Dear Comrades! We are in complete agreement with you that the unification of all genuine socialist internationalists is one of the most pressing tasks at present... Before responding to your practical proposal, we consider it necessary to openly clarify certain preliminary questions in order to ascertain whether there is genuine solidarity between us on fundamental matters. You are absolutely right to be outraged by the fact that Alexinsky, Plekhanov, and the like appear in the foreign press, presenting their voice as that of "the Russian proletariat or its influential groups." This must be fought. But to fight, we must address the root of the evil. There is no doubt that the so-called system of representation of the notorious foreign "trends" has been and remains the greatest corruption. And here we can hardly blame foreigners. Let us recall the recent past. At the Brussels meeting (July 3, 1914)*

* This refers to No. 40 of the newspaper "Social-Democrat," published on March 29, 1915. Ed.

were not Alexinsky and Plekhanov (and they were not alone) given the opportunity to represent "trends"? Can we then be surprised that foreigners now also take them for representatives of "trends"? Nothing can be done about this evil through any declaration. A prolonged struggle is necessary here. For it to be successful, we must once and for all acknowledge only those organizations that have been connected with the working masses for years, authorized by solid committees, etc., and we must condemn as a deception of the workers the system under which half a dozen intellectuals, having issued 2-3 issues of a newspaper or journal, declare themselves a "trend" and claim "equality" with the party.

Do we agree on this, dear comrades?

Next - about the internationalists. In one of the recent editorials in your newspaper, you list organizations that, in your opinion, stand on the ground of internationalism. Among them, one of the first places is occupied by... the Bund. We would like to know what specific grounds you have for classifying the Bund as internationalists?

The resolution of its Central Committee does not contain a single definite word on the burning questions of socialism. It exudes the most ideologically empty eclecticism. The organ of the Bund ("Information Bulletin") undoubtedly stands on the position of Germanophile chauvinism, or - provides a "synthesis" of French and German chauvinisms. Not without reason, Kosovsky's article adorned the pages of "Neue Zeit," a journal which (we hope you will agree with us) now belongs to the most indecent of the so-called "socialist" organs of the press.

We wholeheartedly stand for the unification of internationalists. We very much wish there were more of them. But we cannot deceive ourselves, we cannot classify as internationalists people and organizations that are known to be "dead souls" in terms of internationalism.

What do we mean by internationalism? Can, for example, supporters of the restoration of the International on the principle of mutual "amnesty" be classified as internationalists? As you know, the most prominent representative of the theory of "amnesty" is Kautsky. Victor Adler also spoke in the same spirit. We believe that the defenders of "amnesty" are the most dangerous opponents of internationalism.

An International restored on the principles of "amnesty" would lower socialism by a whole head. No concessions, no agreements with Kautsky and Co. are absolutely unacceptable. The most resolute struggle against the theory of "amnesty" is a conditio sine qua non* of internationalism. It is in vain to speak of internationalism if there is no desire and readiness to go to the end in breaking with the defenders of "amnesty." And so the question arises - do we agree on this fundamental issue? Your newspaper once mentioned, as if in passing, a negative attitude towards the policy of "amnesty." But you will agree that before taking any practical steps, we have the right to ask you to express your detailed view on this matter.

And in connection with this, the question of the attitude towards the OC arises. In our first letter to you**, we found it necessary to frankly tell you that there are serious grounds to doubt the internationalism of this institution. You did not attempt to dispel this opinion. We again ask you - what data do you have to consider the OC as standing on the ground of internationalism? After all, it cannot be seriously denied that the position of P. B. Axelrod, set forth in several of his printed statements, is clearly chauvinistic (almost Plekhanovian). And Axelrod is undoubtedly the most prominent representative of the OC. Take, further, the official statements of the OC. Its report on the Copenhagen conference was written in such tones that it was reprinted by the most extreme German chauvinists. The statements of the "Foreign Secretariat" of the OC are of the same kind. At best, they say nothing definite. On the other hand, Larin - officially on behalf of the OC, and not on behalf of some foreign secretariat - made

* - an essential condition. Ed.

** See this volume, pp. 60-63. Ed.

D. VAINKOPU. MAY 5, 1915

statements aimed at defending chauvinism. Where is the internationalism here? Is it not clear that the OC entirely stands on the position of mutual "amnesty"?

Furthermore, what guarantees exist that the OC represents any force in Russia? Now, after the appearance of "Nasha Zarya," this question is especially legitimate. The group "Nasha Zarya" has been pursuing its line for years; it has created a daily newspaper; it has conducted mass agitation in its spirit. But what about the OC?

We all recognize that the matter will be decided not by the balance of forces in foreign groups, in Zurich, Paris, and the like, but by influence among the workers of Petersburg and throughout Russia. This must be kept in mind in all our actions.

These are our considerations, which we wanted to express to you. We will be very pleased to receive from you a detailed and clear response to all these questions. Then we can think about the next steps.