V. I. Lenin

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

In my opinion it is not worth it. It would be far more useful for the cause to take another firm (*Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata*) and wait until the Poles have learned their lesson (or until they go over to Germany) or until the situation changes.

Further. Regarding Bukharin and Co. I shall certainly send you (though not very soon, for that depends on a trip to Berne) Bukharin’s “theses” of the spring of 1915. Then you will see what the point is:

1) In the spring of 1915 Bukharin writes (at the conference!) theses in which he is obviously heading for the bog. The Japanese are against him. (That is why we are temporarily going to the maximum of concessions in *Kommunist*, in order to create a form convenient for clearing up the matter: will it be possible to overcome Bukharin’s vacillations in a “comradely” way? Will Ye. B., who calls herself a Bolshevik, help in this or not?).

2) In the summer of 1915 (or towards autumn) Bukharin + the Japanese already sign theses in a group of three on self-determination. In our conviction, this is radically wrong and a repetition of Bukharin’s mistakes.

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

Conclusion? A bloc is impossible here too: we must wait until Bukharin’s vacillations come to an end. A journal, as the organ of Polish-Bukharinist vacillations, would be harmful. In such a situation it would be harmful to cling to the old firm and not be able to choose another firm (*Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata*).

The unprincipled, dishonest behaviour of the Japanese consists in their wanting to shift on to us the responsibility for their vacillations. Excuse me, my dear fellows, we shall not allow you to do that! If you want to be party people, you will help partly with money for the publication of *Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata*, in which we (we, after all, are not vacillating) will comradely examine your mistakes, without naming you, without giving the enemies an opportunity to exult and gloat.

And besides, if the Japanese took the extremely serious question of disagreements seriously (abroad il n’y a qu’un pas* to a separate faction!! Believe me, I have been observing this for nearly 20 years!!), they would make themselves work on the disagreement, think it over, study it (they have not thought or studied, but simply blurted out something). They would set forth their disagreements as a whole either in a manuscript for a narrow circle of leading comrades (who could help not to bring the question into the press), or in a pamphlet, if they want to “publish” (they have the money).

Then they themselves would be responsible for their “ideas”. That is necessary. If you want to teach the workers new truths, you must answer for them, and not shift the responsibility on to us, not hide behind us (we are not to blame, let Lenin and Co. answer to the party for the “discussion”, i.e., for the gloating of the enemies).

No, my dear fellows!! That trick won’t work!! I shall not answer for your vacillations.

We shall publish *Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata* even without your help, Messrs. Japanese. We shall give you a respite: think it over, get the matter straight, decide, finally, whether you want to take upon yourselves the responsibility for new confusion or not. If you only want to “set us at loggerheads” in the Russian press with the Poles and the Dutch, we shall not allow you to do that.

That is the state of affairs, those are my considerations; and I repeat that I shall certainly send you Bukharin’s spring theses so that you may judge the whole situation from the documents.

N. K. is writing today about self-determination. We are not for splitting up. And what about the question of annexations? Bukharin and Co. (like Radek with Rosa Luxemburg and Pannekoek) have not thought what it means to be “against old and new annexations” (the formula given by Radek in the press)??

Why, that is “self-determination of nations”, only expressed in other words!

Well, until next time.

Yours, Lenin

Written to Christiania (Oslo)

Published in the journal