V. I.

Lenin

84

To:   N. Y. VILONOV [4]

Dear comrade, I was very glad to have your letter because here abroad we have too little
opportunity of hearing the frank and independent voices of those engaged in
local activities. For a Social-Democratic writer living abroad it is extremely
important to have a frequent exchange of opinions with advanced workers who are
active in Russia, and your account of the impact our dissensions have upon the
committees interested me very much. I shall, perhaps, even publish your letter
if the occasion offers. [5]

It is impossible to answer your questions in a single letter, since a detailed
account of the Majority and the Minority would take up a whole book. I have now
published in leaflet form my “Letter to the Editors of Iskra (Why
I Resigned From the Iskra Editorial
Board),” [1] where I give a brief account of the reasons why we parted company and try to show how the
matter is misrepresented in Iskra No. 53 (beginning with No. 53, the
editorial board consists of four representatives of the Minority in addition to
Plekhanov). I hope that this letter (a small printed sheet of eight pages) will
soon be in your hands, because it has already been taken to Russia and it will
probably not to difficult to distribute it.

I repeat: in this letter the matter is set out very briefly. It cannot at
present be set out in greater detail until the minutes of the Party Congress and
of the League Congress have been issued (it is announced in Iskra
No. 53 that the minutes of both these congresses will be published in full very soon. I have information that the minutes of the Party Congress will be
issued as a book of over three hundred pages; nearly 300 pages are now ready and
the book will probably come out in a week or two at the latest). Most probably
a
pamphlet [2] will have to be written when the two sets of minutes are
published.

My personal view of the matter is that the split is primarily and mainly due to
dissatisfaction with the composition of the central bodies (the Central Organ
and the Central Committee). The Minority wanted to keep the old six-man board of
the C.O., but the Congress selected three of the six, apparently finding them
better suited for political leadership. The Minority was similarly defeated
over the composition of the Central Committee, that is to say, the Congress did
not elect those whom the Minority wanted.

In consequence of this the dissatisfied Minority began exaggerating minor
differences of opinion, boycotting the central bodies, mustering its supporters
and even preparing to split the Party (very persistent and, probably, trust
worthy rumours are current here that they have already decided to found, and
have begun to set up, their own newspaper to be called
Kramola . [3]

No
wonder the feuilleton in Iskra No. 53 has been set up in a
type which does not exist at all in the Party print-shop!).

Plekhanov decided to co-opt them on to the editorial board to avoid a split, and
wrote the article “What Should Not Be Done” in Iskra
No. 52. After No. 51, I resigned from the editorial board, for I considered this
modification of the congress under the influence of the rows taking place abroad
to be incorrect. But personally, of course, I did not want to prevent peace if
peace were possible, and therefore (since now I do not consider it
possible for me to work in the Six) I withdrew from the editorial board,
without, however, refusing to contribute.

The Minority (or opposition) wants to force its people into the Central
Committee too. For the sake of peace, the C.C. agreed to take two of them, but
the Minority is still not satisfied and continues to spread vile rumours about the C.C. being ineffectual. In my opinion, that is the most outrageous
violation of discipline and Party duty. More over, it is sheer slander, for the
C.C. was elected by the Congress from persons for whom the majority of
the Iskra organisation had expressed support. And the Iskra
organisation, of course, knew better than anyone else who was fitted for this
important role. A Central Committee of three persons [6] was elected at
the Congress—all three long-standing members of the Iskra
organisation; two of them were members of the Organising Committee; the third
had been invited to serve on the O.C. but did not do so because he was
personally unwilling, yet for a long time he worked for the O.C. on general
Party matters. It follows that the most reliable and experienced persons were
elected to the C.C. and I consider it a shabby trick to shout about their
“ineffectiveness”, when it is the Minority itself that hinders the C.C. from working. All the charged against the C.C. (about
formalism, bureaucracy, and so forth) are nothing but malicious inventions
devoid of any foundation.

It goes without saying that I fully share your opiniom as to the unseemliness of
an outcry against centralism and against the congress on the part of people who
previously spoke in a different tone and who are dissatisfied because on one
particular issue the congress did not do what they wanted. Instead of admitting
their mistake, these people are now disrupting the Party! I believe, the
comrades in Russia should vigorously oppose, all disruption and insist that the
congress decisions be implemented and prevent the squabble about who should be
on the C.O. and the C.C. from hindering the work. The squabbles abroad among the
writers and all the other generals (whom you too harshly and bluntly call
intriguers) will cease to be dangerous to the Party only when the leaders of
committees in Russia become more independent and capable of firmly demanding
the fulfilment of what their delegates decide at the Party congress.

Concerning the relations between the Central Organ and the Central Committee,
you are quite right that neither the one nor the other should be given the upper
hand once for all. The congress itself, I think, should make a separate decision on each occasion. At present, too, according to the Rules, the Party
Council stands above both the C.O. and the C.C. And the Council has two members
from the C.O. and two from the C.C., the fifth member having been elected by the
congress. Hence the congress itself has decided who should be given the upper
hand on this occasion. Stories about us wanting the C.O. abroad to overrule the
C.C. in Russia are sheer gossip in which there is not a word of truth. When
Plekhanov and I were on the editorial board we had even in the Council
three Social-Democrats from Russia and only two from abroad. Now, under the Martovites, the reverse is the case! Now judge for
yourself what their talk is worth!

I send you warm greetings and earnestly request you to let me know whether you
received this letter, whether you have read my letter to the editorial board and
Nos. 52, 53 of Iskra , and how in general things are now in the Committee.

With comradely greetings, Lenin