V. I.

Lenin

308

To:   V. S. VOITINSKY

20/XII. 1913

Re the article you recommended for publication.

Dear Colleague, I received the article “For a Common
Banner” [1] and in all honesty I must say that it is no good at all. Frankness and
candour above all—don’t you agree?

The author has absolutely failed to understand the state of affairs in
Russia and has let himself be carried away—to put it more mildly—by a
spirit of, let us say, excessive amicability towards the Gothamite
Mensheviks.

Russia is going through a process of restoration and consolidation of
the Marxist workers’ party. The discussions and resolutions, which raise
in the author such a short sighted sneer, are of tremendous educative and
organisational significance. The author’s ironical reference to the
“Hurray shouting” is sheer liberal irony, the irony of an
intellectual who is completely out of touch with the working-class
movement. How is it that in no other opposition party in Russia do the local groups of party members openly discuss the
party’s internal differences?? Eh??

The author adheres to a sort of sentimentally hysterical point of
view. The resolutions represent an all-important process of consolidation
of the workers’ party, for no one in the world can make
the workers choose between two hurrahs (that of the partyists and
that of the liquidators) other than conscious sympathy and a
sorting out of trends. To allow the somewhat rude form of proletarian
“brawl” to screen the tremendous ideological and organisational
significance of the working class’s struggle over two trends, is phenomenal
blindness. I can think of no better explanation of this blindness than the
fact that the author is completely out of touch and has “fallen under the
spell” of the vile Menshevik gang.

The author has absolutely failed to understand the reference to the
worker curia. 47%–50%–67 % in the 2nd, 3rd and
4th Dumas. [2]

Is that a fact or not?? What has the “reactionary nature of the
curias” (about which the crooks and the Burenins shout from the columns of
Novaya Rabochaya Gazeta , drawing a red herring across the path)
got to do with it?? Did not the same reactionary law, meaning the same
curia law, apply in all three cases? Even an infant would understand that
the reactionary nature of the curias has nothing to do with it. The fact
remains that the intelligentsia have cleared off (and good riddance to the
whores) and the workers have found their own feet against the
liquidators. A new historical period. A new epoch. Yet the author invents a
“middle line”—it would be funny were it not so sad. The author has not
understood one-hundredth of the depth of the struggle against the
liquidators. The Party cannot be restored unless it is restored
against the liquidators. The workers have grasped this now
themselves.

For a month, from 20.X to 2.XI—4,800 signatures (N.B.) for
the six and 2,500 for the seven (including 1,000 Bundist
signatures. N.B.! N.B.!). Is that a fact or not?? This is a fact, sir, and
not intellectualist whining! It is not a party, if you please, since they
have no “common” organisation, no “congress”!!! Ha-ha!! Nor will there be anything in common
with the liquidators and Bundists—it is time to understand this instead
of contemplating the old that is gone and done with. A congress is
extremely difficult to call (hence the wreckers of the Party refer
things “to a congress”, sort of ad kalendas graecas!). These
signatures , as it happens, represent the new form of the
old party. Fancy not being able to understand this!

The old national “federation of the worst type” has gone for good . This is another thing the author does not understand.

The author has a wrong idea of equality between the 6 and 7 (he is
wrong to talk about the 8, since the Party does not recognise the
eighth as a
Social-Democrat [3]

).

Why shouldn’t the Party grant equality to the near-Party group in the Duma ?? [4]

The author has not understood the serious significance of the conception
“near-Party people”.

Our journal is not a literary miscellany, but a militant organ. There
can be no question, therefore, of publishing the article. I would be very
glad, however, to see the author’s retort to my criticism, as I would
generally welcome any exchange of opinions with old friends. If I have come
it too strong with this criticism and expressed myself sometimes none too
politely, I beg his pardon. I can assure him I had no intention of being
offensive, but simply, for old friendship’s sake, unburdened myself and
said what I thought with open-hearted candour.

How splendidly the campaign for the six against the seven is going!
What a wonderful rallying and education of the workers against the liberal
labour politicians! What an excellent example, the first in Russia, of the
workers’ party actually deciding the fate of its own representation in the Duma! This is no longer a crowd “who have done a
little reading”, but an organised force. The conference decided—the six
acted—the organised thousands approved by discussing and signing—that
is called a party against that rag of a paper, the new edition of
the old Tovarishch , Novaya Rabochaya Gazeta , which is fouling and poisoning the
working-class movement with its intellectualist muck. And how splendidly
the workers’ Duma group has developed its activities! Right away a step
forward not only in name, but in all its work! What an excellent speech,
that of Badayev’s, on the freedom of coalition, compared with the iteration
of shoddy liberal ideas by Tulyakov!

Au revoir, dear comrade. Spit on the Mensheviks more often, study the
facts of the present-day labour movement, weigh their significance, and your—begging your pardon—moping mood will pass;
instead of searching for a “middle line”, you will help to rally the
workers against the gang of traitors.

Yours,
V.I.

---
Notes:
[1]
This article was sent in by Voitinsky for publication in the journal
Prosveshcheniye .— Ed .

[2]
Consecutive growth in the number of Bolsheviks in the worker curias in
the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Dumas.— Ed .

[3]
This refers to Y. I. Jagiello.— Ed .

[4]
This does not bind the Party in any way; and it can educate
the near-Party people. — Lenin