(believing this old wives’ silly tittle-tattle) that the “actual
mover”=Radek, and wrote in the press that this mover (Urheber) spoke “Vor
einem anderen
Forum”. [3] Kharitonov is publishing a refutation in
Volksrecht .

I carried on strong agitation with Platten and Nobs for organising (or rather, rallying) the
Lefts. [1]

I am making a report to them on this (Platten has promised to arrange it). I wonder whether I’ll cope with the
language and whether anything will come of it.

Radek has promised to come out directly against Grimm in
Arbeiterpolitik [4] (I advise you to subscribe to this weekly
journal, it costs 15 pfg.=20 cent.).

We’ll see whether he does!

Keep well.

( It was me who wrote the article in the
C.O. [2]

)

All the best, Lenin

P.S. I sent, my “theses” to Berne for you (to Grigory’s address)
asking you to translate them into French (for Geneva, Lausanne, La
Chaux-de-Fonds, etc.). Did you receive them? What’s your opinion of them?

---
Notes:
[1]
On November 20 and 30, 1916, Lenin had talks with Left Zimmerwaldists
on the theses “Tasks of the Left Zimmerwaldists in the Swiss
Social-Democratic Party”.— Ed .

[2]
What article this refers to has not been established.— Ed .

[3]
This refers to the editorial “The Party Congress” published in
Berner Tagwacht on November 7, 1916. The part of the article in
which a very brief account was given of the discussion at the congress of
the question of the attitude to the Kienthal Conference, contained
malicious hints about an unknown mover of the draft resolution and claimed
that the signatures under this draft were invalid.

On November 8, 1916, the newspaper Volksrecht No. 262 published a statement by Ernst Nobs who wrote that be “fully shares the
views” set forth in the draft resolution moved by the Left
Social-Democrats.

[4]
A critical article against Grimm was published as an editorial in
Arbeiterpolitik on December 2, 1916, under the beading “After the
Party Congress of the Swiss Social-Democrats” over the signature of Arnold
Struthahn.