Personal from Lenin

I have read your long letter 237. Thank you very much for it. Better late than never. You ask not to be too angry. I will tell you honestly that I was not very angry, rather I smiled, remembering my last conversation before the doors of the "den" with a certain Jacques, who then (then!) thought that we were commanding too little. That things are not immediately put in order within the OC, that there is still darkness, disorder, and anarchy, I knew this and did not expect anything else. There is no other remedy against this except one persistent treatment (time and experience) and one powerful means (a general party congress). I have written and repeat: for God's sake, hurry with this means as soon as possible, otherwise your experience risks being lost altogether.

Regarding the questions about 1) Yuri, 2) the bureau, and 3) Ignatov's dispute with the Bundist, I will not write. This is partly outdated, partly subject to resolution on the spot, and my advice on this latter part would be (contrary to the opinion of my friend, Jacques) at best, unnecessary. This part you (all of you) must resolve yourselves, must in the sense of mussen, not in the sense of the Ought.

I will talk about the Bund, P.P.S. 238, and about the "heresy."

Formally, I think, one should be correct and loyal to the Bund (not to hit them directly in the teeth), but at the same time extremely cold, buttoned up, and relentlessly and constantly press them on legal grounds, going all the way without fear. Let them leave if they want, but we must not give them the slightest pretext, not even a shadow of a pretext, for a break. Formalities must, of course, be observed until the congress, but there is no need to show our cards.

You write: the Bundist knows that we are working for "Iskra," and he keeps silent, although on behalf of the OC we are not entitled to do this.

*Yuri - a conspiratorial name for the group "Southern Worker." Ed.

**- the Ought. Ed.

***- necessity. Ed.

In my opinion, this should not be done on behalf of the OC, but by each member personally, referring not to the OC, but to the committees that recognized "Iskra." The result is the same and even stronger (there are no "agents"), and the formal side is impeccable. Preparing the committees against the Bund is one of the most important tasks of the moment, and this can also be done entirely without violating form.

Similarly, it was in vain to speak with P.P.S. about the "convictions of the members of the Organizational Committee." It should have been said about the OC: we are preparing a congress, it will decide, and on the question of "convictions" not to be silent, but to refer not to the OC, but to "Iskra" and even more to the committees that recognized "Iskra." Then from P.P.S. it would be necessary to obtain at least a small, but formal document (letter), and not to tell them "we are anti-nationalists" (why scare people unnecessarily?), but to gently persuade them that our program (recognition of the right to national self-determination) is sufficient for them, prompting them to specific counter-statements and to a formal appeal to the OC and the congress. Our main trump card against P.P.S. is that we recognize national self-determination in principle, but within reasonable limits, determined by the unity of the proletarian class struggle.

To remember: I certainly do not know the representatives of the Russian organization "Iskra" in the OC. I also do not know why I should know this? And why should there be "representatives"? The Organizational Committee has long since co-opted all kinds of good people, and not "representatives"? Or is this incorrect?

I think it is important to use the distinction between the Russian organization "Iskra" and the OC precisely for the purpose of formal impeccability.

Now about the "heresy." Either I misunderstand you, or this is a big mistake. Given the extreme brevity of your letter on this (most important) point, I have only to take your words à la lettre. Four elected ones "organize" both the Central Committee and the Central Organ!! Forgive me for being frank, but this is simply ridiculous, for you must know that only members of the editorial board + individual people from outside for consultation can competently (i.e., with the necessary knowledge and experience) organize the Central Organ, and to organize the Central Committee, only experienced practitioners + individual people for consultation (if you know such people).

Or perhaps you know such "four" who have the experience and knowledge for all this??? If so, name them - I say this not in jest, but seriously, for my letter is personal, and it is important for me to clarify your thought.

If I am not mistaken, you are striving for absolute power and a "firm hand." This is a good cause, and you are a thousand times right that this is exactly what we need. But no one will achieve this as straightforwardly as it seems to you. For 9/10 of current affairs, 2 centers are absolutely necessary, they will form themselves immediately, even if we did not want this. For order, it is necessary to strive for 1) a formal path for the unification of these 2 centers (for example, a commission with delegates from both), 2) a reduction in the number of members in both centers, or the creation of executive commissions within both centers, and - most importantly - 3) a strict and formal distribution of functions among individual members of the centers, so that the entire composition of both centers knows exactly what each member is responsible for, which members (of both centers) have the right to decide (and even to speak) on each area of issues, and what the path is for bringing a matter to the full assembly of one or both centers.

I am sure that you will moderate and further moderate your demands and agree that this is the maximum of immediate desires. And this is very, very difficult, and for this distribution of functions, I do not see fully competent, knowledgeable, experienced people. There is an abyss, darkness, a chasm of mismanagement among you and us (you, gentlemen members of the OC, do not just think about yourselves, you are "organizing" the entire party), and it is necessary to invent not pia desideria, but practical, firm, "first steps."

I have expressed my view to you openly and would be very glad to exchange letters again. On such matters, you really must write more often and in more detail. I have nothing against sharing this letter with the entire OC,

* - pious wishes. Ed.

I even wish for this, but I leave it to you to decide. You did well to note to whom your letter was addressed.

Best regards. Moderate your demands and hurry, hurry, and hurry with the "powerful means." I shake your hand firmly.

Yours, Lenin