V. I.

Lenin

65

To:   ALEXANDRA KALMYKOVA

September 30

You write: “I have lived too long in the world not to know that in such
cases truth is not on one side alone, but on both sides.” I fully admit
it. The trouble is that the other “side” does not realise the new
situation, the new basis, and demands what used to be easily arrived at (if only
after months of quarrelling), but is now unachievable. The basis has become
different , that is a fait accompli ; but they are still guided
chiefly by the offensive turn this or that thing took at the Congress, by the
frenzied way Lenin behaved, etc. I did act frenziedly, there is no denying
it, and I frankly admitted as much in a letter to Old
Believer. [1]

But the thing is that the results achieved by “frenzied” struggle are not frenzied at all , yet the other
side in its fight against frenzy goes on fighting against the results
themselves, against the inevitable and necessary results. But you have long been
aware of the direction in which things were going. You know how you expressed
your firm conviction of an obstacle due to certain “old men”, and
you, of course, will not doubt that the ill-fated “trio” is not a
dirty trick, not a Jacobin coup, but a straight forward, natural and the
best , really and truly the best, way out from three years of
“wrangling”. The trio is a triangular construction and there is no
room whatever for wrangling in it. You know what the sensitivity and “personal” (instead of political) attitude of Martov+Old Believer+Zasulich
led to when, for example, they all but “condemned” a man politically for an incident of a purely
personal character. At that time, without a moment’s hesitation, you
sided with the “flayers and monsters”. Yet this is quite a typical
case. Now, too, the root is the same, the same mixing of the personal and the
political, the same suspicion that we want to cast a slur on people
personally, although we only set them aside (or shift them) politically. And
when you remind me: blame must also fall on you, I reply: I would not
think of denying the personal aspect, but that is no reason for demanding a
political correction. The hopelessness, the complete hopelessness, of
the situation lies precisely in the fact that a political correction is being
demanded on account of the sum total of personal grievances, of personal
dissatisfactions with the composition of the central bodies. Tout ce que vous voulez, mais pas de \c ca! [2]

And if political divergence (as some desire) should be considered the cause, is it not ridiculous to demand
for the sake of “peace” the co-optation of a larger number, or at
least an equal number, of political opponents? It is ridiculous nec plus ultra !

The little example quoted by me above out of a large number of cases of
wrangling is typical not only in sub stance but also in the form of the
outcome. Do you know how we won the upper hand at that time? We were in the minority , but we won by sheer persistence, by threatening to bring
everything into the open. They think they can do the same now. The trouble is
that now is not then . Now the formal basis is unremovable . If it were not for this formal basis—why
shouldn’t there be six, once people have been roused to fury? We’ve stood
three years of it, we can stand another three; we decided not by votes, but by
persistence, so let us decide by persistence now too. But the thing is—it
can’t be done now . Yet people doggedly refuse to see or
understand this change. And this is what makes the situation so hopeless. Now
the dilemma is inexorable: either the divergence is over the, question
of persons, in which case it is ridiculous to make a political scandal and throw
up work on account of it. Or the divergence is political—and
then it is still more ridiculous to “correct” this by imposing definite persons of a different, shall we
say, nuance.

They are taking (seem to be taking) the second course. In that case, join the
trio, Martov, and prove before the Party the mistakes of the
two in your collegium; unless you participate in the collegium
you cannot obtain data for exposing these mistakes and putting the Party on its
guard against them. Otherwise your accusations are empty
Parteiklatsch [3] over some future contingency.

If you take the first course, then don’t stretch your resentment to the
extent of throwing up the work, and the work will speedily cause
“frenzy” to be forgotten. There is no more hopeless blind alley than
that of throwing up one’s work.