V. I.

Lenin

For Comrade Alexander

Dear Alexander, Of course we shall give Belenin 300 kronen, if he has
already so firmly decided on his plan for a trip. It will be
a pity if he goes. In any case, you must do everything to
ensure his return in a few months.

As regards the “Japanese”, you shouldn’t think that they
have made “considerable concessions” in the draft you have
sent on. They haven’t made any at all! On the contrary,
the demand that the two should have the right to haul in
dissenting contributors is an innovation , an addition, a
surenchère . And this innovation clearly exposes their “policy” in the worst sense of the word. If the founders, the
publishers, the young contributors want freedom of opinion
for themselves —freedom of discussion—that is legitimate.
But if people, behind this legitimate desire, try to smuggle
in “discussion” which is not their own , but that of “ contributors”, isn’t it clear that this is a game?

Never has there been anything like this anywhere. If the two want publicity for all kinds of intrigues abroad—let
them go ahead, and let them be responsible for it . I cannot participate in this either directly or indirectly.

You will ask, perhaps, where is the proof that it is a question of intrigues abroad? I wrote to you about this
long ago , and you have not replied a single time. The proof
is the issue of Gazeta Robotnicza (February 1976), from
which we have Radek and Bronski as “contributors”.

That is a fact.

These gentlemen were the first in the Zimmerwald Left to start an intrigue —and at what a time! They want to
“play off” Chkheidze and Trotsky.

At such a moment the two publishers do not blush to propose to us that we should give them “freedom and a
guarantee” of discussion for such contributors! This is
either madness, or the height of impudence.

And equal representation with them (6=3+3), is that not
the same thing? Why, they once gave you to understand (and you wrote this yourself ) that they would accept the
co-opting of two, supporters of the C.O. But when it came
to having a written agreement, they beat a retreat. Isn’t
that the game of petty hucksters?

If people are in agreement, sincerely and in principle,
to have a journal or a miscellany support the Programme
of the Party, then the majority must be for it. Otherwise
there is no sincerity, no principle, only “the purse strings”.

My view is, explain all this to them clearly, in popular
language, if necessary in writing, and give them an ultimatum: either this way (7=4+3), or you send in your
conclusion about their “game” to the
Bureau. [1] That will be the correct Party reply.

All the best, Yours, Lenin

---
Notes:
[1]
On A. Shlyapnikov’s proposal, the C.C. Bureau in Russia
examined the friction within the editorial board of Kommunist and
adopted the following resolution: “Having heard the statement
of Comrade Belenin (A. Shlyapnikov) concerning the differences
within the collegium of workers of the Party press on various
points of the Party programme and tactics, the C.C. Bureau deems
it necessary to inform the C.O. editorial board abroad of the following: =

1) The C.C. Bureau in Russia, declaring its complete
solidarity with the main line of the C.C., being conducted in the
C.O., Sotsial-Demokrat , expresses the wish that all C.C.
publications should be edited in a strictly consistent spirit, in
complete accord with the C.C. line adopted by it at the outbreak of
war; =

2) The Bureau goes on record as opposing the transformation
of C.C. publications into discussion publications; =

3) The Bureau
believes that the differences between contributors on some
questions of the minimum programme and the C.O. editorial board
cannot be an obstacle to their participation in C.C. publications,
and invites the C.O. Editorial Board to accept their collaboration
on other questions which are not at issue; =

4) The Bureau suggests
that private publishers should be used in Russia and abroad to
clear up and eliminate differences through the issue of special
discussion collections.”