Date: 1916-05-23
Source: ru:PSS/v49

21. V. 1916.

Dear Grigory!

I do not wish to turn our correspondence into a squabble. The matter is serious, and although I have already spoken about it several times, I will repeat it out of necessity.

After more than half a year of work with the "publishers" (from Kiev) and several months of comprehensive reflection on this experience, the editorial board of the Central Organ wrote them a letter in the winter of 1915, which you also signed. In this letter, the editorial board of the Central Organ stated that it was refusing to participate in "The Communist" for a whole series of very thoroughly explained reasons, which took up a lot of space in our letter and boiled down to the fact that we cannot take on party responsibility for such co-editors, that their attitude towards the matter is non-party, and that the temporary trial of cooperation must be considered unsuccessful.

We decided to publish "The Collection of 'Social-Democrat'."

Then you had some hesitations, leading to our last conversation in Kintal. I made a concession to you, agreeing to attempt to restore relations on the conditions: (1) the editorial board of the Central Organ would enter into an agreement with the publishers from issue to issue; (2) they would abandon their group position of "imperialist-economist" character and their "game" on disagreements with Radek and others.

These conditions were not written down, and now you are disputing them. But this dispute has become unimportant after you yourself laid out, in the draft of a letter to A., your conditions, and the publishers did not even accept these! (and you assured me that the matter was settled, that they would not insist on equality! ).

Therefore, the fact is that even if, after our meeting in Kintal, we accept your "interpretation," i.e., that I set greater conditions than you, even your lesser conditions were rejected by the publishers.

It goes without saying that your direct and unconditional duty after this was to attack the publishers with all your might, to break with them completely, and to make every effort to prove to Alexander that it is impossible to deal with these gentlemen as editors of a leading journal.

Instead, you propose to give in to them, to abandon all conditions, to take back the letter from the editorial board of the Central Organ that you signed! And this under the pretext that "they are not worth taking seriously": in reality, you are proposing that your policy not be taken seriously, you reduce the letter of the editorial board to who knows what, you renounce yourself, and you give the publishers the right to conclude that the editorial board of the Central Organ acted arbitrarily!

This is not just hesitation, but such hesitation cubed, which turns into something much worse.

I can only repeat once again why I am not joining "The Communist," why I consider it anti-party and harmful, and why I remain on the position of the editorial board's letter about breaking with the publishers.

With the publishers, we concluded a temporary "federation," calling it a "federation" and clearly stipulating its temporary nature, "as an experiment." When we entered into this temporary union, the publishers spoke out against Bukharin's vacillations (at the conference in Bern in March 1915), and there was not a single fact indicating the consolidation of this group of three (publishers + Bukharin) with special views.

After the first issue of the journal, such consolidation occurred among them, and when, after a long preliminary correspondence, I called their direction "imperialist economism," you wrote to me that you agreed. This was in March 1916. This confirmed once again the most detailed winter letter of the editorial board of the Central Organ.

The party—and international—situation is now such that the Central Committee must continue to move forward independently, not tying its hands in either Russian or international affairs. The "publishers," who are no good as writers or politicians (which the editorial board of the Central Organ was forced to acknowledge in the winter letter), want to bind us with an agreement on equality, i.e., we must agree to give equality to a lady who has not written a single line and understands nothing, and to a "young man" who is entirely under her influence. And they will use this equality to play on our disagreements with Radek, Bukharin, and others!

It is simply madness to agree to equality under such conditions; it means ruining all the work.

It is not true that they only want "discussion." For discussion, they have all the possibilities. They have money. Almost a year has passed. Why don't they write and publish discussion pamphlets? Because they do not want to bear responsibility themselves! This is clear. And this is precisely the mockery of party spirit, for whoever declares disagreements must think through the matter, come out openly, bear responsibility, and not "play" and claim "equality" when the party does not even know their position (and when they have no position).

That Bukharin stumbles at every step into the views he set out in writing in March 1915 (at the conference) and which you also rejected, is a fact. You acknowledged this fact by agreeing in March 1916 (a year later) with my assessment of "imperialist economism."

By giving "equality," you give the party equality to Bukharin's vacillations! You tie our hands and encourage these vacillations. This is a mad policy.

You know that Radek, first, was so "offended" (by our insistence on publishing our theses in Pankhurst's journal) that, as you wrote to me in March 1916, he "does not engage in any collegial work" with you! And the disagreements with him have not disappeared; on the contrary, you yourself agreed with me that his assessment of the Irish uprising is a banality. And you propose to give "equality" to the publishers, who hide behind Radek, playing (for 2000 frs!* ) on our disagreements with him!! This is a mad policy.

Second, Radek is one thing, and the editorial board of his newspaper ("Robitnycha Gazeta") is another. That this newspaper also engaged in a game (on the faction of Chkheidze, Trotsky, and others), you yourself admitted. Remember that this newspaper came out in February 1916 and that with your participation, a letter from the CC* was drafted against it. What kind of serious policy is it if we now give "equality" in our leading journal to people who want to make a career by "using" our struggle with the Poles, who betrayed us before Vandervelde and Kautsky on 3/16. VII. 1914??

Third, you know that in Kintal, Radek wanted to majoritize us among the left, at the meeting of the left, using Frölich, Robmants, and the like, and that an ultimatum was needed to make him recognize the independence of our Central Committee. What other "game" will these people conduct when the question of Junius (this question has already arisen) or the "mechanical separation" from the Kautskians comes up! Do you guarantee that there will be none?? If yes, then this would amount to a renunciation of our entire policy on your part. If no, then it is madness to tie our hands in the editorial board of our leading journal.

In no case will I go along with this mad policy. This is my final decision. I continue to believe that the publication of "The Collection of 'Social-Democrat'" alone untangles the matter (which you want to hopelessly tangle). "The Collection of 'Social-Democrat'" groups around us a number of extremely useful workers (Varin, Sаfarov, Latvians, and others), detaches Bukharin from the publishers to us, and gives us the opportunity to lead the party (and the international left), and not to follow in the wake of... the publisher lady.

Write to me exactly about your decision. Formally, the situation is now such that the editorial board of the Central Organ has broken with "The Communist," and its last attempt (even your lesser conditions) has been rejected. Therefore, it is necessary to announce the cessation of "The Communist" and the release of "The Collection of 'Social-Democrat.'"

I shake your hand and send my regards.

V. U.

Sent from Zurich to Bern

First published in 1934 in the journal "Proletarian Revolution" No. 4

Published from the manuscript