V. I.

Lenin

Letter from the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. to The Editors of Nashe Slovo [2]

Dear Comrades:

We fully agree with you that the rallying of all genuine
Social-Democratic internationalists is one of the most pressing tasks of the
moment .... Before replying to your practical proposal, we consider it
necessary to clarify with frankness certain preliminary questions, so as to
know whether we are at one in the main issue. You are quite right in feeling
indignant about Alexinsky, Plekhanov and the like having come out in the
foreign press, claiming that theirs is “the voice of the Russian
proletariat or of influential groups therein”. This must be fought
against. To carry on the struggle, the root of the evil has to be got
at. There cannot be the least doubt that there has not been, and there is
not, any greater vice than the so-called system of representation of the
notorious “trends” abroad. In this we can hardly lay the blame
on the foreigners. Let us recall the recent past. Were not Alexinsky and
Plekhanov (and not these two alone) given the opportunity, at the selfsame
Brussels Conference (July 3, 1914), to depict themselves as
“trends”? After this, can it be surprising that even now
foreigners take them for representatives of “trends”? This evil
cannot be countered with the aid of some declaration or another. What is
needed is a long struggle. For that struggle to be successful, we must say
to ourselves, once and for all, that we recognise only those
organisations which for years have been linked up with the working
masses, and have been empowered by recognised committees, etc., and that we
brand, as deception of the workers, a system under which a half-dozen
intellectuals who have brought out two or three issues of a newspaper or
journal declare themselves a “trend”, or lay claim to “equal rights” with the Party.

Does agreement exist between us on this, comrades?

Then, about the internationalists. In one of your recent editorials, you
enumerated those organisations which, in your opinion, hold an
internationalist stand. High on that list is-the Bund. We would like to know
what grounds you have to number the Bund among the internationalists. The
resolution of its Central Committee does not contain a single definite word
on the major problems of socialism. It breathes a most unprincipled
eclecticism. The Bund’s organ (Information Bulletin ) [3] indubitably
adheres to the standpoint of Germanophile chauvinism, or else gives a
“synthesis” of French and German chauvinism. It was with good
reason that an article by Kosovsky adorned the pages of Die Neue Zeit, a journal which (we hope you agree with us on this) is now among the
most disreputable of the so-called “socialist” press organs.

We stand heart and soul for unity among all internationalists. We would
very much like their number to be greater. We must not, however, go in for
self-deception; we cannot count among the internationalists people and
organisations whose internationalism exists only on paper.

What should be understood by internationalism? Is it, for instance,
possible to number among the internationalists those who stand for the
International being restored on the principle of a mutual
“amnesty”? As you know, Kautsky is the leading representative of
the “amnesty” theory. Victor Adior has come out in the same
vein. We consider the adherents of an amnesty the most dangerous opponents
of internationalism. Restored on the basis of an “amnesty”, the
International would cheapen socialism. All concessions and all agreements
with Kautsky and Co. are inexcusable. A most determined struggle against the
“amnesty” theory is a conditio sine qua non of internationalism. It is vain to speak of internationalism if there is no
desire and no readiness to make a complete break with the defenders of an
“amnesty”. The question arises: does agreement on this fundamental issue exist between us? A negative attitude towards the
“amnesty” policy seems to have been hinted at in your newspaper. You will, however, argee that before any practical steps can be
made we are entitled to ask you to let us know in detail how you regard this
issue.

Connected with this is the question of the attitude towards the
Organising Committee. In our very first letter to you, [1] we considered it
necessary to tell you quite frankly that there are serious grounds to doubt
the internationalism of that body. You have not made any attempt to dispel
that opinion. We again ask you: what facts do you possess to consider that
the Organising Committee adheres to an internationalist stand? It cannot be
positively denied that Axelrod’s stand, set forth on several occasions
in print, is patently chauvinist (almost Plekhanovite). Axelrod is without
doubt the Organising Committee’s leading representative. Further,
consider the Organising Committee’s official statements. Its report to
the Copenhagen
Conference [4] was couched in a vein that led to its being
published by the most extreme chauvinists in Germany. Statements by the
Organising Committee’s “Secretariat Abroad” are much the
same. At best, they say nothing that is definite. On the other hand,
Larin—officially, on behalf of the Organising Committee and not of
some kind of secretariat abroad—has made statements designed to defend
chauvinism. What is there internationalist about this? Is it not clear that
the Organising Committee adheres completely to the standpoint of a mutual
“amnesty”?

Furthermore, what guarantees are there that the Organising Committee
represents some force in Russia? Today, following the statement in Nasha Zarya, this question is most pertinent. For years, the Nasha Zarya group conducted their line; they brought out a daily paper, and went
in for mass agitation of their own brand. But what about the Organising
Committee?

We all acknowledge that the issue will be settled, not by the alignment
of forces in groups abroad-in Zurich, Paris, etc.-but by the influence
enjoyed among the workers of St. Petersburg and of all Russia. This should
be kept in view, whatever the steps we take.

Such are the considerations we have wanted to inform you of. We shall be
very glad to get a detailed and clear reply to all these questions. Then we
shall be able to think of what is to come next.