[1921]

Comrade Lutovinov!
I have read your letter of 20/V and am left with a very sad impression. I expected that in Berlin, after resting a little, recovering from illness, looking "from the outside" (it's clearer from the outside) and thinking, you would arrive at clear and precise conclusions. Here, you clearly had a "mood" of dissatisfaction. A mood is something almost blind, unconscious, unthought-out. Well, I thought, instead of a mood, there will now be clear and precise conclusions. Perhaps, I thought, we might differ on these conclusions, but they would still be precise and clear conclusions from one of the "founders" [leaders] of the "opposition" (as you yourself admit in your letter).
The sad impression from your letter is due to the absence of either clarity or precision; instead, there is again only a dark mood, and in addition, "strong words."
One cannot act like this.
Comrade Gorbunov!
Please do your utmost with the underlined points and return this to me with a note of what you have done.
Lenin
25/V [1921]

Facts—you yourself recall this—are stubborn things. Well, look, what are the facts you mentioned? I will list **all** your **factual** indications:
1) The Central Committee of Railway Workers is composed "of old bureaucrats."
Is this a fact? Names? I know no one except Rudzutak, but I know they were compiled carefully. Mistakes could have been made. They must be corrected. And to do this, they must first be pointed out precisely, so there is no room for a dark mood (and often for the gossip hidden in this darkness: gossip loves darkness and anonymity).
You named no names. There are no facts.
Rudzutak? What kind of worker is he not? " Physically worn out"? Find us someone who isn't worn out. We will bring him back from Turkestan as soon as we cure Ioffe and Sokolnikov.
What then is our "factional tendentiousness"? Is it that at the head of the Central Committee of Railway Workers, they put supporters of the party congress majority? Is this, in your opinion, "factionalism"? If so, I ask you to explain to me what should be understood by factionalism and what by party spirit.
Will you not declare it "party spirit" that the leader of the former Workers' Opposition at the Metalworkers' Congress recently introduced a list for the Central Committee where, out of 22 members of the RCP – 19 were supporters of the former Workers' Opposition? 2
If this is not "factional tendentiousness," not the revival of a faction, then you are using the concept of factionalism in a completely special way, in an unusual, even inhuman way.
2) At the head of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions is a "physically worn-out person."
That is, Tomsky? They wanted to replace him with a troika of secretaries, and now he has been removed altogether. So your shot against factionalism has turned against you. Now *that* is a fact.
3) In the struggle against the outrages of the Berlin mission, you encounter " **furious** resistance from Moscow, right up to Ilyich."
Excuse me, this is a fabrication.
You highly praised Stomonyakov 3, whom Krasin defended. Kopp was at the head of the old mission. Kopp was removed; Stomonyakov remained.
What is this? " Furious resistance from Moscow"?
Or furious lies about Moscow?
From the point of view of "facts," which of these strong words is closer to the truth? Eh?
There **were** outrages in the Berlin mission; Moscow (and Krasin) did not hinder, did not resist, but helped you fight them, by strengthening the power of Stomonyakov, whom you praised so exceedingly.

4) You discovered here (in Berlin) a series of "most **brazen** scoundrels and thieves," and Moscow does not remove them.
Names? Not a single one.
Fact or gossip?
Or do you not know how complaints are addressed to the Central Committee? To the Orgburo? To the Politburo? To the Plenum of the Central Committee?
Not a single complaint from you to [the Orgburo] the Politburo or the Plenum **was received**. This is a fact.
(In parentheses: we had a disagreement with you about Shklovsky, but you did not bring it to the Politburo. I have known Shklovsky as a Bolshevik for years before the revolution. As an honest person, he would have helped in the struggle against "scoundrels and thieves." And you hindered Shklovsky's departure to Berlin, although here he is not a worker, not employed.)
5) Grzhebin 4. It was about him and only about him that I read your and Stomonyakov's protest to the Central Committee yesterday. We will consider it at the first meeting.
Regarding Grzhebin, we had disagreements in the Central Committee. Some said: remove him altogether, for he can cheat, as a publisher. Others said: as a publisher, he will publish cheaper. Let him rather cheat by 10,000, but publish cheaper and better.
A commission was chosen equally from both shades. I did not join it due to my "partiality" (in the opinion of some) towards Gorky, Grzhebin's defender.
The commission decided the matter unanimously. I don't remember exactly how it decided: it seems—to buy from Grzhebin if it is cheaper.
Consequently, your conclusion: "they were guided not by state considerations," but by appeasing Gorky—is a direct untruth. And you write: "I am convinced"!!! If people form "convictions" before checking facts, which are not difficult to check, then what is this called?
6) Lomonosov 5, a brilliant specialist, but "convicted by Krasin of **criminal** trade dealings."
Untrue. If Krasin had convicted Lomonosov of a crime, Lomonosov would have been removed and brought to trial. You heard the rumor and... turned it into gossip.
Krasin wrote to me and the Central Committee: Lomonosov is a brilliant specialist, but less suitable for trade and made mistakes. Arriving here, meeting Lomonosov, examining the documents, Krasin spoke not only of no crime but not even of mistakes.
Choose: will you seriously start a case in the Control Commission (or wherever you wish) about Lomonosov's crimes, or will you take back a carelessly picked-up rumor?

7) " Here they appoint to the trade department such, for example, scoundrels: in the past—a factory owner, from whom the Soviet power took all furs, and now he is sent to sell these furs. Have mercy, what will come of this?"
So you write. Well, how can one not be saddened by this? The founder of a whole opposition reasons like this!
It's as if an ignorant peasant said: "the tsar's thousand generals had their lands and ranks taken away, and these generals were assigned to the Red Army"! Yes, we probably have more than a thousand former generals and landowners from the tsarist era serving in important positions in the Red Army. And it won...
God will forgive the ignorant peasant. But you?
If you know a "scoundrel," how can you, an official of the Soviet power, remain silent about his name? Not initiate a case about the individual?
And if you do not know the name, does that mean it's again a rumor? Again gossip?
I have gone over literally everything resembling, even remotely resembling, facts from your letter. Zero, zero, and zero.
If I did not know you, then, receiving a letter like yours, I would say:
either this is a nervous invalid who hysterically grasps at fragments of rumors and cannot think, reason, or verify;
or this is a helpless person due to underdevelopment and ignorance, who has fallen victim to gossip;
or this is a Menshevik in disguise, who consciously sows gossip.
Knowing you, I tell you that your letter is a remarkable "human document," showing how a "founder of the opposition" allows himself to be carried away by the desire to play at opposition at all costs and to shout, apropos of nothing, about protectionism, about those who have become "commissar-ized," about the system, and so forth.
" The point is not in individuals, but in the system itself. Now I pose the question: proletariat or demagnetized declassed petty-bourgeois intelligentsia"—you write.
This is ridiculous. Precisely your letter is a magnificent human document, showing us the author as an example of a demagnetized petty-bourgeois intellectual. For, indeed, many who were proletarians by profession have, in life, become demagnetized petty-bourgeois intellectuals by their actual class role.
A demagnetized petty-bourgeois intellectual whimpers, complains, gets lost before any manifestation of ugliness and evil, loses self-control, repeats any gossip, puffs himself up to say something incoherent about the "system."
A proletarian (not by his former profession, but by his actual class role), seeing evil, tackles the struggle in a businesslike manner: openly and officially supports the candidacy of a good worker Ivan, proposes to replace the bad Peter, initiates a case—and conducts it energetically, firmly, to the end—against the scoundrel Sidor, against the protectionist escapade of Tit, against the criminal dealing of Miron, develops (after 2-3 months of training in new work and practical acquaintance with the new environment) businesslike, practical proposals: to introduce such-and-such a system of commissars or political commissars, to change the procedures here in such-and-such a way, to second so many proven communists (with such-and-such experience) to such-and-such positions.
Such proletarians, even having lost their proletarian profession, were able to build the Red Army and conquer with it (despite a thousand traitors and scoundrels, who were and remained thousands among military specialists and military bureaucrats).
Such proletarians will never sink to the class role of a demagnetized petty-bourgeois intellectual, helplessly flailing, caving in to gossip, calling fragments of gossip a "system."
This is my frank answer to you. Though I rarely answer fully—another time I won't have an hour for this.
Out of old friendship, I will say: you need to treat your nerves. Then reasoning will appear, not mood.
With comradely greetings, Lenin.