V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:PSS/v48;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

Dear Friend, I am extremely grateful to you for your consent. I am simply convinced that you will perform your important role excellently and give a worthy reply to Plekhanov, Rosa Luxemburg, Kautsky and Rubanovich (the insolent fellow!), who are going to Brussels in the hope of staging a demonstration against us in general and against me in particular.

You are sufficiently well acquainted with the matter, you speak well, and I am sure that now you will be able to be sufficiently “impudent”. Please do not take it “in bad part” if I give you a few private hints to lighten your difficult task. Plekhanov likes to “disconcert” women comrades by suddenly paying them compliments (in French, etc.). You must be prepared for this so as to give a quick retort—I am delighted, Comrade Plekhanov, you are a veritable old gallant (or gallant cavalier)—or something of the sort, so as to snub him politely. You must know that everyone will be very angry (I am very glad!) to see that I am absent, and will probably want to take it out on you. But I am sure that you will show your “claws” in the best possible way. I am already delighted at the thought of how they will come to grief publicly when they meet with a cold, calm and slightly contemptuous rebuff.

Plekhanov likes to “put questions” in a manner that makes fun of the person questioned. My advice: cut him short at once—You have the right, like any other member of the conference, to put questions, but I am answering not you personally but the whole conference, and therefore I most humbly request you not to interrupt me—so as to turn the “putting of questions” at once into an attack on him. You must always take the offensive. Or else: instead of replying and for the purpose of replying (I prefer that), I shall take the floor in my turn and you will be fully satisfied. In my experience, this is the best method with insolent people. They are cowards and will at once quieten down and be taken aback.

They do not like it when we quote resolutions. And that is the best reply: I have come here mainly to communicate the formal party decisions of our workers’ party. Those who are interested in these decisions—here I will tell you one of them.

Especially nota bene and look through beforehand:

1) The resolution of the January 1912 Conference on the constitution of the Conference. 342

This concerns the question of the legality of the January 1912 Conference (Rosa Luxemburg will probably raise the question of legality, and others too). (Incidentally: I am glad that... the Germans will understand you badly or not at all—sit closer to the Executive Committee and speak for them. You yourself have every right to ask Huysmans after every German speech: translation, please!)

2) The resolutions of 1912 and 1913 on flexible forms. 343 (For Kautsky: that fool cannot understand the difference between recognising the underground and seeking new forms of covering up that underground and organising it.)

3) The resolutions of 1913 on unity from below. 344 (“You exclude 670 groups of workers??” Nonsense! We invite them. — “The majority has no right to exclude the minority.” — Except in the case when the minority thwarts the will of the majority and does not obey formal decisions. That is our case.)

Yours, V. U.

I advise you not to forget the official (get the French text of the resolution of the ISB of XII. 1913 from Popov or Huysmans) definition of the purpose of the conference:
To express jointly one’s opinion on the points in dispute!!

Only! To express jointly one’s opinion—you are doing just that.

For a popular (you must be extremely popular with the French) explanation, the theme of the illegal organisation, the special trust it requires, conspiracy, etc., is also very important. You Europeans have it easy: an open party, legal, there are lists of party members, there is open control and verification!! Then everything is easy!!

With us, an exact and open definition of party membership in an illegal organisation is impossible, and open control is impossible. Therefore a maximum of trust is required to maintain discipline and work harmoniously, while the liquidators, by renouncing the underground, destroy the very possibility of joint work.

It is, however, a mistake to think that in Russia it is now impossible to determine the strength of the trends, which side has the majority.

Thanks to the newspaper, the contributions from workers’ groups, etc., it can be determined quite reliably and unquestionably.
(I have sent Popov a number of tables and documents for the translation of the headings and for submission to the Bureau.)
In Gregory’s opinion, it is impossible to withdraw because of the refusal to keep minutes and publish them; but a written statement should be made. The Executive Committee is a mediator. This must be firmly remembered (this is in the official resolution of the International Socialist Bureau of XII. 1913). Not a judge, but a mediator. If anything happens, state so: we thank you for your mediation, we have gladly accepted it, quote the resolution of the ISB (XII. 1913). The word “mediation”, but from the mediator we ask for the transmission to the opponent of: 1) our conditions and 2) objective data. That is all!!

NB. We are an autonomous party. Remember that firmly. No one has the right to impose an alien will on us, and the International Socialist Bureau has no such right. If there are threats, they are mere phrases.