Comrade Vitimsky

Dear colleague! First of all, I must congratulate you on what I believe to be two particularly successful articles - on the liberals and the meeting of "Pravda" and "Luch" with liberal editors, and in No. 123 on "Pravda."

Regarding the question you raised about An and Vlasov, I cannot agree with you.

In my opinion, you have taken a superficial, surface-level, immediately visible aspect and are ready to forget something more important, fundamental. This is extremely dangerous.

An and Vlasov "attack the editorial board of 'Luch,'" you write, finding that "this has not been utilized."

You are wrong. An and Vlasov accept the main point from "Luch," namely the slogan of "struggle for an open party" or the slogan of peace (or unity) with the liquidators. This is the main point. This is what "Luch" needs. "Luch" precisely wants to present itself as an organ not of the liquidators, but of both the liquidators and the party members. This deception must not be allowed. This deception is the most dangerous. The entire adventure of Trotsky and Semkovsky is built on this deception.

Furthermore, it is not entirely correct that "this has not been utilized." How can it be utilized? Is it true that An and Vlasov "attack the editorial board of 'Luch' and justify the line of 'Pravda'"?? This would be incorrect. An and Vlasov do not justify the fundamental position of "Pravda"; rather, they either reject it (An) or do not understand it (Vlasov).

Or should it be used in such a way that, look, the fact of liquidatorism in Sedov was recognized not only by the enemies but also by the supporters of "Luch"? This would be correct. But this has already been done, incidentally, in my article ("Disputed Questions," No. 3 in "Pravda" No. 110)*.

"Opponents must be divided, not united," you write, reproaching the tactless V. I., who supposedly "unites" them.

Allow me to say a few words in my defense.

Opponents must be divided, not united; this is indisputable. But if it is advantageous for the opponents to pretend that they are "divided," that among them there are not just liquidators, but also Latvians, and Trotsky, and the Bund, and An?? You did not see the essence of the liquidators' tactics—perhaps because you did not read and did not hear* everything about the August conference. After all, this is the essence and the core of the entire tactic of "saving" the liquidators, i.e., saving the freedom of liquidator lies and liberalism for influence from within the party.

Only in this way can one still try to save the liquidators. And the clever diplomat An (with the year-old infant Vlasov following him) is playing a very subtle game. You do not know An! I have studied his diplomacy for years and know how he deceives the whole Caucasus with it!!

An is indeed a diplomatic talent (I have known him since 1903) - unfortunately, directed badly. An wants to make it seem as if he is against "Luch" and thereby save "Luch"!! This is clear to those who know the history of the party well, especially for January 1910 and August 1912!! An criticized Dan for minor things, while giving Dan the main point (the slogan of struggle for an open party), wanting to show "his own" that, look, we are also against the liquidators. There is no more fatal mistake than to fall for An's bait. You do not know (and this is understandable) the background of the relations between Trotsky, An, the Bund, Braun, etc.* to "Luch"—but I do. Nothing can help the liquidators more than recognizing An as an anti-liquidator. This is a fact. And for them, An is the only "serious" support. This is also a fact. I shake your hand firmly and wish you health and vigor. Write—always happy to chat.

Yours, V. I.

P.S. They say that in Petersburg there are many rumors about how An (together with Chkheidze) "took over" "Luch" from Dan... and did not take it. I think: he took it over for show and ended up with an alleged compromise, but in reality, he gave in to Dan!! Dan is a poorly covered enemy battery. An is the same enemy battery, but cleverly covered. I assure you, I know this from experience.*