# TO G. Y. ZINOVIEV

Source: PSS vol 49

I had a translation of the Dutch "Annullierung der Staatsschulden"**. One can put "state" instead of "military"; the difference, in my opinion, is very insignificant.

How to punish the "concierges"? Their share in the total debt is negligible, and they can be assigned a pension from the state treasury (if they served as concierges for a long time).

If you continue to "doubt," don't insert it or postpone the issue for 2 days. I think this Dutch point, as an exception, is suitable for the "program of peace" (can be added) as the only positive demand, in connection with the revolution or with the mass struggle (I don't remember if I inserted this?)... it must be...

It's awkward if we insert it later, but there won't be an article on this topic in the Central Organ. It's better to postpone it for two days and get in touch.

* See Works, 5th ed., vol. 27, pp. 274 and 290. Ed.

** "Annulment of state debts" (this is the name of the first point of the draft program of the Revolutionary Socialist Union to the Social-Democratic Party of Holland, printed in "Bulletin Isk" No. 3, February 29, 1916). Ed.

I will arrange things with the Wiener "Arbeiter-Zeitung," I will inquire about Tyszka (isn't he in the "Schriften des Vereins fur Sozial-Politik"?*).

About agreements with Alexander (he went to Norway, where A. K. is, and now we must put pressure on him especially).

I absolutely cannot agree to I + II about "Kommunist."

Your arguments are extremely inconsistent.
... "Only to maneuver"?.. If so, why risk the cause?

"We are to blame for getting involved with the woman"... Of course! But those who are to blame are the first to correct things. What kind of logic is this: I am to blame, therefore I do not correct things!!!

I do not consider myself "guilty": then the bloc was useful. I concluded it. Now it is harmful. I will be guilty if I do not change it.

You have not even touched upon my business arguments: squabbling among employees (on 3 issues), complaints to the Central Committee; letters to the editorial office; letters to "Nashe Slovo" (Bronsky, perhaps Radek, etc.). . = squabbling, not business.

Because of what? Because of the "firm"?? This is ridiculous.

I received N. I.'s answer to the theses: the height of piggishness, not a word thought out.

With Alexander, it is necessary to raise the question in principle: after No. 1-2, they came out with "disagreements." It is impossible to give equality (or a place) in the editorial office with such disagreements. This is unacceptable. Collect N. I.'s old vacillations on the same question (about democracy) and demand: let them think it over, digest it, write a justification for all their disagreements for the Central Committee (a small pamphlet). Not for publication, but for the Central Committee. We will analyze it and reject it, and in the meantime, "Sbornik 'Social-Demokrata'".

Salut.

Answer.

---

Written March 20 or 21

Sent from Zurich to Bern

Published for the first time, from the manuscript

* - "Works of the Society for Social Policy." Ed.