V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:LS/v6;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

Date: 13 September 1903
Pages: 213-218

V. I. LENIN — A. N. POTRESOV
21
21.
V. I. LENIN — A. N. POTRESOV* *)
13/IX [1903, Geneva.]
I tried to have a talk with Yu[li] O[sipovich] the other day,\(2\) when the atmosphere of the impending split had already become quite clear, and I want to try to have a talk with you, hoping that you, like Yu[li] O[sipovich], would not be averse to making an attempt to explain ourselves.
If this hope is unfounded, you will, of course, let me know, but I will for the time being do what I consider necessary.\(3\)

Martov’s refusal 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 on the C.C., the propaganda of the idea of boycott or passive resistance—all this will inevitably lead, even against the will of Martov and his friends, to a split in the party. Even if Martov keeps on loyal ground (on which he so resolutely stood at the congress)\(4\), others will not keep to it—and the outcome I have indicated will be inevitable (it is not for nothing, incidentally, that Aunt [A. M. Kalmykova] writes about “laying the foundations of a new hearth”)\(5\).

And so I ask myself: what, in fact, are we going to part as enemies for life over? I go over all the events and impressions of the congress, I realise that I often acted and behaved in terrible irritation, “furiously”, I am readily prepared to admit this fault of mine to anyone—if one is to call it a fault that was naturally evoked by the atmosphere, the reaction, the rejoinder, the struggle, etc. But, looking now without any fury at the results achieved, at what has been accomplished through furious struggle, I decidedly cannot see in the results anything, absolutely anything harmful to the party and absolutely anything offensive or insulting to the minority.

Of course, it could not but be offensive that one had to remain in the minority, but I emphatically protest against the idea that we “stigmatised” anyone, that we wanted to insult or humiliate anyone. Nothing of the sort. And one should not allow a political divergence to lead to an interpretation of events by accusing the other side of bad faith, rascality, intriguing, and other such pleasant things, which one hears more and more often in the atmosphere of the impending split. One should not allow this, for it is, to say the least, *ad absurdum* unreasonable.

We have politically (and organisationally) diverged from Martov—as we have diverged from him dozens of times. Having been defeated on the question of Paragraph 1 of the Rules, I could not but strive with all my energy for a revenge on what remained in my (and the congress’s) hands. I could not but strive, on the one hand, for a strictly Iskra C.C.,\(6\)—on the other, for an editorial trio,\(7\) eliminating the very ground of our old, hopeless squabbles, uniting people each of whom has his own political line, each of whom decides and will always decide “regardless of persons”, according to his firm conviction. I said (during our conversation with you and Yu[li] O[sipovich] about the trio before the congress)\(8\) that I considered most harmful to the cause the presence in the six of one permanently absent member,\(9\) I was indignant even then, doubly indignant at the inordinate personal attitude of Zasulich (although Yu[li] O[sipovich] has forgotten this), I said quite definitely (when you named the most probable elected trio)\(10\) that I too considered it the most probable and that I saw nothing bad in it even if it remained alone, without any co-optation (although at that time we did envisage one of the possible co-optations)\(11\). Yu[li] O[sipovich] has forgotten this last statement of mine too, which I remember very well. But it is useless to argue about this, of course. The important thing is not this, but that with such a trio none of those painful, protracted, hopeless squabbles with which we began the work of Iskra in 1900 and which were repeated more than once, depriving us of working capacity for months, would be possible. And that is why\(12\) I consider this trio the only one capable of being an official institution, and not a board based on nepotism and negligence, the only real centre in which, I repeat, each and everyone would always introduce and defend his party point of view, not a whit more and irrespective of everything personal, of all considerations of offence, of resignation.

This trio, after the events at the congress, undoubtedly legitimised a political and organisational line, in one respect directed against Martov. Undoubtedly. Is this a reason to break? Is this a reason to smash the party?? And was it not that on the question of demonstrations\(13\) Martov and Plekhanov were against me? And was it not that on the question of the programme\(14\) I and Martov were against Plekhanov? Is not every trio always turned with one of its sides against each participant? If the majority of the Iskra-ists both in the organisation of Iskra and at the congress found this particular shade of Martov’s line in organisational and political respects erroneous, are not the attempts to explain this by some “rigging” and “inciting” etc. really insane? Would it not be insane to shrug off this fact by abusing this majority as “riff-raff”\(15\)?

I repeat: I, like the majority of the Iskra-ists at the congress, am deeply convinced that Martov took a wrong line and that he had to be corrected. To take offence at this correction, to deduce from it an insult etc. is unreasonable. We have not “stigmatised” anyone, we do not stigmatise or remove anyone from work. And to raise a split over removal from the centre would be, to me, an incomprehensible madness.

*) The entire text of the manuscript is written in the hand of N. K. Krupskaya. At the top of the letter she has made a note: “To Alexander] N[ikolayevich] (copy).” Ed.

**) This letter to Potresov was published by Lenin in its most essential parts in his pamphlet “One Step Forward, Two Steps Back” (Collected Works, Vol. V, pp. 427-429). In the subsequent notes we indicate all those places in the letter which Vladimir Ilyich omitted at the time of its publication.

\(2\) More detailed information about this conversation between Lenin and Martov is given in the introductory note to this letter.

\(3\) The entire first paragraph of the letter—from the words: “I tried” to the words: “I consider necessary”—was omitted by Vladimir Ilyich when publishing the letter in “One Step Forward, Two Steps Back”.

\(4\) Here Lenin refers to the statement made by Martov at the 32nd session of the congress after the elections of the editorial board of the C.O., the C.C., and the fifth member of the Council on the question raised by Popov (V. N. Rozanov) about the legality of the elections held in view of the abstention from voting of 20 delegates. On this Martov declared: “As for the legality of the congress decisions, an absolute majority of those participating in the vote is required: it was obtained—consequently, the congress decisions are legal.” (“Minutes”, pp. 315-316.)

\(5\) The text in brackets—from the words: “it is not for nothing” to the words: “new hearth”—was omitted by Vladimir Ilyich when publishing the letter. On “laying the foundations of a new hearth” see above A. M. Kalmykova’s letter to Vladimir Ilyich of August 31, p. 202 and note 8 to it.

\(6\) On the struggle of the majority and minority at the congress over the lists for the C.C., see above note 4 to Lenin’s letter to Kalmykova of September 7 (p. 208), as well as in “The Story of the Second Congress” (below, pp. 228-229).

\(7\) On the “editorial trio” see above note 7 to Lenin’s letter to Kalmykova of September 7 (p. 208).

\(8\) On this conversation between Lenin, Martov and Potresov before the congress, see below “The Story of the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.” (p. 231).

\(9\) “One permanently absent member” of the old editorial board of “Iskra” was P. B. Axelrod.

\(10\) “The most probable elected trio”—Plekhanov, Martov, Lenin (below “The Story of the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.”, p. 231).

\(11\) It is not clear who exactly is referred to here.

\(12\) The text—from the words: “eliminating the very ground” to the words: “And that is why,”—was omitted by Vladimir Ilyich when publishing the letter.

\(13\) It has not been precisely established what exactly the disagreements between Martov and Plekhanov, on the one hand, and Lenin, on the other, on the question of demonstrations consisted of.

\(14\) On the disagreements between Lenin and Plekhanov on the question of the programme, see “Materials for the Elaboration of the Programme of the R.S.D.L.P.” in “Lenin Miscellany” II (pp. 11-151).

\(15\) The abusive designation of the majority of the congress as “riff-raff” apparently came from someone among the leaders of the opposition. This is also mentioned in Lenin’s correspondence with Kalmykova (see above, p. 201).

The “Story of the Second Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party” written by Lenin is a report on the results of the Second Congress, intended by the author for a very close circle of Iskra-ists of like mind. It circulated in manuscript (apparently the very one which is in the Lenin Institute and from which it is printed here) in party circles abroad. At the same time, Lenin’s “Story” inevitably became widely known also in the opposite camp. Martov, concluding his report at the Second Congress of the League, says the following about this work of Vladimir Ilyich: “in his letter [Lenin’s. Ed.], which is going the rounds, with a prohibition to pass it on to anyone without his consent, this legend [his statement about Martov’s prior agreement to the editorial ‘trio’. Ed.] is spread by himself.” (“Minutes of the 2nd Congress of the League” Geneva, 1904 ed., p. 66.) F. I. Dan dwells on it in more detail in the preface to his “letter”, printed in Martov’s pamphlet “The Struggle with the ‘State of Siege’ in the R.S.D.L.P.”. Dan’s remarks on Lenin’s “Story” contain some factual data which make it possible to establish with a certain degree of probability the time of writing of this work.

Speaking of his return from exile into the milieu of foreign emigration in September 1905, Dan indicates that among the “underground” (in the intra-party sense) works by which he, among other things, familiarised himself with the state of affairs in the party, was also “the manuscript of Comrade Lenin, on which, true, there stood—in another hand [this is a mistake—the inscription was made in Lenin’s hand. Ed.] and in fresh ink—an inscription that the manuscript was intended only for the author’s personal acquaintances, and therefore reading it without permission would be considered equivalent to reading someone else’s letter”. “I,” Dan continues further, “consider myself entitled to speak about this ‘underground’ work because, despite the inscription, it was read by a wide circle of persons, and even, as far as I know, comparatively quite recently it was read in one of the foreign groups of assistance to the party, in which there is a sufficient number of persons who have never even set eyes on Comrade Lenin. True, the members of the group were made to promise not to tell anyone about the reading of the manuscript.” (L. Martov “The Struggle with the ‘State of Siege’ in the R.S.D.L.P.”; pp. 86-87.) Lenin’s manuscript was not only widely read, but also copied. Dan (ibid., p. 87), recommending Lenin to print his “Story”, says: “In case Comrade Lenin does not have his manuscript at hand at the moment, I can kindly provide him with a copy of it, which, by a happy coincidence, has also recently ‘returned’ to me.”

The printed “Story” by Lenin is of particular value for illuminating the history of the party split in comparison with other documents printed here relating directly to the congress and to the immediate post-congress period—especially with such as the “Diary of the Congress Sessions”, “Notes on the Debates at the Congress”, “Composition of the Congress”, correspondence with A. M. Kalmykova and the letter to A. N. Potresov. Significantly supplementing the facts and the illumination of the course of events at the congress and immediately after the congress, the “Story” sums up and draws conclusions for the entire initial period of the split.

This work as a whole was written by Lenin, as we indicate below in note 70, hardly later than the first half of September N.S.

The inscription by Vladimir Ilyich mentioned by F. I. Dan stands in the manuscript under the title of the document and is provided on both sides with NB. We print this inscription as a footnote.

22.
V. I. Lenin