Letter to G. Myasnikov
5/VIII. 1921.
Comrade Myasnikov!
I only read both of your articles today. As for what your speeches were like within the Perm (or was it Perm?) organization, and what the nature of your conflict with that organization was, I do not know—and I cannot speak to that. That is a matter for the Organizational Bureau to sort out; as far as I’ve heard, they have already appointed a special commission to investigate.
My task is different: to assess your letters as both literary and political documents.
What interesting documents!
In the article “The Burning Questions,” in my view, you lay bare your fundamental error with particular clarity. And I feel it is my duty to do everything in my power to try to persuade you.
At the beginning of the article, you rightly apply the dialectical method. Indeed, anyone who fails to grasp that the shift from the slogan “civil war” to the slogan “civil peace” is nothing short of laughable—perhaps even worse. Yes, in this respect you are absolutely right.
But precisely because you are right on this point, I am astonished that you should have forgotten the very dialectics you yourself had so skillfully employed when drawing your conclusions.
“…Freedom of the press—from monarchists all the way to anarchists…” Very well! But, if you’ll excuse me, every Marxist—and every worker who has reflected upon the four-year experience of our revolution—will ask: What kind of freedom of the press? For what purpose? For which class?
We do not believe in absolutes. We laugh at “pure democracy.”

Letter to G. Myasnikov
The slogan “freedom of the press” became a world‑shaking force in the late Middle Ages and persisted well into the nineteenth century. Why? Because it expressed the interests of the progressive bourgeoisie—that is, its struggle against priests and kings, against feudal lords and landed gentry.
There is not a single country in the world that has done—or continues to do—as much as the RSFSR to liberate the masses from the influence of priests and landowners. In this task of “freedom of the press,” we have carried out—and continue to carry out—our work better than anyone else in the world.
Worldwide, wherever capitalists exist, freedom of the press means the freedom to buy newspapers, to purchase writers, to bribe and buy off, and to fabricate “public opinion” in favor of the bourgeoisie.
This is a fact.
No one will ever be able to refute it.
And what about us? Can anyone deny that the bourgeoisie has been defeated—but not destroyed? That it has gone into hiding? This cannot be denied.
In the RSFSR, surrounded by bourgeois enemies from all over the world, freedom of the press is, in fact, the freedom for the bourgeoisie—and for its most loyal servants, the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries—to organize politically.
This is an irrefutable fact.
The bourgeoisie (throughout the world) is still many times stronger than we are. To grant them yet another weapon—such as the freedom of political organization (which is tantamount to freedom of the press, since the press is the center and foundation of political organization)—means making things easier for the enemy, aiding the class enemy.
We have no desire to bring about our own destruction, and therefore we will not do so.
We clearly see the fact: in practice, “freedom of the press” means that the international bourgeoisie will immediately purchase hundreds, even thousands, of Kadet, Socialist Revolutionary, and Menshevik writers—and will organize their propaganda, their struggle against us.
This is a fact. “They” are richer than we are and will purchase ten times the “force” we currently possess.
No. We will not do that—we will not aid the world bourgeoisie.

How could you, starting from a class‑wide perspective—that is, from the standpoint of assessing relations among all classes—have slipped down to a sentimentally petty‑bourgeois evaluation? This remains a mystery to me.
In the question of “civil peace or civil war,” in the question of how we won—and how we will continue to win—the allegiance of the peasantry (to the side of the proletariat), in these two most crucial, most fundamental, world‑shaping questions (to which both of your articles are devoted)—you managed to adopt a standpoint that was neither petty‑bourgeois nor sentimental, but rather a Marxist one. There, you were able to approach matters in a practical, sober manner, taking into account the interrelations among all classes.
And then, suddenly, you plunged headlong into the abyss of sentimentality.
“…We have a host of outrages and abuses: freedom of the press will expose them…”
As far as I can tell from your two articles, this is where you went astray. You allowed yourself to be overwhelmed by a certain number of sad and bitter facts, and in doing so, you lost your ability to assess forces with clearheaded objectivity.
Freedom of the press will serve the forces of world capitalism. This is a fact. Rather than helping the Communist Party of Russia to purge itself of a number of its weaknesses, errors, misfortunes, and ills—though there are indeed many such ills, that is beyond dispute—freedom of the press will instead become a weapon in the hands of that very world bourgeoisie. It has not died; it lives on. It stands ready, keeping watch. It has already hired Milyukov, whom Chernov and Martov—partly out of foolishness, partly out of factional spite toward us, but above all due to the objective logic of their petty‑bourgeois, democratic stance—serve “with faith and truth.”
You “walked into one room, only to find yourself in another.”
You set out to heal the Communist Party, but instead you reached for a remedy that would surely bring about your own death—not, of course, from you personally, but from the world bourgeoisie (+ Milyukov + Chernov + Martov).
You forgot one small detail—a truly tiny detail—namely, the world bourgeoisie and its “freedom” to buy

Letter to G. Myasnikov to acquire newspapers for themselves, to purchase centers of political organization for themselves.
No. We will not go down that road. Out of a thousand conscious workers, nine hundred will not follow that path.
We suffer from many ills. Such errors—our collective mistakes, for all have erred, whether the Council of Labour and Defence, the Sovnarkom, or the Central Committee—as exemplified by the mismanagement of fuel and food supplies in the autumn and winter of 1920 (monumental errors!!)—have only served to exacerbate the ailments afflicting our situation, multiplying their severity many times over.
Need and hardship are immense.
The famine of 1921 intensified them beyond measure.
We will struggle mightily to emerge, but we will emerge—and indeed, we have already begun to do so.
We will emerge, for at our core our policies are sound, taking into account all class forces on an international scale. We will emerge, for we do not seek to disguise our true condition. We recognize all difficulties; we see all ills. We treat them systematically, with steadfast resolve, without succumbing to panic.
You allowed yourselves to be swept up by panic, and along that slippery slope you descended to a point where what emerged resembled nothing less than the foundation of a new party—or your own self‑destruction.
We must not give way to panic.
Is there a disconnect between the Party’s grassroots organizations and the Party itself? Yes. It is a malady, a calamity, a disease.
Yes. A grave illness.
We see it clearly.
We must treat it not through “freedom” (for the bourgeoisie), but through proletarian and Party‑directed measures.
What you say about revitalizing the economy, about the “auto-plow” and the like, about striving to exert “influence” over the peasantry, and so forth—much of what you propose is both correct and highly beneficial.
Why not highlight these points? We can come together and work harmoniously within a single Party. The benefits will be enormous—but not immediately; they will unfold very gradually.
Revitalizing the Soviets, drawing in non‑Party members, having non‑Party members scrutinize the work of Party members— this is absolutely right. Here lies a vast field of work—untapped potential, unexplored terrain.
Why not pursue this in a practical, businesslike manner, perhaps in a pamphlet for the Congress?
Why not take up this task?
Why fear the “dark work” (the abuse of power—through the CC, through the Party press, through Pravda)? It is precisely because people lack faith in this dark, slow, arduous, and labor‑intensive work that they fall into panic and seek “easy” solutions: “freedom of the press” (for the bourgeoisie).
Why insist on your own error—a manifest error—in the non‑Party, anti‑proletarian slogan of “freedom of the press”? Why not turn instead to the less “glittering” (though no less brilliant in its bourgeois allure) work of cleansing abuses through practical, business‑like methods, of engaging in resolute struggle against such abuses, of offering practical assistance to non‑Party members?
Where have you pointed out to the Central Committee this particular instance of abuse—and proposed this specific remedy, this means of eradication?
Not once.
Not a single time.
You have seen countless hardships and afflictions, fallen into despair, and rushed into foreign arms—into the embrace of the bourgeoisie (“freedom of the press” for the bourgeoisie). But my counsel is this: do not sink into despair or panic.
We—and those who sympathize with us, the workers and peasants—still possess boundless strength. We still have abundant health.
We treat our illnesses poorly.
We implement the slogan—“Put forward non‑Party members; have non‑Party members scrutinize the work of Party members”—poorly.
But we can—and will—do a hundredfold more in this realm than we are doing now.
And I hope that, after sober reflection, you will not, out of misguided pride, persist in a clear political error (“freedom of the press”), but rather, having steadied your nerves and overcome your panic, you will set to work in a practical, businesslike manner: helping to forge connections with non‑Party members, assisting non‑Party members in scrutinizing the work of Party members.

Letter to G. Myasnikov
In this work, the tasks are myriad. And in this work, illness can—and should—be treated: slowly, but truly cured, rather than clouding one’s mind with “freedom of the press,” that “brilliant” will-o’-the-wisp.
With communist greetings, Lenin
Published in 1921 in the book “Discussion Materials (Theses of Comrade Myasnikov, Letter of Comrade Lenin,
Response to Him, Resolution of the Organizational Bureau of the Central Committee, and Resolution of the Motovilikhints)” — Moscow

Printed from manuscript