V. I.

Lenin

"Well,and what if your sonorous, bombastic and florid assurances
should inspire distrust because of their very nature?"

"Ishould like to see who would dare doubt my word!"

"Butstill, suppose it is doubted?"

"Irepeat, I will not allow anyone to doubt the word of a
revolutionary, I shall stop at nothing, I shall go to any length, I
shall demand either a direct expression of disbelief or a direct
withdrawal, I...."

"Whatif your demand for a direct expression of disbelief is
accepted?"

"Whatdo you mean?"

"Whatif you are told plainly and bluntly that you are not
believed?"

"Ishall proclaim the man who dares say that a gross slanderer, I
shall publicly brand his unparalleled conduct...."

"Butwhat if in reply he begins to show point by point that your
whole behaviour has long since made it impossible to trust you?"

"Ishall go about everywhere collecting protests against this
fratricidal controversy, I shall make emotional speeches about truth
and justice, about crystal purity soiled by unclean hands, about the
coarse and sordid husk of petty vanity, about the purifying flame
which fills my soul with a supreme enthusiasm. I shall liken my
enemies to Pontius Pilate...."

"Andsuppose they liken you to Tartuffe for such talk?"

"Inthat case I shall demand a court of arbitration!"

"Youwill at once be told that your challenge is gladly accepted,
and asked to agree that the court examine whether your adversary had legitimate grounds for doubting your
statements."

"Inthat case ... in that case ... I shall declare that
’after all that has happened’ it is ridiculous to talk of any
‘ agreement ’ between the ‘ parties concerned ’!”

*     * *
Suchwas what Revolutsionnaya Rossiya [2] calls “the unparalleled campaign over the affair of
April

2” [3]

For very understandable reasons, that worthy publication hates to admit that that is what happened. It takes
refuge in a whole series of subterfuges, which we shall have to
examine in detail.

Firstly, Revolutsionnaya Rossiya is surprised that, “instead of the organised Russian Social-Democratic
movement”, to which Balmashov’s friends addressed their
statement, it is the Iskra editorial board that replies. Balmashov’s friends, we are told, “have received no
answer to their quite definite offer, addressed to a quite definite
quarter”.

Thatis not so, gentlemen. Like everyone else, you know very
well what the organised Russian Social-Democratic movement
consists of, you know all the organisations we have. Unlike some other people, we do not have new organisations
springing up overnight. We have our Party committees, we have Iskra , we have the Organising Committee, which
has for some time been making preparations for the Second
Congress of the Party. Just to which “definite quarter” did you address yourselves? To the Second
Congress? To the Organising Committee? No, though you talk of a
definite quarter, you said absolutely nothing to define that quarter. You yourselves say that Iskra
is recognised by the majority of the committees; consequently,
no one could answer you but Iskra. If the Second
Congress of our Party adopts Iskra as the Party organ, then Iskra’s reply will be the reply of the Party. If
not, you will have some other organ to deal with. That is simple
enough for a child of six to understand.

Revolutsionnaya Rossiya is “surprised that, instead of a plain answer to the plain offer of Balmashov’s
friends” (an offer, supposedly, to give the
Social-Democrats the opportunity to acquaint themselves with the
true facts of the affair of April 2), “it is proposed that
they should regard themselves and Iskra as two parties between whom there could, after all that has happened, be some
kind of preliminary negotiations or ’agreements’ as to the
presentation of the issue”. And so, Revolutsionnaya Rossiya now asserts that we were not offered a court of
arbitration, but only an opportunity of acquainting ourselves. That is not so. The “Statement” in No. 27
of Revolutsionnaya Rossiya speaks literally of an “uninvestigated charge of slander” (against
Iskra ), of having an investigation of the charge, of submitting “the following evidence to
a person on whose integrity and secrecy both we and the Central
Organ [mark that!] of the Russian Social-Democratic Party could
rely”. “Investigation of the charge”, “examination of evidence” by a per son on whom both
accuser and accused can rely—what is that but a court of
arbitration? Is that only an offer to acquaint ourselves with
the facts?? You are a comic lot, gentlemen. After calling upon
us to agree about selecting a person of integrity, you now
declare with the inimitable lofty air of a

Nozdrev [4] caught red-handed that no agreement is possible!

Revolutsionnaya Rossiya “further asks whom
Iskra is trying to make a fool of when it talks about an
agreement as to the presentation of the issue, and in the same breath
decrees its own presentation and categorically asserts that no other
is possible”. In court, everyone categorically asserts his own
opinion and claims that it is the only correct one. Instead of in turn
giving his own definite presentation of the issue, our haughty opponent begins to bluster and make fine speeches!

Aftera certain amount of bluster, however, Revolutsionnaya Rossiya condescends to make also a few remarks about our
presentation of the issue. In its opinion, Iskra is dodging and retreating. It isn’t, we are told, as if
“the Combatant Organisation denied Iskra’s right to have its own free opinion [I I, to judge political
acts from its own point of view, or even [sic! I to have its private doubts about anything it liked”. This
“private doubts” is really priceless! The “Combatant Organisation” is so extraordinarily
broad- minded as to be prepared (now, after a year and more of warfare!) to permit us even to doubt—but only
privately, that is, presumably, in such a way that no one but the
doubter shall know anything about it.... Perhaps when these
combatant people allow us to hold our own “free opinion” they
also mean us to do so privately?

"Onemight think," Revolutsionnaya Rossiya says, “that it was only Iskra’s refusal to accede to this
demand that was the reason for accusing it of slander." Then follow
quotations from the article “Tartuffes of Revolutionary
Morality” and the remark that “what we have here is not
modest and indefinite doubts, but very immodest and very definite
charges”.

Weinvite our readers to recall certain generally known facts. In
No. 20 of Iskra (May 1,1902), we give our opinion of
Balmashov’s act, without having the slightest idea of the existence of
any combatant organisation. The latter thereupon writes us a letter
demanding that we seek the motives for Balmashov s decision in its
official statements. We silently drop this letter from an unknown
organisation into the wastepaper basket. The letter is then published
in Revolutsionnaya Rossiya , No. 7 (June 1902), the editors of
which, for no other reason than our silence, begin to cry that a slur
has been cast on the moral aspect, that the significance of the act is
being belittled, and so on. We reply with an article entitled
“An Enforced Controversy” (Iskra , No. 23, August
1, 1902), in which we laugh at this angry Jupiter, uphold our opinion
of the act of April 2, and declare that in our view it is “more
than doubtful” whether Balmashov be longed to any “combatant organisation”. Thereupon Messieurs the
Socialist-Revolutionaries, having extorted from us a public expression
of our private doubts, raise an hysterical outcry about
“unparalleled conduct” and talk about nothing less than
“mud-slinging” and “insinuations” (Revolatsionnaya Rossiya , No. 11, September 1902).

Such,in the briefest outline, are the main facts of our press
controversy. Someone who knows very well that his opponent regards his
utterances with silent distrust publicly forces him to the wall and
demands an open expression of either belief or disbelief, and when he
gets the latter answer, beats his breast and complains urbi et orbi [1] what a noble creature he is and how shamefully he has been
insulted. What is this but Nozdrev conduct? What is it but
revolutionary swashbuckling? Did not such a person deserve to
be called a Tartuffe?

Wheredoes Revolutsionnaya Rossiya get the idea that we are retreating and refuse to answer for our article and for the
articles about Tartuffes? Is it from the fact that in our
presentation of the issue we do not set forth the theses of
these articles? But was the arbitration offer issued in
connection with any particular articles—was it not rather
in connection with Iskra’s general attitude towards the
assurances of the “Socialist-Revolutionary Party"? Do not
Balmashov’s friends, at the very beginning of their statement in
No. 27 of Revolutsionnaya Rossiya , cite precisely the starting-point of the whole controversy, namely,
Iskra’s remark, in No. 23, that in its view it was more
than doubtful whether Balmashov belonged to any “combatant
organisation"? We make so bold as to assure Revolutsionnaya Rossiya that we answer for all our articles; that
we are prepared to supplement our questions for the arbitration
court by references to any issue of Iskra; that we are ready to prove to anyone that we had every moral
right and valid reason to describe as Tartuffes those on
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya who, on account of our presumptuous doubts as to the veracity of that paper’s
utterances, indulged in the expressions we have quoted.

"Dodgingand retreating"—yes, but on whose part? Is it not on the part of those who are now magnanimously prepared
to recognise our right to a free opinion and to private doubts,
after indulging for over a year in disgusting bombast against Iskra for stubbornly persisting in its doubts
and maintaining that every serious person was in duty bound to
have doubts about revolutionary romancing? When you saw that
your emotional talk about probity and honour actually moved your
hearers to laughter, not tears, you decided you must have a new
sensation, and came out with your demand for an arbitration
court. The scandal loving element in the colonies abroad rubbed
their hands with glee and went about eagerly whispering:
“They have summoned them to court ... at last! Now we shall see!" And now they have seen—have seen the last act
of a vaudeville, whose hero, with an ineffable air of injured innocence, declares that
“after all that has happened” no agreements as to the presentation of the issue to the court are possible.

Justcarry on in the same spirit, gentlemen! But bear in mind that no
torrents of wretched words will prevent us from discharging our duty
of exposing phrase-mongering and mystification wherever they may
occur—whether in the programmes” of revolutionary adventurers, or in the tinsel of their romancing, or in grandiloquent
sermons about truth and justice, purifying flames, crystal purity, and
all the rest.

---
Notes:
[1]
To the world at large .— Ed.

[2]
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya (Revolutionary Russia ) was a
Socialist-Revolutionary newspaper published from the close of 1900 to 1905;
from January 1902 on, the central organ of the Socialist-Revolutionary
Party.

[3]
The affair of April 2 —the reference is to the assassination
of Minister of the Interior Sipyagin on April 2 (15), 1902, by the
student Balmashov.

[4]
Nozdrev —a notorious braggart and cheat in Gogol’s Dead Souls .