V. I.

Lenin

105

To:   A. G. SHLYAPNIKOV

Dear Friend, Evidently Belenin’s decision about his “trip” has already
been taken, judging by the letter which Grigory has sent me
today. And the time is quite short! Yet we have particular
reason to exchange letters and come to an understanding
with him: this is now incredibly important. Therefore I
most earnestly request you to take all possible steps to see
Belenin personally , to pass on to him all that follows, and
frankly and also in detail write to me (without fail!) how
matters stand, i. e., whether or not there are difference?,
divergencies, etc., between us and Belenin, and what they
are (and how to eliminate them, if they exist).

The elimination of
James [4] (I earnestly ask you not to say one word about this elimination to a single person
abroad: you cannot imagine, how dangerous in all respects is
chatter abroad on these subjects, and in connection with
such events)—the elimination of James makes the position
critical and once again raises the question of the general
plan of work.

In my convinced opinion, this plan is composed, first, of the theoretical line, secondly, of the most immediate
tactical tasks and, thirdly, of direct organisational tasks.

(1) On the first point, the order of the day now is not only
the continuation of the line we have endorsed (against tsarism, etc.) in our resolutions and
pamphlet [1] (this line has been remarkably confirmed by events, by the split in
Britain, [5] etc.), but also cleansing it of the stupidities which
have accumulated, and the muddle about rejecting democracy (this includes disarmament, repudiation of self–
determination, the theoretically wrong rejection “in general” of
defence of the fatherland, the wobblings on the question
of the role and significance of the state in general, etc.).

It will be an extreme pity if Belenin does not receive my
article in reply to Kievsky (just yesterday it was sent to
be transcribed, and will be ready only in a few days). What
are we to do? Don’t neglect the necessity of coming to an
understanding on theoretical questions: really and truly,
it is essential for work in such difficult times. Think over
whether we could not put into effect the following plan (or
something similar); I am beginning to realise that
Belenin’s wife is not in America, as I thought, but in Spain,
through which Belenin will of course travel now. Could we
not organise the copying and passing on of manuscripts to
his wife in Spain? In that case perhaps my article, too, even
if sent in a week from now, would reach Belenin in time,
because he will certainly spend a few days in Spain.

Think it over; apart from this special case, regular correspondence with Belenin’s wife, and with Spain in general,
is extremely important. Spain is a supremely important point
just now, because it is still more convenient to work there
than in Britain and elsewhere.

I cannot dwell more fully on theoretical agreement. The
enemy has already seized on the stupid repudiation of the significance of democracy
(Potresov [6] in No. 1 of Dyelo ).
Bazarov has made a fool of himself in Letopis . Bogdanov is
talking another kind of balderdash, but also balderdash in
Letopis . An exceptionally suspicious bloc of the Machists
and the O.C.–ists has come into being there. A shameful
bloc! It’s hardly likely that we can break it up.... Should
we perhaps try a bloc with the Machists against, the O.C.–
ists? Hardly likely to succeed!! Gorky is always supremely
spineless in politics, a prey to emotion and passing moods.

The legal press in Russia is acquiring exceptional, importance, and therefore the question of the correct line, too,
becomes still more and more important, because it is easier
for the enemy to “bombard” us in this field.

The best thing would be, probably, if Belenin could have
a “base” in Spain and receive our letters and manuscripts
there: we could continue our discussion, exchange letters,
Belenin could return there soon after his short trip further on
(for the danger is very great, and it would be much more
useful for our cause if Belenin made brief trips round a few
cities and then returned to Spain, or to where he is now,
or to a neighbouring country to consolidate contacts, etc.).

On the second point. The main thing now, I think, is to
publish popular leaflets and manifestos against tsarism.
Consider whether this could be organised in Spain? If not,
we shall prepare them here and send them on. For this the most efficient transport contacts are essential. You were
quite right: the Japanese have proved absolutely useless.
Best of all would be foreigners, with whom we could correspond in English or some other foreign language. I will not
dwell on the question of transport, because you yourself
realise and know this. The trouble is that there is no money,
but they should collect some in Petersburg.

The main Party question in Russia has been and remains the question of “unity”. Trotsky in the 500 or 600 issues of
his paper has not managed to speak out, or to think out,
fully whether there is to be unity with Chkheidze, Skobelev and Co., or not. I think there are still some “unifiers”
in Petersburg as well, though very weak (was it not they who
published Rabochiye Vedomosti in
Petersburg?). [7] “Makar”, they say, is in Moscow and also playing the conciliator.
Conciliationism and unificationism is the most harmful thing for the workers’ party in Russia—not just idiocy,
but the destruction of the Party. For in practice “ unification” (or conciliation and the like) with Chkheidze and
Skobelev (they are the key point, because they give themselves
out to be “internationalists”) is “unity” with the O.C., and
through it with Potresov and Co., i.e., in practice it is playing the lackey to the social-chauvinists. If Trotsky and Co.
have not understood this, so much the worse for them.
Dyelo No. 1 and—especially—the participation of the workers in the war industries committees, prove that this is so.

Not only in elections to the Duma the day after peace is signed, but in general on all questions of Party practice,
“unity” with Chkheidze and Co. is the essential question today. We can rely only on those who have understood just
how deceptive the idea of unity is and how necessary it is
to break with that fraternity (Chkheidze and Co.) in Russia.
Belenin ought to rally only such people as leaders.

By the way, a split on the international scale is also due.
I consider it quite timely now that all class-conscious
leading workers in Russia should understand this, and should
adopt resolutions in favour of an organisational break with
the Second International, with the International Bureau of
Huysmans, Vandervelde and Co., in favour of building a
Third International only against the Kautskians of all countries (Chkheidze and Co., also Martov and Axelrod =
the Russian Kautskians). only in rapprochement with people who lake the stand of the Zimmerwald Left.

On the third point. The most pressing question now is the weakness of contacts between us and leading workers in
Russia!! No correspondence!! No one but James, and now he has gone!! We can’t go on like that. We cannot organise
either the publication of leaflets or transport, either
agreement about manifestos or sending over their drafts, etc.,
etc., without regular secret correspondence. That is the key
question!

This Belenin did not do on his first visit (probably he
couldn’t at the time). Convince him, for Christ’s sake,
that this must be done on the second visit! It must be done!!
The immediate success of the visit, really and truly, must
be measured by the number of contacts!! (Of course the personal influence of Belenin is still more important, but ho
will not be able to stop anywhere for long without destroying himself and harming the cause.) The number of contacts
in each city will be the measure of the success of his visit!!

Two-thirds of the contacts, as a minimum, in each city,
should be with leading workers , i.e., they should write
themselves, themselves master secret correspondence (artists
are made, not born), should themselves each train up 1–2
“heirs” in case of arrest. This should not be entrusted to
the intelligentsia alone. Certainly not. It can and must be
done by the loading workers. Without this it is impossible
to establish continuity and purpose in our work—and that
is the main thing.

That’s all, I think.

As regards legal literature, I will also add:

it is important to ascertain whether they will accept my
articles in Letopis (if the O.C.–ists cannot be thrown out
by moans of a bloc with the Machists). With restrictions?
Which?

We must find out in greater detail about
Volna. [8]

As regards myself personally, I will say that I need to
earn. Otherwise we shall simply die of hunger, really and
truly!! The cost of living is devilishly high, and there is
nothing to live on. The cash must be dragged by force [2] out
of the publisher of Letopis , to whom my two pamphlets [3] have been sent (let him pay at once and as much as possible!).
The same with Bonch. The same as regards translations . If
this is not organised I really will not be able to hold out,
this is absolutely serious, absolutely, absolutely.

I shake you firmly by the hand and send a thousand best
wishes to Belenin. Drop me a line that you have received
this immediately , just two words.

Yours, Lenin

P.S. Write frankly , in what state of mind Bukharin is leaving? Will he write to us or not? Will he carry out our
requests or not? Correspondence (with America) is possible
only through Norway. Tell him this and arrange it.

---
Notes:
[1]
The resolutions of the Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. Groups
Abroad and the pamphlet Socialism and War (see present edition,
Vol. 21, pp. 158–64, 295–338).— Ed .

[2]
About cash Belenin will have a talk with Katin, and with
Gorky himself, of course if it is not inconvenient.— Lenin

[3]
Reference is to New Data on the Laws Governing the Development of Capitalism in Agriculture and Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (see present edition, Vol. 22, pp. 13–102, 185–304).— Ed .

[4]
Elimination of James meant the arrest of Anna Yelizarova in
Petrograd.

[5]
Reference is to the split in the British Socialist Party at the
Manchester Conference in April 1916, at which the Right, opportunist wing
of the party, Hyndman and his supporters, were outvoted and left the
party. The leadership of the British Socialist Party was then taken over by
internationalist elements, which actively opposed the imperialist war. The
British Socialist Party laid the foundation for the Communist Party of
Great Britain, which was formed in 1920.

[6]
Potresov, A. N. (1869–1934)—a Menshevik leader. In the years of reaction and subsequent revolutionary revival he was an ideologist
of liquidationism. During the First World War he became a
social-chauvinist.

[7]
Pokrovsky, M. N. (1868–1932)—member of the Bolshevik Party
from 1905, prominent Soviet statesman and historian.

From 1908 to 1917 he lived abroad. During the years of reaction he
became associated with the otzovists and ultimatumists, and then with the
anti-Party Vperyod group, with which he broke in 1911. During the
imperialist world war he worked for the Centrist newspapers Golos
and Nashe Slovo , returning to Russia in 1917. From November 1917
to March 1918, he was Chairman of the Moscow Soviet, from 1919, Deputy
Commissar for Education of the R.S.F.S.R., and from 1929 onwards, a member
of the Academy of Sciences.

[8]
Organising Committee —the Mensheviks’ leading centre, was
formed in 1912 at the August Conference of Menshevik liquidators,
Trotskyists and other anti-Party groups and trends.