V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:PSS/v49;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

Dear Friend! With reference to your letter and the mention in it of the current reproach concerning my “uncompromisingness”, I should like to have a more detailed talk with you.

As for James, he has never understood politics, has always been against a split. A fine

* Reference is to the War-Industries Committees. Ed.

fellow—James, but his opinions on these subjects are profoundly wrong.

In Russia (and now in the new International too) the question of a split is a fundamental one.

Any yielding here would be a crime. I know well how many good people (James, Galerka, the St. Petersburg “friends” from among the intelligentsia) were against a split in the Duma group. They were all a thousand times wrong. The split was necessary. A split with Chkheidze and Co. is absolutely necessary even now. All who waver on this point are enemies of the proletariat; they must be met not with concessions but with firmness.

Who is wavering? Not only Trotsky and Co., but also Yuri + Yevg. B. (they “made scenes” last summer over Chkheidze!!). Then the Poles (the opposition). In their *Gazeta Robotnicza*, No. 25, there is their resolution: again for vacillation, as in Brussels on July 3/16, 1914.

Concessions to them are out of the question.

Radek is the best of them; it was useful to work with him (incidentally, also for the Zimmerwald Left), and we did work together. But Radek, too, is wavering. And our tactics here are two-sided (this Yuri + Nik. Iv. absolutely refused or were unable to understand): on the one hand, to help Radek move to the Left, to unite all who can be united for the Zimmerwald Left. On the other hand, not to allow the slightest wavering on the fundamental issue.

The fundamental issue is a split with the OC, with Chkheidze and Co.

The Poles are wavering and, after No. 1 of *Kommunist*, they issued a most despicable resolution.

The conclusion?

Either to cling to the name *Kommunist* and open the door to squabbling and wavering: letters to the editor (from Radek, Bronsky, perhaps Pannekoek, etc.), complaints, whining, gossip, etc.

No, never.

That would be harmful to the cause.

That would mean helping the scoundrels of the OC, Chkheidze and Co.

No, never.

*Kommunist* was a temporary bloc for the achievement of a definite aim. The aim has been achieved: the journal has been published, a rapprochement (possible at that time, before Zimmerwald) has been achieved. Now we must proceed by a different path, go further.

*Kommunist* has become harmful. It must be discontinued and replaced by a different name: *Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata* 244 (edited by the Editorial Board of *Sotsial-Demokrat*).

Only thus shall we avoid squabbling and wavering.

Is there also diversity of opinion in Russia? Oh, of course! But it is not our business to increase it.

Let Chkheidze and Co., Trotsky and Co. occupy themselves (that is their “profession”) with increasing diversity of opinion; our business is to pursue our own line. The fruits of such work are evident: the St. Petersburg workers are a hundred times better than the St. Petersburg intellectuals (even the “sympathisers”...).

With the “trio” (Yuri + Yevg. Bosh + Nik. Iv.) we had to make temporary concessions, because at that time it was impossible to publish the journal otherwise (now it is possible); and, chiefly, because at that time we had not yet seen Yevg. Bosh + Yuri at work and could hope that the work would raise them.

But they have gone downhill.

And the temporary alliance must certainly be dissolved. Only thus will the cause not suffer.

Only thus will they learn.

We are not against discussion. We are against editorial rights for those who have displayed unpardonable (perhaps due to youth? then let us wait: in about five years they may improve) wavering.

Nik. Iv. is an economist, and in this we have always supported him. But he (1) is credulous of gossip and (2) is devilishly unstable in politics.

The war pushed him towards semi-anarchist ideas. At the conference which adopted the Berne resolutions (spring 1915)*, he submitted theses (I have them!)—the height of absurdity; a disgrace; semi-anarchism.

I attacked sharply. Yuri and Yevg. Bosh listened and were pleased with me for not allowing him to fall to the Left (they then declared their complete disagreement with Nik. Iv.).

* See *Collected Works*, Fifth Edition, Vol. 26, pp. 161-167. Ed.

Six months pass. Nik. Iv. studies economics. He does not occupy himself with politics.

And now, on the question of self-determination, he serves us the same rubbish. Yevg. Bosh + Yuri sign it!! (Get their “theses” from Nik. Iv. and my reply to him. 245) And it is an important question. A vital question. Inseparably connected with the question of annexations—a most burning question.

The people did not think. Did not read. Did not study. Listened to Radek 2 or 3 times (he has an old “Polish” ailment: he is muddled on this point)—and signed.

This is a scandal. This is a disgrace. These are not editors. These people must be refuted, exposed, given time to learn and think, and not be hurriedly gratified: here are your editorial rights, carry your nonsense to the workers!!

If this is done, they will go so far as to provoke polemics in the press; and I shall then be compelled to call them “imperialist economists”, to show their utter emptiness, their complete lack of seriousness and thought. Polemics in the press will repel them for many years.

If, however, we discontinue *Kommunist* now, they will think it over and drop the nonsense; they will read and be convinced. Come, my dear fellows, write a serious pamphlet if you proclaim “differences” in politics (which you have never occupied yourselves with, never studied), let us see!

They will think it over and will not produce it. And in a few months it will “drop off”.

So it has been. So it will be.

On the question of annexations (and of self-determination) our position (the 1913 resolution)* has been fully confirmed by the war. And this question has become a burning one. While Radek + the Dutch (Gorter and Pannekoek) are clearly muddled on this point. In *Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata* we shall explain the matter again and again.

We must work towards:

(1) discontinuing *Kommunist*;

(2) giving Yuri + Yevg. Bosh as many concessions, rights and privileges as possible in the publication of the symposium on the Jews 246 (this is harmless to the cause here). Detailed conditions in a written agreement;

(3) the same—regarding their transport group (get their rules and our amendments to them);

(4) we shall publish *Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata* under the editorship of “the Editorial Board of *Sotsial-Demokrat*”.

We shall invite them as contributors. We shall tell them: you have differences? Prepare a serious pamphlet! We shall undertake to print it. (They will not write it, for they have not even begun to think seriously about the question; they have not even studied it!!)

That would be businesslike politics.

Yevg. Bosh was planning to go to Russia; there she could be useful; here she has no work, she will invent it.

Do you know this calamity abroad: “inventing” work for those living abroad? A terrible calamity.

Well, I shall stop for now. Collect all the documents and inform yourself. We shall talk again and again.

Yours,
Lenin

P.S. I enclose a copy of my reply to N. I. Bukharin on the significance of the new “differences”.