Dear Comrade! I was extremely pleased to receive your letter, for here, abroad,
we hear all too seldom the candid and independent voices of those who are actively engaged in work on the ground. For a social-democratic writer living overseas, it is of paramount importance to exchange views more frequently with the vanguard workers operating in Russia—and your account of how our internal disputes are reflected within the committees was of immense interest to me. I may even take the opportunity to publish your letter at some point—number 255.

It is impossible to answer your questions in a single letter, for a detailed exposition of the majority–minority split would fill an entire book. I have now published, as a separate pamphlet, “A Letter to the Editorial Board of ‘Iskra’ (Why I Left the Editorial Board?)”*—there, in brief, I explain the reasons for our divergence and endeavor to demonstrate just how inaccurately the situation has been portrayed in No. 53 of ‘Iskra’ (beginning with No. 53, the editorial board comprised four representatives of the minority, along with Plekhanov). I hope that this letter—just a small printed sheet of eight pages—will soon reach your hands, for it has already been sent to Russia and will likely be easy to distribute.

Let me reiterate: this letter presents the matter in a highly condensed form. It is not yet possible to elaborate further until the minutes of the Party Congress and the League Congress have been published—in No. 53,

* See Collected Works, 5th ed., Volume 8, pp. 98–104. Ed.

‘Iskra’ announced that the full minutes of both these congresses would be released very soon. I understand that the minutes of the Party Congress will be published in a volume of three hundred pages or more; nearly 300 pages are already prepared—and most likely, within a week, at the latest two, this book will see the light of day. It is quite possible that, once all these minutes are available, I will need to write another pamphlet*.

Personally, I view the situation as follows: the split was driven above all else—and most fundamentally—by dissatisfaction over the composition of the central bodies (the Central Organizing Committee and the Central Committee). The minority had sought the confirmation of the old six-member core in the CO, whereas the Congress elected three out of six, deeming them, quite evidently, better suited to assume political leadership. Likewise, the minority was defeated on the question of the Central Committee’s composition: the Congress did not select the individuals the minority had hoped for.

Frustrated by this outcome, the minority began to exaggerate even the most trivial differences, to boycott the central bodies, to rally supporters to their cause, and even to prepare for a party split (here, persistent—and, it seems, quite reliable—rumors are circulating that they have already decided to found their own newspaper, tentatively titled “Kramola.” Not without reason, perhaps, did the feuilleton in No. 53 of ‘Iskra’ appear in a typeface that does not even exist in the Party’s own printing house!).

Plekhanov resolved to co-opt them into the editorial board in order to avert a split, and he penned the article “What Not to Do” in No. 52 of ‘Iskra.’ After No. 51, I left the editorial board because I regarded this reshuffling of the Congress—as influenced by foreign scandals—as misguided. Yet, of course, I did not wish to stand in the way of peace, should peace be attainable; and so, while no longer seeing it as feasible for myself to work within the six-member core, I left the editorial board without, however, renouncing my willingness to collaborate.

The minority—or, rather, the opposition—still seeks to force its own candidates into the Central Committee. The Central Committee had agreed, in the spirit of reconciliation, to admit two members from the minority—

* V. I. Lenin is referring to the pamphlet “One Step Forward, Two Steps Back,” which was published in May 1904 (see Collected Works, 5th ed., Volume 8, pp. 185–414). Ed.