V. I.

Lenin

100

To:   G. Y. ZINOVIEV

May 21, 1910

Dear Grigory, I don’t want to turn our correspondence into an
altercation. The question is a serious one and, although I have
discussed it more than once, I will repeat my views since it is
a necessity.

After more than six months’ work with the “publishers” (from Kiev) and several months of thinking over this
experience from every point of view, the editorial board of
the Central Organ sent them in the winter of 1915 a letter
which you also signed. In this letter the editorial board
stated that it was giving up participation in Kommunist ,
on account of a number of considerations which were set
forth in exceptional detail, took up a great deal of space in
our letter, and amounted to this: that we could not assume
Party responsibility for such co-editors, that their attitude
to the cause was a non-Party one, and that we must regard
the temporary attempt to reach understanding as unsuccessful.

We decided to publish Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata .

Then you began to have hesitations, which led to our last
talk at Kienthal. I made a concession to you by agreeing
to an attempt to restore relations, on the condition that
(1)
there should be an agreement between the editorial board
of the Central Organ and the publishers for each issue;
(2)
they should give up their group position of an “ imperialist economic” character, their “playing” on the differences
with Radek, etc.

These conditions were not written down, and you now dispute them. But that dispute has become unimportant, since you yourself have set forth in writing, in your draft
letter to A., your conditions, and the publishers have not
accepted even these ! (and you had been assuring me that the
question was settled, that they would not insist on equal
rights!).

The fact is, consequently, that if, even after our meeting
at Kienthal, one were to accept your “interpretation”, i.e.,
that I had laid down more extensive conditions than you,
even so, your lesser conditions have also been rejected by
the publishers.

It is obvious that your direct and unquestionable duty after this was to attack the publishers with all your strength,
to break with them for good, and to use every effort to prove
to Alexander that it was impossible to have any dealings
with these gentry as editors of a leading journal.

Instead of this you propose to surrender to them, to renounce all conditions and to withdraw the letter written
by the editorial board of the Central Organ which you yourself signed! And this on the pretext that “they should not
be taken seriously”. In reality, what you are proposing is
that your policy should not be taken seriously. You reduce
the letter from the editorial board to devil knows what,
abjure your own point of view and give the right to the
publishers to draw the conclusion that the editorial board of
the Central Organ was merely throwing its weight about!

These are no longer hesitations, these are hesitations cubed, which are turning into something much worse.

It remains for me only to repeat for the last time why I
don’t enter Kommunist , why I consider it anti-Party and
harmful, why I maintain the position of the letter from the
editorial board of the Central Organ breaking with the publishers.

We concluded a temporary “federation” with the publishers, and called it a “federation” in so many words, quite
definitely making a reservation about its temporary character, “as an experiment”. When we concluded this temporary
alliance, the publishers were opposing the wobblings of
Bukharin (at the Conference in Berne in March 1915), and there
was not a single fact pointing to any rapprochement of this
group of three (the publishers + Bukharin) with special
views of their own.

But after the very first number of the journal they did
come together in this way, and when, after a long preliminary correspondence, I called their trend “imperialist
Economism”, you wrote to me that you agreed. This was in
March 1910. It confirmed once more the most detailed letter
from the editorial hoard of the Central Organ written during
the winter.

The Party—and international—situation now is such that the Central Committee must continue to go ahead
independently, not lying its hands either in Russian or in
international affairs. The “publishers”, good for nothing as writers
and as politicians (which the editorial board of the Central
Organ was obliged to recognise in its winter letter), want to
tie us down with an agreement about equal rights , i.e., we
must agree to grant equal rights to a lady who hasn’t written
a single line and doesn’t understand a single thing, and to a
“young man” who is entirely under her influence. And they
will make use of this equality to play on our differences
with Radek, with Bukharin and others!

It is simply madness to agree to equal rights on such conditions, it means ruining all the work.

It is not true that they want “only a discussion”. They
have every opportunity for a discussion. They have money.
Nearly a year has gone by. Why don’t they write, why don’t they publish discussion pamphlets? Because they
don’t want to take responsibility themselves ! That is clear.
And it is this that constitutes their mockery of Party principles, because anyone who proclaims that he has differences
must think out his case, come forward openly, face his responsibility, and not “play” and not aspire to “equality”
when the Party does not even know the position they take
up (and when they have no position).

It is a fact that Bukharin stumbles at every step into the views which he set forth in writing in March 1915 (at the
Conference), and which you also rejected. You admitted this
fact by agreeing in March 1916 (a year later) with my assessment of “imperialist Economism”.

By granting “equality”, you grant equality in face of the Party to the wobblings of Bukharin! You tie our hands
and encourage these wobblings. That is an insane policy.

You know that Radek, in the first place, was so “ offended” (at our insistence on the printing of our theses in
Pannekoek’s journal [2] ) that—as you yourself wrote to me in
March 1916—he carries on “no team work” with you! And the differences with him have not disappeared; on the
contrary, you yourself agreed with me that his estimate of the
Irish insurrection was a philistine one. And you propose to
give “equality” to publishers who hide behind Radek, playing (for 2,000 francs!) on our differences with him!!
This is an insane policy.

Secondly, Radek is one thing and the editorial board of
his paper ( Gazeta Robotnicza ) is another. That this paper
has also started a game (using the Chkheidze group, Trotsky,
etc.) you yourself have admitted. Remember that this paper appeared in February 1916, and that the letter of
the Committee of Organisations
Abroad [1] against it was worked out with your participation. Well then, is it serious
politics if we now in our leading journal grant “equality”
to people who want to make their career by “utilising” our
struggle with the Poles, who betrayed us to Vandervelde
and Kautsky on July 3 (16), 1914??

Thirdly, you know that at Kienthal Radek wanted to build up a majority against us among the Left, at the
meeting of the Left, making use of Fröhlich, the Robmann
woman, etc., and that an ultimatum was required to force him
to recognise the independence of our Central Committee.
What new “game” will these people make of this when the
question arises of the attitude to Junius (the question has
already arisen), or of a “mechanical separation” from the
Kautskians and others! Do you guarantee that there will
be none?? If you do, this would amount on your part to renouncing all our policy. If you don’t, then it is insane to
tie our hands after this in the editorial board of our leading
journal.

In no circumstances do I accept this insane policy. This
is my final decision. I continue to think that only the
publication of Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata disentangles the affair
(which you want to put in a hopeless tangle). Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata groups around us a number of most useful
workers (Varin, Safarov, the Letts, etc.), detaches Bukharin from the publishers to us, enables us to lead the Party (and
the international Left) and not to march at the tail of ...
Madam Publisher.

Write to me precisely what your decision is. Formally the matters now stand in this way, that the editorial board
of the Central Organ has broken with Kommunist , and its
final attempt (even your lesser conditions) has been rejected.
That means that we must announce in print that Kommunist
has stopped, and that Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata is going
to appear.

I shake your hand and send you salut .

V. U.

---
Notes:
[1]
See present edition, Vol. 22, pp. 157–60.— Ed .

[2]
Lenin is referring to the magazine Vorbote (Herald), the
theoretical organ of the Zimmerwald Left. It appeared in German in Berne.
Two issues were published: No. 1 in January and No. 2 in April 1916. Its
official publishers were Henriette Roland-Hoist and Anton Pannekoek. Lenin
took an active part in the foundation of the magazine and, after the publication of No. 1, in organising its translation
into French, so that it could be more widely distributed.