...recognise the editorial board of the Central Organ in the winter letter), they want to bind us with an agreement on equal rights, i.e., we must agree to grant equal rights to a lady who has not written a single line and understands absolutely nothing, and to a "young man" who is entirely under her influence. And they will use this equal rights to play on our disagreements with Radek, with Bukharin, etc.!

It is simply madness to agree to equal rights under such conditions; it means ruining all the work.

It is untrue that they want "only discussion." They have every opportunity for discussion. They have money. Almost a year has passed. Why do they not write and publish discussion pamphlets? Because they do not want to bear responsibility themselves! That is clear. And this is precisely a mockery of party spirit, for whoever declares disagreements must think the matter through, come out openly, bear responsibility, and not

"play games" nor lay claim to "equal rights" when the party does not even know their position (and when they have no position).

That Bukharin constantly stumbles into those views which he set forth in writing in March 1915 (at the conference) and which you also rejected, that is a fact. You acknowledged this fact by agreeing in March 1916 (a year later) with my assessment of "imperialist economism."

By granting "equal rights," you are granting before the party equal rights to Bukharin's waverings! You are tying our hands and encouraging these waverings. This is a mad policy.

You know that Radek, firstly, was so "offended" (by our insistence on placing our theses in Pannekoek's journal 301) that, as you yourself wrote to me in March 1916, he

conducts "no collegial work" with you! And the disagreements with him have not disappeared; on the contrary, you yourself agreed with me that his assessment of the Irish uprising is vulgar. And you propose to grant "equal rights" to publishers who hide behind Radek, playing (for 2000 frs!*) on our disagreements with him!! This is a mad policy.

* - francs! Ed.

Secondly, Radek is one thing, and the editorial board of his newspaper ("Gazeta Robotnicza") is another. That this newspaper also played a game (on the Chkheidze faction, Trotsky, etc.), you yourself acknowledged. Remember that this newspaper appeared in February 1916 and that a letter from the CCO* against it was drafted with your participation. What kind of serious policy is it if we now in our leading journal grant "equal rights" to people who want to make a career by "exploiting" our struggle with the Poles, who betrayed us before Vandervelde and Kautsky on 3/16 July 1914??

Thirdly, you know that at Kienthal Radek wanted to outvote us among the left, at a meeting of the left, using Fröhlich, Robmann, etc., and that an ultimatum was required to force him to recognise the independence of our CC.

What further "game" will these people play when the question arises of the attitude towards Junius (this question has already arisen) or of a "mechanical separation" from the Kautskyans, etc.! Do you guarantee that none? If so, that would amount on your part to a renunciation of all our policy. If not, then it is mad to tie our hands afterwards in the editorial board of our leading journal.

Under no circumstances do I agree to this mad policy. This is my final decision. I continue to think that the publication of the "Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata" alone unravels the matter (which you want to hopelessly entangle). The "Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata" groups around us a number of most useful workers (Varin, Safarov, the Latvians, etc.), tears Bukharin away from the publishers towards us, gives us the opportunity to lead the party (and the international left), and not to tail behind... the lady publisher.

Write to me precisely about your decision. Formally, the matter now stands as follows: the editorial board of the Central Organ has broken with "Kommunist," and its last attempt (even your lesser conditions) has been rejected. Therefore, it is necessary to

* See Works, 5th ed., Vol. 27, pp. 275-278. Ed.