V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:PSS/v8; en:CW/CW07;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

Dear Friends! Boris has informed me that five members of the Central Committee (he, Horse, Valentin, Mitrofan and Travinsky) have censured me for my vote in the Council in favour of the congress and for my agitation in favour of the congress. I request each of the five to confirm this fact to me or to explain it, for I cannot understand how a member of a board can be censured for doing what he had the right and the duty to do. One may disagree with him, one may recall him from the Council, but “to censure” is strange, for as long as I was in the Council I could not but vote according to my conviction. Similarly, agitation for the congress is the right of every Party member and every member of the Central Committee, so that the powers of the board in relation to a member cannot (either formally or morally) restrict any of us in this right. I am only obliged to inform that half or more than half of the Central Committee is against the congress.

As for the Council, matters have now been arranged as follows: Boris has been appointed (by five votes, as he says) in place of Kol. My resignation (as he says) has not been accepted. I withdraw my resignation and remain in the Council. From this side the conflict is settled, and I only ask for explanations regarding the “censure”.

But the following conflict is far more important: Boris has declared to me that he considers it impossible to remain in the Central Committee if I (1) do not stop agitation for the congress and (2) do not oppose the congress. Of course, I can do neither the one nor the other, and therefore replied to Boris that I would have an explanation with all my colleagues from the Central Committee and then give him an answer, which will consist in this: whether I leave the Central Committee or not. Regarding this conflict, which threatens to lead to the resignation of one of us (or even of one of the two parts of the Central Committee), I consider a thorough explanation, not in the heat of the moment and with knowledge of the matter, extremely important. I have a great grievance against Boris for having advanced his “ultimatum” without having read either the minutes of the Council (extremely important!) or my pamphlet,[175] in which I set forth my principled position. Is it reasonable to aggravate the conflict without having gone into a very complicated question?? Is it reasonable to aggravate it when at bottom we are in agreement (at least, that declaration on behalf of the Central Committee which Valentin wrote, which was sent to us but did not arrive, and about which Boris told me, emphasises our common principled position on the organisational question, as distinct from the opportunist position of the minority)? Even with regard to the congress we differ only on the question of the time-limit, for Boris does not at all renounce the idea of convening a congress half a year or a year later. Look what happens: the congress, according to the law, must be held next summer; I consider that at best, in the event of the fullest success of our agitation, it cannot be convened earlier than in six months, and more likely it will be delayed even longer. It turns out that our “disagreement” reduces itself to determining the moment! Is it reasonable to part company over this? Look at the matter from a purely political point of view: Boris says that agitation for the congress is incompatible with the strengthening of positive work and that the former harms the latter. I do not share the opinion about this incompatibility, but let us even assume that Boris is right. Assume that he succeeds in securing the withdrawal from the Central Committee of those who disagree with him on this question. What will be the result? Undoubtedly, a terrible intensification of agitation, an intensification of the relations of the majority to the Central Committee, an intensification of the work of opposing the congress, which is unpleasant for Boris. Is it expedient to aggravate matters in this way? Boris says that he is against the congress because the congress means a split. I think that Boris is here incorrectly assessing the present and the immediate situation, but even if Boris is right, by securing our withdrawal from the Central Committee he would thereby enormously increase the probability of a split, precisely because he would undoubtedly aggravate the situation. Aggravation of the conflict inside the Central Committee is inexpedient from any point of view.

I earnestly request each member of the Central Committee to reply to me. We must by all means talk things over and clarify the matter for ourselves, so as to work together not without some disagreements, but without conflicts and without mutual ousting.