V. I. Lenin

Source: en:CW/CW36; ru:PSS/v49;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

FOR ALEXANDER

23. V. 1916.

Dear Friend, I have just received from Gregory your letter to him of 19. V.

You write that you are “terribly sick of the correspondence and negotiations with *Kommunist*”. I quite understand you, but do have patience! Surely, since you have undertaken the negotiations, you must not get nervous and fall into despair! That is not the proletarian way, upon my word.

You raise two questions: (1) to co-opt two more persons (supporters of the Central Organ) on to the editorial board; (2) to set up a “Discussion Section” in *Kommunist*.

On the first point you write: “From talks with them I gathered that they have nothing against this, well, of course, with some pain in their hearts.”

I began to think over your plan. To take non-writers I consider (especially after all the sad experiences) a downright depravity and an act that cannot be justified before the Party. One writer could perhaps be found (I have one in mind; I must find out and think it over again and again before saying yes or no). As for the second—it is more difficult.

Could you not modify your plan, for the sake of practical feasibility, in the following way: either

*—Greetings! *Ed.*

the editorial board of the Central Organ co-opts (then there will be 7) two Party writers, if it finds such; or, if it finds only one, the publishers (he and she, the Kiev people) delegate one of their number to the editorial board? (then there will be 5: Bukharin + the publisher + 3 here). (The latter personally appeals to me especially, because (a) it would do away with inventing editors; (b) it would not detract from the “rights” of the publishers, since in any case it would be one against one, or two against two; (c) it would create an editorial board of writers, which is extremely important from the Party standpoint, for combating the tendency abroad to become editors.)

Think this over and reply (if it is not inconvenient, sound out the publishers).

As for the “Discussion Section”, your plan is debatable if it is set up practically and one little thing is eliminated which you could not have had in mind.

Practically, that means to establish exactly who has the right to insert a discussion article? All members of the editorial board. That is indisputable. Is that enough? I think so. The editorial board will consist of 5-7 persons.

The “little thing” is this. Discussion inside the Party. Indisputable. But what about stirring up differences or opening the door for groups abroad that are not in the Party?? That is the crux. The publishers made *Kommunist* impossible, because they did not want to discuss, they wrote and prepared nothing at all for discussion—but to play on Radek’s striving to creep into the cracks of our Party from outside. Both Radek, the “Nashé Slovo” people, and many others from groups abroad are bending over backwards to create divisions among us under the guise of discussion, to inflate discontent, to hamper work (the old game of the people abroad!).

You probably do not know that Radek has kicked us out of the editorial board of *Vorbote*? It was first agreed that the editorial board would be joint from two groups: (1) the Dutch (perhaps + Trotsky) and (2) we (i.e., Radek, Gr. and I). This condition gave us equality on the editorial board.

Radek intrigued for months and got the “hostess” (Roland-Holst) to cancel this plan. We were reduced to the status of contributors. A fact!

Is it expedient, as a reward for this feat, to give Radek the right of “discussion”, and the publishers the right to hide behind Radek? That would not be discussion, but squabbling and intrigue. (1) *Gazeta Robotnicza* (II. 1916), in which Radek participates, printed purely squabbling attacks against us and a resolution of the “Nashé Slovo” character. 302 (2) Now, on the question of appraising the Irish rebellion (a most important question, is it not? not bare “theory”!) both Radek and Kulisher (a Cadet in *Rech* ) 303 have agreed, stupidly calling it a “putsch”.

Incredible, but a fact!

If the publishers want, under the guise of “discussion”, to give a tribune to all groups abroad that wish to fight our Party without joining it, that is not discussion, that is a game.

If they do not want that, why not decide exactly, for example, that the right of discussion is limited to (1) members of the editorial board; (2) organisations in Russia; (3) the C.O.C. as the Party organisation abroad?

*Kommunist* was an alliance with the Dutch and Radek. This alliance has been altered by the fact that we have been kicked out of the Dutch-Radek journal from editors to contributors. Do not cherish harmful illusions that the alliance remains as before!! Harmful illusions!!

We must go forward ourselves, without letting our hands be tied. On no account.

Practical conclusion: think over (and I will think over and correspond with Gr.) the following paragraphs:

1) the composition of the editorial board is changed: 5 or 7 (see above);

2) a different firm is taken (“Symposium”, etc.);

3) an exact constitution on discussion (e.g., in the spirit of | ;

4) place of publication Switzerland (you say nothing about this point. What is the matter?);

5) the income is divided thus. Will the publishers agree to give 1/2 for transport and for the maintenance of the organiser of contacts, etc., i.e., you?

Reply!

Yours, V. Ulyanov

| .

A thousand best wishes and don’t get nervous. The leadership has no right to get nervous!!