V. I.

Lenin

The letter which Shagov, the Kostroma workers’ deputy, wrote to
Pravda (No. 22–226) indicated very clearly the terms on which the
workers think Social-Democratic unity feasible. Letters from a number of
other deputies for the worker curia ( Pravda Nos. 21–28) confirmed
this view. The workers themselves must bring about unity “from below”.
The liquidators should not fight the underground but should form part of
it.

It is amazing that after the question has been posed so clearly and
squarely we come across Trotsky’s old, pompous but perfectly meaningless
phrases in Luch No. 27 (113). Not a word on the substance of the matter! Not the slightest attempt to cite precise facts and analyse them thoroughly! Not a hint of the real terms of unity! Empty exclamations, high-flown words, and haughty
sallies against opponents whom the author does not name, and impressively
important assurances—that is Trotsky’s total stock-in-trade.

That won’t do, gentlemen. You speak “to the workers” as though they were children , now trying to scare them with terrible words
(“the shackles of the circle method”, “monstrous polemics”, “the
feudal-serf-owning period of our Party history”), now “coaxing” them, as
one coaxes small children, without either convincing them or explaining
matters to them.

The workers will not be intimidated or coaxed. They themselves
will compare Luch and Pravda ; they will read, for example, the leading article in Luch No. 101 (“The Mass of the
Workers and the Underground”), and simply shrug off Trotsky’s verbiage.

“ In practice the question of the underground, alleged to be one of
principle, is decided by all Social-Democratic groups absolutely
alike....” Trotsky wrote in italics. The St. Petersburg workers know from
experience that that is not, so. Workers in any corner of Russia, as soon
as they read the Luch leading article mentioned above, will see
that Trotsky is departing from the truth.

“ It is ridiculous and absurd to affirm,” we read in his article,
“that there is an irreconcilable contradiction between the political
tendencies of Luch and Pravda .” Believe us, my dear author, that neither the word “absurd” nor the word “ridiculous” can
frighten the workers, who will ask you to speak to them as to adults on the substance of the matter .

just expound those tendencies and prove that the leading article in
Luch No. 101 can be “reconciled” with Social-Democracy!

You cannot satisfy the workers with mere phrases, no matter how
“conciliatory” or honeyed.

“ Our historic factions. Bolshevism and Menshevism, are
purely intellectualist formations in origin,” wrote Trotsky.

This is the repetition of a liberal tale. In fact, however, the whole
of Russian reality confronted the workers with the issue of the attitude to
the liberals and the peasantry. Even if there had been no intelligentsia,
the workers could not have evaded the issue of whether they should
follow the liberals or lead the peasantry against the liberals.

It is to the advantage of the liberals to pretend that this
fundamental basis of the differences was introduced by “intellectuals”. But Trotsky merely disgraces himself by echoing a
liberal tale.

---
Notes: