V. I.

Lenin

106

To:   FRANZ KORITSCHONER [2]

October 25, 1916

Dear Friend, We regret very much that you haven’t written a single
line to us so far. One must hope that the big events in Vienna
will stimulate you at long last to write to us in detail.

Berner Tagwacht (and then other papers) printed a report
that at a war factory in Speyer (Austria) there was a strike
of 24,000 workers, that Czech soldiers opened fire, and that
700 (seven hundred!) workers were killed! How much truth
is there in this? Please let us know about it in as much
detail as you can.

As regards the act of Friedrich
Adler, [3] I would beg you to let us know the details.

The papers here ( Berner Tagwacht and Volksrecht —do you get them both, or neither?) extol this act. Avanti!
(does Avanti! reach you?) states that Friedrich Adler was
the author of the famous manifesto of the Austrian internationalists. Is that true? And is it now convenient to speak
about this openly?

(1) Did Friedrich Adler tell anyone about his plan?
(2) Did he give any friend any documents, letters, statements
to be published later?
(3) Is it true, as the Vienna Arbeiter Zeitung writes, that everywhere (both in the railway club
and in other places) be was in a minority (and how big was that minority?),
(4)——that his position in the organisation had become “unbearable” (?)—(5)—that at the last
party conference he received only seven votes?—(6) that
at the last two meetings of trusted agents he attacked the party extremely sharply and demanded “demonstrations”?
(What kind precisely?)

Please write us in as much detail as possible about all
these questions, and in general give us more information
and details about Friedrich Adler. Unless you give us special instructions to (he contrary, we shall print in our
papers everything that we get from you (and will also publish them—as material from our editorial office—in the
local German-language press).

As regards the political assessment of the act, we maintain, of course, our old conviction, confirmed by decades
of experience, that individual terrorist acts are inexpedient
methods of political struggle.

“ Killing is no murder,” [1] wrote our old Iskra about terrorist acts; we are not at all opposed to political killing
(in this sense the servile writings of the opportunists in
Vorwärts and the Vienna Arbeiter Zeitung are simply revolting), but as revolutionary tactics individual attacks are
inexpedient and harmful. Only the mass movement can be considered genuine political struggle. Only in direct,
immediate connection with the mass movement can and must
individual terrorist acts be of value. In Russia the terrorists
(against whom we always struggled) carried out a number
of individual attacks; but in December 1905, when matters
at last reached the stage of a mass movement, insurrection—
when it was necessary to help the masses to use violence—
then just at that moment the “terrorists” were missing .
That is where the terrorists make their mistake.

Adler would have been of much greater help to the revolutionary movement if, without being afraid of a split,
he had systematically gone over to illegal propaganda and agitation. It would be very good if some Left group
were found to publish a leaflet in Vienna which would inform the workers of its view; if it branded in the sharpest
possible way the servile behaviour of the Vienna Arbeiter Zeitung and Vorwärts , morally justified Adler’s act (“
killing is no murder”), but as a lesson for the workers declared:
not terrorism but systematic, prolonged, self-sacrificing
activity in revolutionary propaganda and agitation, demonstrations, etc., etc., against the lackey-like opportunist
party, against , the imperialists, against one’s own governments, against the war that is what is needed.

Tell us also, please, how right it would be to regard
Adler’s act as a gesture of despair ? I think that politically
it is so. He had lost his faith in the party, he could not
bear the fact that it was impossible to work with this party,
that it was impossible to work with Victor Adler, he could
not accept the idea of a split and take upon himself the
burdensome task of a struggle against the party. And as
a result of his despair came this attempt.

An act of despair of a Kautskian ( Volksrecht writes that
Adler was not a supporter of the Zimmerwald Left, but rather a Kautskian).

But we revolutionaries cannot fall into despair. We are not afraid of a split. On the contrary, we recognise
the necessity of a split, we explain to the masses why a
split is inevitable and necessary, we call for work against
the old party and for revolutionary mass struggle.

What trends ( resp. what individual shades of opinion)
exist in Vienna and in Austria in assessing Adler’s act?
I am afraid that the Vienna Government will declare
Friedrich Adler insane, and not let matters come to a trial.
But if they do, it will certainly be essential to organise
the distribution of leaflets.

Write more and in greater detail, and observe exactly all technical precautions.

Best greetings!

Yours,
N. Lenin

---
Notes:
[1]
These words were written by Lenin in English.— Ed .

[2]
Koritschoner, Franz ( Nadin ) (1891–1942)—one of the men who founded the Austrian Communist Party in 1918, and a member of its
Central Committee until 1927. He edited the party’s central organ, Die Rote Fahne (The Red Banner).

[3]
Friedrich Adler , one of the leaders of the Austrian
Social-Democrats, had murdered the Austrian Prime Minister Karl Stürgkh.