Date: 1910
Source: ru:PSS/v48
Source: CW vol 48

Regarding the article you recommended for publication.

Dear comrade! Having received the article "For a Common Banner,"* I must, in all honesty, say that it is absolutely unsuitable. Candor and straightforwardness above all - is that not so?

The author has completely failed to understand the situation in Russia and has allowed himself to be carried away... how shall I put it more gently?...

* The article "For a Common Banner" was sent by Voytinsky for publication in the journal Prosveshcheniye.
Ed.

...by some sort of familiarity, perhaps, with the Poshekhon lesser-bourgeois Mensheviks.

In Russia, there is a process of restoration and strengthening of the Marxist workers' party.

The discussions and resolutions, which arouse such short-sighted mockery in the author, have enormous educational and organizational significance. "They shout 'hurrah'" - the author ironizes - purely liberal irony, the irony of an intellectual completely detached from the workers' movement. Why, then, do local groups of party members in no other opposition party in Russia openly discuss internal party disagreements?? Huh??

The author takes some kind of sentimental-hysterical standpoint. In the resolutions, there is the greatest process of consolidation of the workers' party, because no one in the world will force the workers to choose between two hurrahs (the hurrah of the party members and the hurrah of the liquidators), except conscious sympathy and analysis of directions. Not to see the gigantic ideological and organizational significance of the struggle of the working class over two trends behind the somewhat crude form of the proletarian "brawl" is phenomenal blindness. I cannot imagine a better explanation for the author's blindness than his detachment and his "captivity" by the lesser-bourgeois scoundrel company.

The author has completely misunderstood the reference to the workers' curia. 47% - 50% - 67% in the 2nd-3rd-4th Dumas*. Is this not a fact?? What does the "reactionary nature of the curiae" (about which swindlers and Burenins cry out on the pages of the New Workers' Newspaper to divert attention) have to do with it?? Wasn't the law equally reactionary, in the sense of being equally curial, in all three?? Even a baby would understand that the reactionary nature of the curiae has nothing to do with it. And the fact remains: the intelligentsia has gone away (and good riddance to them), the workers themselves have stood up against the liquidators. A new historical period. A new era. And the author invents a "middle line" - it would be funny if it were not so sad. The author understands not even one-hundredth of the depth of the struggle with the liquidators. It is impossible to restore the party except against the liquidators. Now the workers themselves have understood this.

From October 20 to November 2 - 4800 signatures (N.B.) for the six and 2500 for the seven (including 1000 Bundist. N.B.! N.B.!). Is this not a fact?? This is a fact, and not intellectual whining! This is not a party, you see, because there is no "unity" and no "congress"!!! Ha-ha!! There will be no unity with the liquidators and the Bundists - it's time to understand this and not to contemplate the irretrievably past old. A congress is extremely difficult (therefore, the party destroyers refer to the "congress" as if to ad kalendas graecas!*). These signatures are precisely the new form of the old party. And this is not understood??

The old national "federation of the worst type" has passed away forever. The author does not understand this either.

The equality of the six and seven (the author speaks in vain about the eight, because the party does not recognize the eighth at all as social-democratic**) the author misunderstands. Why should the party not give equality to a group of near-party members in the Duma??*** The author did not understand the serious significance of the concept of "near-party."

Our journal is not an almanac but a fighting organ. Therefore, there can be no question of publishing the article. But I would be very glad to see the author's response to my criticism, as I am generally extremely glad for any exchange of opinions with old friends. If I have "overwritten" something in this criticism and sometimes expressed myself not too politely - please forgive me indulgently. I really did not want to offend, but in the name of old friendship, I laid out "in simplicity" everything I thought and think.

How magnificently the campaign for the six against the seven has unfolded! What a wonderful consolidation and education of the workers against liberal worker politicians! What an excellent, first in Russia, example that the workers' party truly decides the fate of its

* - postponing to a time that will never come! Ed.

** Referring to E. I. Yagello. Ed.

*** This in no way restricts the party; this can educate the near-party members.

NOTE TO THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE NEWSPAPER PROLETARIAN TRUTH

Duma representation! This is already not just a "reading" crowd, but an organized force. The conference decided - the six implemented - organized thousands approved, having discussed and signed - this is what is called a party against that little newspaper, a new edition of the old Tovarishch, the New Workers' Newspaper, which pollutes and poisons the workers' movement with intellectual filth. And how wonderfully the workers' Duma faction has developed its activity! Immediately a step forward not only in name but in all work! How magnificent is Badayev's speech on the freedom of coalitions compared to the repetition of... liberal thoughts by Tulyakov!

Farewell, dear comrade, spit more often on the Mensheviks, study the facts of the current workers' movement, ponder their significance, and your, excuse me, sourness will pass, you will not seek a "middle line," but will help in the consolidation of the workers against the gang of traitors.

Yours, V. I.

---

Sent from Krakow to Irkutsk

First published in 1938 in the journal Bolshevik No. 2

Printed from the manuscript