V. I.

Lenin

To:   A. N. POTRESOV

To Alex. Nikolayevich

September 13, 1903

I tried to have a talk with Y. O. recently, when the atmosphere of the impending
split was already in full evidence, and I want to try to have a talk with you
too, in the hope that you, like Y. O., would not be averse to making an attempt
at explanation. If this hope is unfounded, you will, of course, let me know, but
meanwhile I shall do what I consider necessary.

The refusal of Martov to serve on the editorial board, his refusal and that of
other Party writers to collaborate, the refusal of a number of persons to work
for the Central Committee, and the propaganda of a boycott or passive resistance
are bound to lead, even if against the wishes of Martov and his friends, to a
split in the Party. Even if Martov adheres to a loyal stand (which he took up so
resolutely at the Congress), others will not, and the out come I have mentioned
will be inevitable. (Not for nothing, by the way, does Auntie, too, write
about “building a new hearth”.)

And so I ask myself: over what, in point of fact, would we be parting company as
enemies for life? I go over all the events and impressions of the
Congress, [1] I realise that I often behaved and acted in a state of
frightful irritation, “frenziedly”; I am quite willing to admit
this fault of mine to anyone , if that can be called a fault which was
a natural product of the atmosphere, the reactions, the in terjections, the
struggle, etc. But examining now, quite unfrenziedly, the results attained, the
outcome achieved by frenzied struggle, I can detect nothing, absolutely
nothing

in these results that is injurious to the Party, and absolutely nothing
that is an affront or insult to the Minority.

Of course, the very fact of finding oneself in the minority could not but be
vexatious, but I categorically protest against the idea that we “cast
slurs” on anybody, that we wanted to insult or humiliate
anybody. Nothing of the kind. And one should not allow political differences to
lead to an interpretation of events based on accusing the other side of
unscrupulousness, chicanery, intrigue and other pleasantries we are hearing
mentioned more and more often in this atmosphere of an impending split. This
should not be allowed, for it is, to say the least, the nec plus ultra
of irrationality.

Martov and I have had a political (and organisational) difference, as we had
dozens of times before. Defeated over 1 of the Rules, I could not but
strive with all my might for revanche in what remained to me (and to
the Congress). I could not but strive, on the one hand, for a strictly Iskrist
Central Committee, and, on the other, for a trio on the editorial board that
would remove the very cause of our old, hopeless quarrels, that would unite per
sons of whom each has his own political line, of whom each makes decisions and
will always make decisions “with out regard for persons” and in
keeping with his own extreme conviction.

I said (during our conversation with you and Y. O. about the trio before the
Congress) that I regarded the inclusion in the Six of an absentee
member [2] as most harmful of all for the work; I also took exception at the time,
very strong exception, to Zasulich’s highly personal attitude (although
Y. O. has forgotten it); I said quite definitely (when you named the most probable elected trio) that I too considered it the most probable and that
even if it remained alone , without going in for any co-optation (although at the time we mentioned one of the possible cooptations), I saw nothing
bad in that. Yuli Osipovich has forgotten this last statement of mine too, but I
remember it very well. But it is, of course, useless to argue about this. That
is not important; what is important is that with such a trio not one of those
painful, long-drawn-out, hope less quarrels with which we began the work of
Iskra in 1900 and which were often repeated, making it impossible for us to work for months on end— a single one of such
quarrels would be possible. That is why I consider this trio the only
business-like arrangement, the only one capable of being an official
institution, instead of a body based on indulgence and slackness, the
only one to be a real centre, each member of which, I repeat, would
always state and defend his Party viewpoint, not one grain more , and irrespective of all personal motives, all considerations concerning
grievances, resignations, and so on.

This trio, after what had occurred at the Congress, undoubtedly meant
legitimising a political and organisational line in one respect
directed against Martov. Undoubtedly. Cause a rupture on that account? Break up
the Party be cause of it? Did not Martov and Plekhanov oppose me over the
question of demonstrations? And did not Martov and I oppose Plekhanov over the
question of the programme? Is not one side of every trio
always up against the other two?

If the majority of the Iskrists, both in the Iskra organisation and at
the Congress, found this particular shade of Martov’s line
organisationally and politically mistaken, is it not really senseless to attempt
to attribute this to “intrigue”, “incitement”, and so forth? Would it not be senseless to try to talk away this fact by
abusing the Majority and calling them “riffraff”

I repeat that, like the majority of the Iskrists at the Congress, I am
profoundly convinced that the line Martov adopted was wrong, and that he had to
be corrected. To take offence at this correction, to regard it as an insult,
etc., is unreasonable. We have not cast, and are not casting, any
“slurs” on anyone, nor are we excluding anyone from work . And to cause a split because someone has been excluded from a central body seems to me a piece of inconceivable folly.

Lenin .