V. I.

Lenin

12

To:   THE EDITOR OF NEVSKAYA ZVEZDA [1]

Dear Colleague, I have received your long letter, and I see that you and
T must most certainly have it out.

First of all, a detail. You won’t find correspondents at two kopeks a line. So long as you have no money, you
will have to make do with our articles about affairs abroad.

Now for the main thing. You complain of monotony.
But this will always be the case if you don’t print polemics —
if, in particular, you cut down Kamenev (he writes in a
different tone)—if you reduce everything to “positive liquidationism”. And in addition you will lose all your
contributors if you don’t print them, and don’t even reply
and don’t send back articles (for example, mine: the reply
to Blank— important ! “Unquenchable
Hopes” [2] and a number of others!! ).

Just look at Nevsky Golos : it’s more lively. It is not
afraid of polemics. It attacks. It boldly makes its point
to the bitter end.

By avoiding “painful questions”, Zvezda and Pravda make themselves dry and monotonous, uninteresting,
uncombative organs. A socialist paper must carry on polemics:
our times are times of desperate confusion, and we can’t
do without polemics. The question is whether they are to be carried on in a lively way, attacking, putting forward
questions independently, or only on the defensive, in dry
and boring fashion.

For example, the “Supporter of Zvezda ” in No. 16 gave a good reply. Clearly he is a man of principle. But all the
same he did not dissipate the terrible fears aroused everywhere (I have a series of letters) by No. 6 of Nevsky Golos . [3]
What did happen, after all? Was there a conference? Called
by whom? What for? None of this is clear! And until this
is cleared up no one wants to work. Everyone is saying:
haven’t I the right to know who I am working for, whom
I am helping to get elected to the Duma? Maybe it’s a liquidator? Maybe it’s some muddled Trotskyist
conciliator? Perhaps I am taking part (indirectly) in drawing up
a “common platform”??

Such questions paralyse energy and introduce demoralisation.

Meanwhile Nevsky Golos is attacking briskly and takes a
more challenging line. You can’t hide differences from the workers (as Pravda is doing): it’s harmful, fatal,
ridiculous.
You can’t leave it to the adversary , to Nevsky Golos ,
to open up discussion of differences. Pravda will perish
if it is only a “popular”, “positive” organ, that is certain .

It would certainly be victorious if it were not afraid of polemics, talked straight about the liquidators, became
lively through argument, by an article against
Axelrod, [4] etc. Such articles as Axelrod’s attract: all the workers
hear about the differences and are attracted to Axelrod’s
open explanations, because he says things straight out a
hundred times more boldly than we do. All the workers hear the talk about a united platform, all the leading
workers know Axelrod’s article [5] —and if you are silent, you
have fallen behind! And the paper which falls behind is
lost . A paper must be a step ahead of everyone , and that goes
for both Nevskaya Zvezda and for Pravda . Side by side with
the two “positive” little articles, Pravda must provide
polemics —Kamenev’s literary note—a feature article ridiculing the liquidators—and so forth. Monotony and lateness
are incompatible with the newspaper business. And Pravda
has in addition a special and exceptionally important duty:
“whom is it going to lead ”—this is what everyone is asking,
what everyone is trying to read between the lines. It would
be important to have a meeting (once in four years, before the elections)—you can’t carry on the paper without even
infrequent meetings with your constant contributors. Think
over this well and quickly, for time won’t bear delay.

Best wishes, Ulyanov