V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:LS/v38;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

TO THE “HOLDERS”—K. ZETKIN, K. KAUTSKY AND F. MEHRING—AND SYMPATHISING WITH THE CONCILIATORS, HE DID EVERYTHING TO PREVENT THE RETURN OF THE MONEY TO THE BOLSHEVIKS. LENIN SHARPLY CRITICISED TYSZKA’S ACTIVITIES DURING THIS PERIOD.
Rosa Luxemburg was an outstanding figure in the international working-class movement, one of the leaders of the Left wing of the Second International. She was among the founders and leaders of the Social-Democratic Party of Poland. From 1897 she took an active part in the German Social-Democratic movement. R. Luxemburg took part in the first Russian revolution (in Warsaw). During the years of reaction and the new revolutionary upsurge she adopted a conciliatory attitude towards the liquidators. Taking advantage of her closeness to the “holders” and sympathising with the conciliators, she did everything to prevent the return of the money to the Bolsheviks.
Lenin, who held R. Luxemburg in high esteem, repeatedly criticised her errors, thereby helping her to adopt a correct stand.
12 The newspaper *Sotsial-Demokrat*—the Central Organ of the R.S.D.L.P.—is meant.
13 See this collection, p. 50, Note 5.
14 The elections to the Fourth State Duma were held in the autumn of 1912. The Duma began its work on November 15 (28), 1912.
26198
LETTER TO THE LAWYER J. DUCO DE LA HAILLE
WITH A POSTSCRIPT TO AN UNIDENTIFIED ADDRESSEE
[1912, May, before the 20th]
Correct it with the Frenchman and copy it out, for God’s sake, cleanly, so that Duc 1 can read it at once in 10 minutes!! *
The above documents—and, in particular, the extremely important document: the letter from Kautsky and Zetkin of
18. XI. 1911—prove the following in the most convincing manner 2.
In January 1910 a contract was concluded in Paris between two contracting parties. The Plenum of the Central Committee represented one side; the “Lenin faction” (Ulyanov)—the other 3. And Messrs. Kautsky and Zetkin, the authors of the letter of
18. XI. 1911, themselves unconditionally recognise this fact. They recognise: (1°) the existence of the contract; they recognise (2°), that one of the contracting parties was the Lenin faction, the other—the Plenum of the Central Committee.
What was the content of the contract?
* This phrase is written in Russian.

The above documents establish this very precisely. The content of the contract was as follows: Messrs. Mehring, Kautsky and Zetkin undertook to “d e c i d e  f i n a l l y” (see page 3 of the notice) whether the money in dispute should be returned and to whom. On the other hand, Lenin undertook
{“his p r o m i s e”—in the words of Messrs. Mehring, Kautsky and Zetkin in their letter of
30. VI. 1911, see below) to hand over to the above-mentioned persons the money of which he was the owner.
Thus, there can be no doubt that Mehring, Kautsky and Zetkin were a r b i t r a t o r s. The contract they themselves speak of in their letter of 18. XI. 1911 was an a g r e e m e n t  o n  a r b i t r a t i o n.
From the letters of Kautsky and Zetkin of 2. X. 1911, of 16. XI. 1911 and of 18. XI. 1911 it is clearly evident that all three arbitrators—first Mehring (in August 1911), then Kautsky
(2. X. 1911) and, finally, Zetkin (16. XI. 1911)—resigned their powers as arbitrators and “holders” of the disputed money 4.
All three arbitrators resigned their office.
Now the question is: what is the state of affairs after the refusal (self-disqualification) of the arbitrators?
According to common sense and the most precise law—Article of the French Code of Civil Procedure; Article 1033 of the German Code of Civil Procedure—the a r b i t r a t i o n  c e a s e s  t o  o p e r a t e  i n  t h e  e v e n t  o f  t h e  s e l f - d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n  o f  t h e  a r b i t r a t o r s  a n d  e v e n  i n  t h e  e v e n t  o f  t h e  s e l f - d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n  o f  o n e  o f  t h e m.
Thus, there is absolutely no doubt that the contract concluded in January 1910 ceases to operate, that it no longer exists and that it does not now bind the “Lenin faction” with the other factions (of the Plenum of the Central Committee), just as it does not bind the Lenin faction with the three former arbitrators—Mehring, Kautsky and Zetkin.
The arbitration contract has ceased to exist due to the refusal of the arbitrators; there is no longer any contract.
Now the material aspect of the contract is important—whether it has full legal force or not—whether the contracting parties are a legal entity, etc., etc.—this question is of absolutely no importance. The Code of Civil Procedure of all civilised countries protects the freedom of the arbitration contract, protects the legality of all decisions of the arbitration court, which are absolutely correct, w i t h o u t  a l l o w i n g  o r d i n a r y  j u d g e s  t o  d i s c u s s  t h e  d e c i s i o n s  o f  a r b i t r a t o r s.
If the arbitration court no longer exists, only one single question remains: what should the former arbitrators do with the money they held in trust?
There is no doubt that after the dissolution of the arbitration contract concluded in January 1910, the situation must revert to that existing b e f o r e the conclusion of the contract, i.e., b e f o r e  January 1910. The disputed money, of which Lenin was the o w n e r  b e f o r e  January 1910, must be returned to him.
Mrs. Zetkin must return the money to Lenin, from whom she received it—to Lenin, whom all three arbitrators repeatedly recognised as the representative of one of the contracting parties and, in particular, as the representative of the party which undertook to deposit the money with the arbitrators.
The Civil Code of all civilised countries, in accordance with the legal norms of modern society, decides this question quite definitely:
— either the arbitrators, named by the contracting parties, render a properly drawn up arbitration award; and then, according to state law, this award will be enforced (by compulsory means?); — or the arbitrators do not fulfil their duty; — and then they are obliged immediately to return the money held by them to the person who deposited this money with them.
Mrs. Zetkin is obliged to return the money, of which she was the “holder”, to Lenin; and there can be no doubt about that.
It must be added that Lenin’s request for the return of the money received m o r a l  s u p p o r t in the letter of Mrs. Elizaveta Pavlovna Ignatieva.
Mrs. Ignatieva carried out the last will of the deceased owner of this money. And she also testifies in the most convincing manner that the will of the owner (her brother died in a Russian prison) was to transfer the money to the political faction represented by Lenin.
Regarding the refusal (self-disqualification) of the arbitrators and the letter of
18. XI. 1911,
signed by two arbitrators, the following should be noted:
The law clearly forbids arbitrators, after they have entered upon the performance of their duties, to resign
their powers—(in this case Messrs. Mehring, Kautsky and Zetkin!).
Messrs. Mehring, Kautsky and Zetkin violated this law.
They deserted.
According to law they are answerable to the court, since they did not fulfil their duty—they are also liable for the losses which their action caused to Lenin, who handed over the money to them for the sole purpose: that they should render an arbitration award.
The letter of Messrs. Kautsky and Zetkin of 18. XI. 1911 is a complete violation of the law, the most flagrant violation: persons who—in violation of the law—resigned their powers as arbitrators, nevertheless want to remain arbitrators and “holders”! Having violated the first contract (which obliged them to render an arbitration award), they demand (!) that the two contracting parties conclude a new agreement!!
It is impossible and unnecessary to enumerate all the absurdities and violations of the law contained in the letter of 18. XI. 1911.
Suffice it to say that any court, having before it this single letter, would undoubtedly condemn Messrs. Zetkin and Kautsky.
Conclusion: Lenin must make one last attempt to secure amicable recognition of his indisputable right to receive the money. If Mrs. Zetkin refuses, Lenin must apply to the court.
A new arbitration court is impossible—an arbitration court with a former arbitrator...
Translated from the French
1 Georges Duco de la Haille—a French lawyer, a socialist. He was consulted by V. I. Lenin in the matter of obtaining party funds deposited with the “holders”.
2 See this collection, p. 50, Note 5.
3 The resolution of the January Plenum of the C.C., R.S.D.L.P., 1910, “On Factional Centres” is meant (see *The C.P.S.U. in Resolutions and Decisions of Congresses, Conferences and Plenums of the C.C.*, 1970, Vol. 1, pp. 296–98).
4 The document contains a factual inaccuracy.
In a letter to V. I. Lenin of October 2 (n.s.), 1911, K. Kautsky informed him of F. Mehring’s refusal to act as “holder” due to illness. On October 18 K. Kautsky refused to act as “holder” and on November 16, 1911, K. Zetkin did likewise.
6 See this collection, pp. 44–45.