[1917, later than November 29 (December 12)]

The Ganetsky Case
Regarding the question of Ganetsky, the Central Committee of limited composition decided
not to appoint him as a representative in Stockholm.
This means they annulled the previous decision of the Central Committee.
* December 9, 1917, New Style.

I propose to annul this decision for the following reasons:
What are the arguments against Ganetsky?
He has been known since 1903, a member of the Central Committee of the Poles, worked
for many years as a CC member, we saw his work in Krakow,
trips to Russia and so on, saw him at all congresses and so on
and so forth.
The arguments are only a campaign of bourgeois slanders, the cries of Zaslavsky.
It would be directly unworthy of a workers' party to show
such susceptibility to intellectual gossip. Let first someone prove something bad about Ganetsky; before that we should *not*
remove him.
"But Ganetsky traded with Parvus," "everyone" says.
Ganetsky earned his bread as an employee in a trading firm, of which Parvus was a shareholder. So Ganetsky told me.
This has not been refuted.
Is it forbidden to serve in the trading enterprises of capitalists? Where? By what party decision?
Are there no people among us serving in the trading firms of Russian,
English, and other capitalists?
Or is it permissible to be technicians, managers, employees of Russian
capitalists, but not German ones, even while living in a neutral
country??
And will an "internationalist" party decide this??
Let it decide this directly, let it issue a general resolution,
let it motivate the step against Ganetsky.
When Bukharin wanted to go and serve in Parvus's affairs
as a literary worker, we advised him against it, for it was still not a trading
firm. But, having advised against it, we did not persecute the *Men-sheviks*, who served
Parvus. Zurabov and a bunch of others, we did not persecute them,
did not accuse them.
Who and where accused them?
Why have we not interrogated those living in Copenhagen,
the *Men-sheviks* and others, who knew of Ganetsky's trade and
*not* condemned him? We could and should have done this.
Not a single fact has been established against Ganetsky, — no
prohibition has been issued against serving in trading firms of capitalists
of all countries — the rumors and slanders of *known* slanderers, like Zaslavsky, have not been verified, — and "remove??" Nothing
except "fear" of the gossip of irresponsible gossips is here.
It is unworthy of a workers' party to be guided by such susceptibility to gossip. If comrades susceptible to gossip are "agitated", "concerned", why would they not
*trouble themselves* a little? Is it not better to *trouble themselves* to find the truth than to repeat
gossip? In Petrograd itself one can (if the agitated comrade wishes to *trouble himself*, and not decide without effort) find witnesses
from Copenhagen, as well as in Moscow. Why do the anonymous
accusers of Ganetsky from the ranks of our party not do this??
Such an attitude towards an absent comrade, who worked for more than 10 years, is the height of injustice.