V. I.

Lenin

29

To:   Y. M. SVERDLOV [1]

To Comrade Andrei, and if he is not in Petersburg, then
to Nos. 3, 6 and others. [2]

Dear Friend, I was extremely sorry to hear that you consider that
Vasily exaggerates the importance of
Dyen . [3] In reality the key to the situation at present is precisely Dyen and
the way it is run. Unless we secure a reform and proper
management in this field, we shall reach bankruptcy, both
material and political. Dyen is the necessary means of organisation for uniting and lifting up the movement.
Only through this means can now come the necessary influx
of people and resources for what you indicate. Things are
bad in Petersburg primarily because Dyen is bad, and we
are unable to make, or the board of “editors” there prevents
us making use of Dyen .

At one kopek a month 25,000 will provide 250 rubles.
Remember without fail that there are no other sources at
all. The whole situation in general will now depend on the
outcome of the struggle with the liquidators in Petersburg.
That is clear. And this struggle can be decided only by the
proper management of Dyen . If it is true that Nos. 1 and
3, or 3 and 6, are for caution in reforming Dyen , i.e., for
delay in expelling the present editors and office staff, this
is very sad. We repeat: this smells of bankruptcy. We must seriously come to agreement and set about reforming Dyen .
(1) We need accounts made up to the last kopek.
(2) Has
No. 1 had a letter about this?
(3) Have you read this letter?
(4) You must take the cash (revenue and subscriptions)
into your own hands.
(5) Will this be done, and when will it be done?
(6) It is essential to put in our own editorial board of Dyen and throw out the present one. Work is
thoroughly bad at present, the boosting of the Bundist liquidators ( Zeit ) and the non-Social-Democrat Jagiello is
an absolute disgrace. The absence of a campaign for unity
from below is stupid and base. They keep silent about unity on Vasilyevsky Island, about the liquidators’ refusal,
they don’t know how to reply to No. 101 of
Luch [4] or to their reply: are such people editors? They are not people,
but wretched wet-rags and wreckers of the cause.

The use made of Dyen for keeping the class-conscious workers informed and reporting their work (the Petersburg
Committee particularly) is beneath all criticism. You must
put an end to the so-called autonomy of these editorial
failures. You must set about it before all else. You should
install yourself in “sanctuary” with No. 1. Put in a telephone.
Take the editorial board into your own hands. Draw in assistants. You on your own—with some of these people as
pure executives—given our work from here, can fully cope
with the job. If this is well organised, there will also be a
revival in the work of the Petersburg Committee, which is
ridiculously inept, incapable of saying a word, lets every
occasion for a statement go by. And it ought to be making
a statement almost daily in legal form (in the name of “influential workers”, etc.) and at least once or twice a
month illegally. Once again, the key to the whole situation
is Dyen . Here it is possible to conquer, and then (only then)
organise the local work as well. Otherwise everything will collapse.

You should wail, so far as a Moscow paper is concerned.
But No. 3 and his two colleagues should publish a letter
immediately. Their delay is unforgivable. They should come out immediately, take up their position, declare that
this is our affair—the affair of those three—that they are
in charge (otherwise the liquidators will elbow them out).
Much has already been lost, hurry.

So a statement must be made. Why shouldn’t No. 3, too, be a publisher? What in general is the distribution
o! duties between Nos. 1, 3, 6 and their immediate friends?
Has there been a report? Is there complete agreement?