V. I. Lenin

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

FOR COMRADE ALEXANDER

Dear A., Of course we shall give Belenin 300 crowns if he has already so firmly decided on his plan of travel. It is a pity if he goes away. In any case you must do everything to ensure his return in a few months.

As for the “Japanese”, you are wrong in thinking that they have made “considerable concessions” in the draft you sent. None whatever! On the contrary, the demand that two be allowed to smuggle in dissident contributors is something new, an addition, a *surenchère*. And this new thing is a clear exposure of their “policy” in the worst sense of the word. If the founders, publishers, young contributors want freedom of opinion and discussion for themselves, that is legitimate. But if people hide behind this legitimate desire in order to smuggle in “discussion” not of their own but of “contributors”, is it not clear that this is a game??

Never and nowhere in the world has this been seen. If two want to publish all sorts of émigré squabbles, let them go ahead and let them answer for it. I can take no part in this, either directly or indirectly.

You will perhaps ask for proof that it is a matter of émigré squabbles?

I wrote to you about this long ago, and you have never once replied. The proof is No. of *Gazeta Robotnicza* (February 1916), in which our “contributors” are Radek and Bronsky.

The fact is obvious.

These gentlemen were the first in the Zimmerwald Left to start a squabble—and at what a time!!

They want to “play” on Chkheidze and Trotsky.

And at such a moment two publishers have the insolence to propose to u s that w e give them “freedom and guarantee” of discussion for such contributors!! This is madness or the height of shamelessness.

And equality with them (6 = 3 + 3)? Why, that is the same thing. Didn’t they once give you to understand (and you yourself wrote this) that they would accept the co-optation of two supporters of the Central Organ. But when it came to a written agreement they backed out. Is that not a huckster’s game?

If people are in principle and sincerely agreed that the journal or symposium should carry out the Party programme, the majority must be for it. Otherwise there is no sincerity, no principle, but only a “money-bag”.

In my opinion, explain this to them clearly, popularly, in writing if necessary, and present an ultimatum: either thus (7 = 4 + 3), or you send your conclusion about their “game” to the Bureau 310.

That would be the correct Party reply.

I shake your hand.

Yours,
Lenin