V. I.

Lenin

262

To:   J. V. STALIN [4]

For Vasilyev

16/XII.

Dear Friend, We received all your letters (the last about the “tractability” of
your compatriot [1] regarding No. 16.... Question able, though!) and are replying. Is it
possible that our letters go astray?

1) For goodness’ sake, take the most energetic steps to get
W. [2]

away from Krass and turn it over legally to Muranov, No. 5, and
particularly to take the funds and the subscription money. Without this we
are lost. Besides to allow the abuses to go on would be criminal.

2) Arrange a meeting over there of all six before they have time to
scatter. There is plenty of time now; they will manage to do everything
after the meeting as well.

3) Be sure to get the six to publish a statement in W. (even the five,
at a pinch; we cannot delay any longer and wait).

4) Impress it finally and seriously upon
Shibayev [3] and all his colleagues that they must write here twice a week and
correspond conscientiously. Without this it is impossible to work
together.

5) The same applies to Vetrov. He has not written once, and he could
easily have sent even the text of the liquidators’ declaration. This is
inexcusable.

6) Did you get the draft resolutions for Misha’s collegium? Do your
level best to get them adopted.

The letters were sent mainly to the bank address. The draft leaflet, to
the other, Shibayev address. Reply at once, if only in a few words, to
acknowledge receipt of this letter.

Greetings

P.S. Just learned of the defeat.

You must get Misha’s collegium to adopt a resolution against
(the one No. 3 had), with the addition that the decision of the Duma group
is a decision of seven semi-Party people, and circulate it in the
districts. If even the base resolution of the 7 Mensheviks for Jagiello
(and for the Bund) does not finally impel No. 6 to join us, the five must
speak out in W. and speak out very sharply .

If the resolution about Jagiello was adopted under such circumstances
as Rusanov’s not yet having arrived or there being no certainty about his not being a Social-Democrat, then the 7 simply
fooled the 6, picked their pockets. In Rusanov’s place, on arriving later,
I would not have joined the Social-Democratic Duma group and would have
raised a terrific row.

But if it was known that Rusanov was not a Social-Democrat, then it was
wrong to accept the base resolution without a protest.

At any rate I would advise the Petersburg Committee to adopt a
resolution on approximately these lines (repeat the resolution which No. 3
has):

The Petersburg Committee strongly condemns the resolution of the
7 members of the Duma group who:
a) did not obtain exact information about the Social-Democratic workers in
Warsaw;
b) made no mention in the resolution of the protest of all the
Polish Social-Democrats against Jagiello;
c) made no mention of the two (out of three) electors from the Warsaw
workers;
d) represented the bourgeois vote for the P.P.S. as evidence of “the
growth of political consciousness among the bourgeoisie”, whereas it could
only be a matter of an honest man gaining by two thieves falling out;
e) deduced Jagiello’s Social-Democratism from his “statement” and from
the bloc of a section of the Social-Democrats with a non-Social-Democratic
party against the Polish Social-Democrats;
f) and what is most important—drew an incredible distinction
between “questions of the internal life of Social-Democracy” and
“questions of political activity in the Duma, thereby encouraging
the separation of the latter from the former”.

The Petersburg Committee condemns those who have taken such an
anti-Party step and thereby divorced them selves from the “internal life
of Russian Social-Democracy”.