N. G. POLETAEV

[February 22, 1911. Paris.]

Dear Colleague!

I have received your letter of February 10, in which you recount the events surrounding…

You ask me to “announce this” to the 58th Meckam¹. I must apologize for having to decline this request. I have no intention whatsoever of making any announcements or engaging in any kind of correspondence with such individuals. If you do not understand why, let me reiterate once more.

You conclude your letter with the words: “Surely, in Paris they cannot fail to grasp how your squabbles are reflected back upon us?”

In Paris, the liquidators understand perfectly well what they are doing. It is a pity that in St. Petersburg there are still people who do not understand what they are about—people whom I read about. What a pity! The fate of such individuals is to be forever led astray by others. Here in Paris, the liquidators—those known as the “Golosovtsy”—publish leaflets like the 58th Meckam precisely in order to stir up strife and obfuscate the principled struggle. We have made it clear—through every L? Ц .О. and through every Jsl of other publications familiar to you and situated closer to you in terms of geography²—that we will not and cannot come to terms with the group led by Mr. Potresov and Co., nor with the ideas of Our Dawn and the like; rather, we are engaged—and will remain engaged—in an unrelenting struggle against them. This company of liquidators are enemies of social democracy, and their ideas are the very ideas of traitors.

* Printed from a copy held by the Department of Police. In the original text, the letter’s address precedes the text itself:

“St. Petersburg, To Evgeniy
Borisovich
Rosenfeld, Vasilyevsky
Island, 8th Line, No. 75, Apt. 40,” along with a notation indicating the place and date of dispatch (apparently from a postal stamp): “Paris, February 22, 1911.” Furthermore, at the beginning of the letter appears the following inscription addressed to the recipient—acting as intermediary: “Please forward the enclosed immediately to Member of the State Duma N. G. Poletaev. Do so without delay, preferably today.” Ed.

** The ellipses here and throughout this letter mark passages that have been damaged or rendered illegible. Ed.

The Golosovtsy are incapable of fighting this struggle on principle; that is why Messrs. Martov, Dan, Axelrod, Martynov respond with scandal-mongering and blackmail. Is the 58th Meckam not, in fact, a form of blackmail?

In the 58th Meckam, false accusations (veiled insinuations) are advanced… for example, even though the Bekp had completely liquidated, after the January 1910 Plenum, everything connected with them. Why, then, are these accusations brought forth in the guise of obscure hints? The answer lies in the next leaflet—a printed document, also from Paris, also Golosovskian in character, though signed not by the 58th Meckam but by the “Editorial Board of ‘Golos [S.-D.]’.”

What is the content of this leaflet? It boils down to this: equality within the Central Committee editorial board—then peace³.

One comrade writes: “Isn’t that sheer hypocrisy?”—Today you level criminal charges, and tomorrow you write: “Let’s admit one more person to the editorial board—and peace will be restored.” Surely, that is nothing short of blackmail!

Can people with even a modicum of political experience really fail to see, everywhere—especially in the Third Duma—dozens of such examples? Has the history of Menshevism not already shown us countless instances of similar blackmail tactics: how many times were “criminal charges” raised only to be forgotten once equality or a majority was secured?

Back in May 1910, I publicly labeled the blackmailers as blackmailers, in Discussion Leaflet No. 4. Those who chose not to heed my warning—well, that is their own loss…

… In sum: until you learn how to combat blackmailers, they will always disrupt your work with scandals and spit in your face. If you do not like this, then learn to fight—not to complain.

It goes without saying that we have responded to the blackmailers in kind, and we will never yield to any demands for equality. We exposed the Potresov gang in all their liquidationist schemes, right down to the end. What’s more, this very gang now flirts with a group that, after the January 1910 Plenum, openly violated the resolution on b… The Golosovtsy are covering for those who stand “against” Lenin and Plekhanov. And I can assure you—we will expose them as well.

You cannot sit on the fence—you must either stand with the liquidators or oppose them. As for myself, I reserve the right to publish this letter. How are things going with the editorial board?⁵ You need to make sure that we are represented—if not by someone else, then by you. In any case, you have a duty to find a representative for us. Why haven’t you returned the articles we submitted? Rappoport sent two articles—and received no response whatsoever.

LETTERS FROM THE ERA OF “ZVEZDA” AND “PRAVDA”

In due course, a young man will come to see you—a short, stocky fellow (a Jew), recommended by me. Please help him as best you can⁶.

As for the newspaper: I believe you should take the helm yourself, at least temporarily, so that our faction does not find itself without representation—otherwise, there will be scandal. After all, we hope that matters will not collapse at the first setback, and that efforts will continue despite closures.

All the more reason for you to be there. Please send us, without delay, the platform drafted by the faction for the Moscow elections⁷.

Why don’t you come visit us over Easter? There is much we could discuss. Have you heard anything about Os. Petrovich?

1 The “58 Mensheviks” were members of the “first” (Menshevik) Paris-based group supporting the RSDLP, who, at a general meeting of the group, adopted—as a resolution on the state of affairs within the Party—an extensive appeal entitled “To All Party Members,” which was subsequently published as an appendix to No. 24 of “Golos Sotsialdemokrata” in February 1911. In this document, the Bolsheviks—referred to variously as “members of the Bolshevik circle,” “the resurrected Bolshevik center,” “a clique compromised by crimes,” and so on—were declared responsible for the crisis that had arisen within the Party. According to the editors of “Golos S.-D.,” 58 participants in the meeting voted in favor of the resolution, while 5 abstained.

2 These were the newspaper “Zvezda” in St. Petersburg and the journal “Mysl” in Moscow.

* This refers to the printed leaflet “Letter to Comrades,” issued in Paris in February 1911 by the editorial board of “Golos Sotsialdemokrata.” For a more detailed account of the leaflet’s contents, see Lenin’s Collected Works, Volume XVIII, p. 626, note 83.

4 Here, Lenin is referring to his article in No. 2 of “Discussion Leaflet”: “Notes from a Publicist: The ‘Unifying Crisis’ in Our Party” (see Collected Works, Volume XIV, pp. 299–338; the passage concerning the ‘blackmailers’ appears on p. 312).

5 The editorial board of “Zvezda.”

6 It remains unclear who is being referred to here.

7 These were the supplementary elections for the Moscow constituency to the State Duma, held on April 2 (March 20), 1911. On these elections, the Social Democrats nominated P. I. Skvortsev-Stepanov as their candidate—but he was arrested in February and, almost simultaneously with the election, exiled for three years to Astrakhan Governorate. The platform prepared by the Social Democratic Duma faction for these elections was never found.

DENINSKY COLLECTION
29340 ι\Λ
TO BERLIN 1.

[March 1911. Paris.]

Dear Comrade! I am sending you two letters*. The first from [Krasss] Poletaev, the second from Negorev (Jordanovsky).

These are the de facto editors of Zvezda.

We must help them.

The source is one: the Germans. Contact the Vorstand** through Pfannkuch. Ask for 5,000 marks (they’ll grant you 3,000). Tyshka has already received funds from them for “Tribuna”; now he’s asking for a second time—so he may well regard you as a “competitor.” Keep this in mind, and strive to find a truly reliable translator (we know some people, but they’re far too “colonial” in outlook)—and be sure to secure funding from the Vorstand for Zvezda.

Tyshka does it this way: he requests funds from the Vorstand through Karsky***.

The Vorstand consults with 3. B. C. K. and grants the funds—if no objection is raised.

You must take precautions if you do not want 3. B. C. K. to learn that you are in Berlin.

For good measure, I’m attaching a “certificate”****.

With warm regards, Lenin.

Have you received the letter containing the attached letter from Aleksandrov regarding Lieber’s report to 3. B. C. K.?²

Please reply as soon as possible. We must finally get to the bottom of this matter.

1 This letter was, most likely, addressed to A. I. Rykov, a member of the Central Committee.

2 In Lenin’s letter to Rykov dated March 10, 1911 (“Len. Coll.,” Volume XVIII, p. 30), he mentions the copy of Semashko’s letter being sent—Semashko being a member of the ZBCK—and, as there is reason to believe, Lenin also requests information about this same letter in the present letter.

* Please keep these letters safe
and be sure to return them to me [as soon as possible after use].

** The Executive Committee (of the German Social Democratic Party). Ed.

*** Yu. Yu. Marhlevsky. Ed.

**** For the Germans: I hereby certify that you are a member of the Central Committee.

LETTERS FROM THE ERA OF “ZVEZDA” AND “PRAVDA”