V. I. Lenin

Letter To The Central Committee
Of The R.S.D.L.P.(B.)

Dear Comrades, No self-respecting party can tolerate strike-breaking and
blacklegs [Scabs— Transcriber ] in its midst. That is obvious. The more we reflect upon Zinoviev's and
Kamenev's statement in the non-Party press, the more self-evident it becomes that their action is strike-breaking in
the full sense of the term. Kamenev's evasion at the meeting of
the Petrograd Soviet is something really despicable. He is,
don't you see, in full agreement with Trotsky: But is it so
difficult to understand that in the face of the enemy, Trotsky
could not have said, he had no right to say, and should
not have said more than he did? Is it so difficult to understand
that it is a duty to the Party which has concealed its decision from the enemy (on the necessity for an
armed uprising, on the fact that the time for it is fully ripe,
on the thorough preparations to be made for it, etc.), and it is
this decision that makes it obligatory in public statements to fasten not only the "blame", but also the
initiative upon the adversary? Only a child could fail to
understand that. Kamenev's evasion is a sheer fraud. The same
must be said of Zinoviev's evasion, at least of his letter of
"justification"(written, I think, to the Central Organ), which
is the only document I have seen(for, as to a dissenting
opinion, "an alleged dissenting opinion", which has been
trumpeted in the bourgeois press, I, a member of the
Central Committee, have to this very day seen nothing of it). Among Zinoviev's "arguments" there is this: Lenin, he
says, sent out his letters "before any decisions were adopted", and you did not protest. That is literally what
Zinoviev wrote, himself underlining the word before four times. Is it really so difficult to understand that
before a decision has been taken on a strike by the centre, it is permissible to agitate for and against it; but
that after a decision in favour of a strike (with the additional decision to conceal this from the enemy), to carry on
agitation against the strike is strike-breaking? Any worker will
understand that. The question of insurrection has been discussed
in the centre since September. That is when Zinoviev and Kamenev
could and should have come out in writing, so that everybody, upon seeing their arguments, would have
realised that they had completely lost their heads. To conceal
one's views from the Party for a whole month before a decision is taken, and to send out a dissenting opinion
after a decision is taken—that is strike-breaking.

Zinoviev pretends not to understand this difference, he pretends
not to understand that after a decision to strike has been taken
by the centre, only blacklegs can carry on agitation among the
lower bodies against that decision. Any worker will understand
that.

And Zinoviev did agitate and attempted to defeat the centre's
decision, both at Sunday's meeting, where he and Kamenev secured
not a single vote, and in his present letter. For Zinoviev has
the effrontery to assert that "the opinion of the Party has not
been canvassed" and that such questions "cannot be decided by
ten men". Just think! Every member of the Central Committee
knows that more than ten C.C. members were present at the
decisive meeting, that a majority of the plenary meeting were present, that Kamenev himself declared at the
meeting that "this meeting is decisive", that it was known with
absolute certainty that the majority of the absent members of the Central Committee were not in agreement
with Zinoviev and Kamenev. And now, after the Central
Committee has adopted a decision at a meeting which Kamenev
himself admitted to be decisive, a member of the
Central Committee has the audacity to write that "the opinion of
the Party has not been canvassed", and that such questions
"cannot be decided by ten men".That is strike-breaking in the
full sense of the term. Between Party congresses, the Central
Committee decides. The Central Committee has decided. Kamenev
and Zinoviev, who did not come out in writing before the decision was taken, began to dispute the Central
Committee's decision after it had been taken.

That is strike-breaking in the full sense of the term. After a
decision has been taken, any dispute is impermissible when it concerns immediate and secret preparations for
a strike. Now Zinoviev has the insolence to blame us for "warning the enemy". Is there any limit to his brazenness?
Who is it that has damaged the cause, frustrated the strike by
"warning the enemy", if not those who came out in the non-Party press?

How can one come out against a "decisive" resolution of
the Party in a paper which on this question is hand in glove with the entire, bourgeoisie?

If that is tolerated, the Party will become impossible, the
Party will be destroyed.

It is ridiculing the Party to give the name of "dissenting
opinion" to that which Bazarov learns about and publishes in a
non-Party paper.

Kamenev's and Zinoviev's statement in the non-Party press was
especially despicable for the additional reason that the Party
is not in a position to refute their slanderous lie openly. I know of no decisions regarding the date, Kamenev
writes and publishes his writings in his own name and in the
name of Zinoviev. (After such a statement, Zinoviev bears full
responsibility for Kamenev's conduct and statements.)

How can the Central Committee refute this?

We cannot tell the capitalists the truth, namely, that we have
decided on a strike and have decided to conceal the moment chosen for it.

We cannot refute the slanderous lie of Zinoviev and Kamenev
without doing even greater damage to the cause. And the
utter baseness, the real treachery of these two individuals is
precisely in their having revealed the strikers' plan to the
capitalists, for, since we remain silent in the press, everybody
will guess how things stand.

Kamenev and Zinoviev have betrayed to Rodzyanko and
Kerensky the decision of the Central Committee of their Party on
insurrection and the decision to conceal from the enemy
preparations for insurrection and the date appointed for
it. That is a fact and no evasions can refute it. Two members of
the Central Committee have by a slanderous lie betrayed
the decision of the workers to the capitalists. There can and
must be only one answer to that: an immediate decision of the
Central Committee:

"The Central Committee, regarding Zinoviev's and Kamenev's
statement in the non-Party press as strike-breaking in the full
sense of the term, expels both of them from the Party."

It is not easy for me to write in this way about former close
comrades. But I should regard any hesitation in this respect as
a crime, for otherwise a party of revolutionaries which does not
punish prominent blacklegs would perish.

The question of insurrection, even if the blacklegs have now
delayed it for a long time by betraying it to Rodzyanko and
Kerensky, has not been removed from the agenda, it has not been removed by the Party. But how can we prepare ourselves
for insurrection and lay plans for it, if we tolerate "prominent" strike-breakers in our midst? The more prominent,
the more dangerous they are, and the less deserving of "forgiveness". On n'est trahi que par les siens, the
French say. Only your own people can betray you.

The more "prominent" the strike-breakers are, the more imperative it is to punish them by immediate expulsion.

That is the only way for the workers' party to recuperate, rid
itself of a dozen or so spineless intellectuals, rally the ranks
of the revolutionaries, and advance to meet great and momentous
difficulties hand in hand with the revolutionary workers.

We cannot publish the truth, namely, that after the decisive meeting of the Central Committee, Zinoviev and Kamenev
at Sunday's meeting had the audacity to demand a revision, that Kamenev had the effrontery to shout:
"The Central Committee has collapsed, for it has done nothing
for a whole week" (I could not refute that because to say what really had been done was impossible), while
Zinoviev with an air of innocence proposed this resolution,
which was rejected by the meeting: "No action shall be taken
before consulting with the Bolsheviks who are to arrive on
October 20 for the Congress of Soviets."

Just imagine! After the centre has taken a decision to call a strike, it is proposed at a meeting of the rank and file
that it be postponed (until October 20, when the Congress was to
convene. The Congress was subsequently postponed—the
Zinovievs trust the Lieberdans) and be referred to a body
such as the Party Rules do not provide for, that has no authority over the Central Committee, and that does
not know Petrograd.

And after this Zinoviev still has the insolence to write: "This is hardly the way to strengthen the unity of the
Party."

What else can you call it but a threat to effect a split?

My answer to this threat is that I shall go the limit, I shall
win freedom of speech for myself before the workers, and I
shall, at whatever cost, brand the blackleg Zinoviev as
a blackleg. My answer to the threat of a split is to declare war
to a finish, war for the expulsion of both blacklegs from the
Party.

The Executive Committee of a trade union, after a month
of deliberation, decides that a strike is inevitable, that the
time is ripe, but that the date is to be concealed from the
employers. After that, two members of the Executive Committee
appeal to the rank and file, disputing the decision, and are defeated. Thereupon these two come out in the press and
with a slanderous lie betray the decision of the Executive
Committee to the capitalists, thus more than half wrecking the
strike, or delaying it to a less favourable time by warning the
enemy.

Here we have strike-breaking in the full sense of the term. And
that is why I demand the expulsion of both the black-legs,
reserving for myself the right (in view of their threat of a
split) to publish everything when publication becomes possible.