V. I.

Lenin

To:   A. G. SHLYAPNIKOV

Dear A., Evidently there has been an interruption in our
correspondence, and quite a number of misunderstandings have
been caused by your not receiving our second letter sent to
Stockholm. Otherwise I cannot understand how you can write
that we don’t answer your questions. We replied to everything in the greatest detail;
it was you who didn’t reply to us. N. K. is writing very often; we will have to be patient
and repeat some things in order to achieve results. It is
essential to maintain regular correspondence.

About Kommunist you write to me that the split with
Chkheidze arouses no doubts. In whom? In Bukharin and Co.!
But what I wrote was that this relates not to Bukharin and Co. but to Radek and Co.

Kommunist was our temporary bloc with two groups or elements—(1) Bukharin and Co.,
(2) Radek and Co. While it was possible to march together with them, this was the
right thing to do .
Now it is not —and we must temporarily part or, more correctly, move away.

The Poles adopted in the summer of 1915 ( after No. 1–2
of Kommunist ) and printed only in 1916 a resolution which
once again showed their wobblings on the question of
Chkheidze.
Is it reasonable now to afford them the possibility and right (they are, after all, staff members of Kommunist !!)
to muscle in and spoil the journal with their squabbling??

In my belief, it is not reasonable. It is much more useful
for the cause to take another title ( Sbornik Sotsial– Demokrata ) and wait a while , until the Poles have learned better
(or until they come under Germany) or until the situation
changes.

Further. About Bukharin and Co. I will certainly send you (though not very soon, because it depends on a journey
to Berne) Bukharin’s “theses” of the spring of 1915. Then
you will see what it is all about:

1) In the spring of 1915 Bukharin (at the Conference!)
writes theses in which he is visibly rolling down into the
swamp . The
Japanese [2] are against him. (Therefore we temporarily accept the maximum of concessions in Kommunist ,
in order to create a form convenient for clearing up the
affair: shall we succeed in overcoming Bukharin’s waverings “in comradely fashion”? will E. B., who calls herself
a Bolshevik, help in this or not?)

2) In the summer of 1915 (or approaching the autumn)
Bukharin-H^e Japanese , now as a group of three, sign the
theses about self-determination. Utterly wrong , in our
opinion, and a repetition of Bukharin’s mistakes.

3) At the beginning of 1916 Bukharin on the question of
the “Dutch Programme” (from No. 3 of the Bulletin of the
I.S.C.) again returns to the ideas of his spring theses of
1915!!!

The conclusion? A bloc is impossible in this case also .
We must wait until Bukharin’s waverings have ceased.
A journal which would be an organ of Polish-Bukharin waverings would be harmful . It would be harmful in such
a situation to cling to the old title, and not to be capable
of selecting another ( Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata ).

The non-Party and dishonest behaviour of the Japanese lies in this, that they want to throw the responsibility for
their wobblings on us . Excuse us, kind friends, we shall not
allow you to do this! If you want to be Party people, you
will help us partly in money to publish Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata , where we (after all, we are not wobbling) will
analyse your mistakes in comradely fashion without naming
you, not giving the enemy the chance to rejoice and gloat.

Moreover, if the Japanese took seriously the most serious
question of differences (abroad il n’y a qu’un pas [1] to a
separate faction!! You can believe me, I’ve been seeing this
happen for about 20 years!!), they would force themselves
to study the difference, think it over, work at it (they did not think and did not study, but, simply blurted out the first thing that came into their heads ). They would have
given a full statement of their differences, either in a
manuscript for an intimate circle of leading comrades (who could
have helped in not giving publicity to the question in the
press), or in a pamphlet if they wanted to “go into print”
(they’ve got the money).

Then they themselves would he answering for their “ideas”.
That is essential. If you want to teach the workers now
truths— answer for them , and don’t throw responsibility on
us, don’t hide behind us (we are nobodies, let Lenin and Co.
answer to the Party for the “discussion”, i.e., for the
gloating of our enemies).

No, kind friends!! That won’t wash!! I am not going to answer for your wobblings. We shall publish Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata even without your help, Messrs. Japanese.
We shall grant you a postponement : think it over, clear up
your ideas, decide finally whether you want to assume responsibility for a new muddle or not. If all you want is to
“match” us against the Poles and the Dutch in the Russian
press, that we won’t allow you to do.

This is the situation, these are my views; and I repeat that
I will certainly send you Bukharin’s spring theses, so that
you can judge the whole situation according to the documents.

N. K. is writing today about self-determination. We are
not for fragmentation. But what about the question of annexations? Bukharin and Co. (just like Radek with Rosa
Luxemburg and Pannekoek) have not thought over what it means to be “against old and new annexations” (the
formula in the press drawn up by Radek)?? Why, that is “
self-determination of nations”, only expressed in other words!

Well, so long until next time.

Yours, Lenin

---
Notes:
[1]
There is but one step.— Ed .

[2]
The “Japanese” was a name for G. L. Pyatakov and Eugène Bosh,
who emigrated from Russia to Switzerland through Japan.