V. I.

Lenin

141

To:   THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.

From Lenin to the C.C.

Dear friends, In regard to your recent letters I should say that I agree with all the
decisions except two. 1) I emphatically protest against the appointment of
Matryona as an agent and earnestly request you to revise it. He is a
muddle-headed fellow, who can cause us great harm, desert us a dozen times, put
us to shame by his stupidity, etc. Let him work in the Committee—as an
agent he is no good at all, unless you put him on a “technique”
job. As regards Stanislav, please let me know who he is, tell me more about
him. For my part I would strongly recommend Lalayants as an agent. In Odessa
and the Southern Bureau he displayed outstanding ability as an organiser;
according to the general opinion he has got real live work going there. He was
the guiding spirit of all the local work—so a number of Odessites
reported, some of whom were anything but favourably disposed towards the
“rockfirm”. Last but not least he is a man of exceptionally high
principle. 2) Regarding Plekhanov, I am extremely surprised at your silence on a
question that had been raised here in Winter’s time. Have we the right to
appoint as the representative of the Party someone who does not want to come
into the Party and refuses to recognise the Third Congress? He has now declared
in print that he does not consider the Third Congress lawful and will act as
representative only of both sections. A number of comrades here had
pointed out, when Winter was still here, that, in appointing Plekhanov, we would
only pamper him and spoil him altogether. I was in favour of Plekhanov at first,
but I now see that he can only be appointed on certain conditions. Just imagine concretely what it will mean to have as our
representative on the Bureau someone to whom no one speaks, and who
cannot be made to “represent” the C.C . and not himself! We have now at last secured direct contact between the Bureau (the
I.S.B.) and us, and we see that there are quite a number of small business matters, financial and others (requests on behalf of Russia and concerning Russia
about which I wrote to them recently; the method of representation,, about which
they asked me a few days ago, etc.). The Bureau wrote about another “proposal of
Bebel’s” [1] (which has not yet reached us); evidently,
the old fellow is out to “make peace” again (Kautsky has published a
mean article in connection with the German edition of the
“Report” [2] ). Think what our position will be if
Plekhanov is the representative and Plekhanov has to deal with Bebel on the
question of “peace”! I under stand very well what strong reasons there are
to make us all, and especially you, desire “peace”, desire the
appointment of Plekhanov, but I have become convinced that such a step, without
a real guarantee of peace, will be only a false step, will confuse the
issue still more, will cause new splits, violations of agreements, altercations
and fresh resentment, and will only make unity more remote . In
my opinion, all the talk about unity will be so much empty phrase-making so long
as a realisable plan for it has not been worked out from experience;
things are going in this direction, we must wait a few months, let everyone
assess the absurdity of the decisions of the conference, let experience
destroy their idiotic “organisational statute”, let experience cut down their claims (for, in general, things are going
better with us, and we are obviously going forward to victory)—and then
direct negotiations will be started between the central bodies without
intermediaries, then we shall work out (whether at once or after two or three
attempts, I do not undertake to say, of course) a modus vivendi . But
now it is necessary to fight, My proposal is to make a “proposal” to Plekhanov on your lines,
but on condition that he is willing to recognise the Third Congress,
come into the Party and submit to its decisions. By such a Step we 8hall
observe the conventions and eliminate any possible confusion.

Pending your reply I shall not propose anything to Plekhanov. I earnestly beg
you to postpone a decision until we meet in September.

I am extremely surprised that you write, nothing about the “Open
Letter” [3] written by Reinert that was sent to me. I don’t understand the why and wherefor. Why is there not a word about this
in the decisions ? Write quickly whether it is to be published in the
Central Organ. If it is, then I should like very much to ask for a slight
alteration concerning tactical differences so that it may not come into
contradiction With my pamphlet, which Lyubich will tell you
about. [4] I hope we shall see eye to eye on this and, if possible, I would ask to be
allowed to make this alteration myself.

I am extremely surprised that the “Report” is not being issued in Russia in
full. It’s scandalous! Make all the technical staff hurry up with this, for
heaven’s sake!

We are extremely grateful for the detailed decisions, letters from committees
and leaflets you have sent us. At long last something like regular contacts
between us are being established! Please, don’t drop this custom and find
a good St. Petersburg secretary. We are badly in need of information from
St. Petersburg about Party affairs, the liberals, questions of Party
life that are being discussed in the circles, etc., etc. Do not forget that the
Bund and the Mensheviks are better informed than we are here!

All the very best.

N. Lenin