Date: 1916
Source: ru:LS/v2

Source: LS vol II

LENIN. ---- LETTERS TO A. KOLLONTAI.

or, alternatively, Nadia’s pedagogical and literary work—after all, her illness requires a prolonged stay in the mountains, which is quite costly.
I send you a hearty handshake and wish you all the best.
Nadia sends her greetings.
Yours, V. Ulyanova
1) In Vladimir Ilyich’s own hand, the sender’s address is inscribed above the date:
Ulianow. Kurhaus Tschudiwiese F l u m s (Kt. St.-Gallen) Switzerland.
The right half of the postcard—reserved for the recipient’s address—is filled in by Vladimir Ilyich’s hand with the following text:
Fru Alexandra K ol- lon tay.
Turisthotel, H о 1 m e n k о 11 e n, Kristiania – Norway.
2) A. S.L.P.— American Socialist Labour Party — the American Socialist Labour Party, which leaned toward internationalism.
3) R. S. Ü. — Polish Social Democracy.

m.
Dear friend!
It seems that Bel[eppp]’s decision regarding his “outing” has already been made, judging by the letter that Gr[pgor]iy forwarded to me today.
And the time frame is extremely tight!
Meanwhile, it is absolutely crucial that we establish contact with him—and forge a close bond: this matter is now of unparalleled importance.
Therefore, I earnestly urge you to take every possible measure to personally meet with Bel[enin], to convey to him all the information that follows in complete frankness and thorough detail, and to write to me—without fail!—to let me know how things stand: whether there are any disagreements, divergences, or other such issues between us and Bel[enin], and if so, what they are—and how they might be resolved, should they exist.
As for the removal of James—please, I implore you not to say a single word about this removal to anyone abroad. You cannot imagine how perilous it is, in every respect, to engage in foreign chatter on these topics, especially in light of such events—removing James renders the situation critical and once again places the question of a unified work plan at the forefront.
In my view, this plan consists, first, of a theoretical line; second, of immediate tactical tasks; and third, of directly organizational measures.
(1) On the first point, the task at hand is not only to continue the line we have firmly established—opposing tsarism and its ilk—in our resolutions and pamphlets (a line that has been remarkably vindicated by recent events, the split within the British Socialist Party, and more)—but also to purge it of the long‑accumulated absurdities and confusions arising from the denial of democracy. This includes disarmament, the rejection of self‑determination, and the theories of A. Shlyapnikov.
September 1916 1).

LENIN. ---- LETTERS TO A. SHLYAPNIKOV.

A theoretically sound, yet somewhat vague, general declaration of “national defense,” along with a nuanced discussion of the role and significance of the state in general—and so forth. 3)
It is deeply regrettable if Bel[enin] does not live to see my article in response to Kiev’s (it was just sent off yesterday in correspondence and will not be ready for several days yet). 4)
What is to be done? Do not neglect theoretical preparation: indeed, it is indispensable for working in such a difficult time. Consider whether it might be possible to implement the following—or a similar—plan: I suspect that Pel[enin] is not in America, as I had thought, but rather in Spain—through which Bel[enin] will soon be traveling. Could we arrange for correspondence and the exchange of manuscripts with his wife, sending them to Spain?
Then, perhaps, even an article of mine, dispatched after a week, could reach Bel[enin] in time—since he will likely spend several days in Spain.
Reflect upon this: beyond this particular case, regular correspondence with Pel[enin]’s wife and with Spain in general is of utmost importance. Spain is now an exceedingly important hub, for against England it is still easier to work there than in other places.
I can no longer elaborate on theoretical preparation.
Our enemies have already seized upon the foolish denial of democracy’s significance (Notresov in L? 1 “Dela”).
Bazarov erred in “Letopis” 6).
Bogdanov holds a different kind of delusion—but still a delusion, as evidenced in “Letopis” 7).
There is some highly suspicious bloc of Machists and Okupists there.
A despicable bloc!
It is hardly possible to break it apart…
Perhaps we could try forming a bloc with the Machists against the Okupists?
But that is unlikely to succeed!!
Gorky has always been politically extremely unprincipled, yielding to sentiment and mood.
Legal publishing in Russia is acquiring ever greater significance—and thus the question of the correct ideological line becomes ever more crucial, for it is on this very field that our adversaries can most easily “fire upon” us.
Perhaps the very best course would be for Bel[enin] to establish a “base” in Spain, receiving our letters and manuscripts there, continuing our correspondence, exchanging missives—so that Pel[enin] could return there shortly after a brief excursion elsewhere (for the danger is great, and it would be far more beneficial for the cause if Pel[enin] were to make short‑term visits to several cities before returning to Spain—or to the same place where he currently resides, or to a neighboring country—to consolidate ties and connections.)

On the second point.
Above all, I believe the priority now lies in issuing popular leaflets and proclamations against tsarism.
Discuss whether it might be feasible to distribute them in Spain. If not, we will prepare and send them here—requiring the most meticulous arrangements for transportation.
You were entirely correct in noting that the Japanese proved utterly unsuitable.
Foreigners are best suited—those with whom we could correspond in English or another foreign language.
I will refrain from elaborating on transportation matters, since you yourself can see and understand the challenges involved. The problem is that funds are scarce—but in Petersburg, we must somehow raise them.
The central party question in Russia has always been—and remains—the question of “unity.”
Trotsky never fully resolved or brought to a conclusion the 500–600 issues of his newspaper: Should unity be sought with Cheidze, Skobelev, and others—or not? It seems that “unifiers” still remain in Petersburg, though they are quite weak (were they not the ones who published “Rabochie Vedomosti” in Petersburg?)
“Makar” 9), they say, is also operating in Moscow and pursuing a policy of conciliation. Conciliation and unification are nothing less than harmful to the workers’ party in Russia—not merely foolish, but downright detrimental to the party’s very existence.
For in practice, “unification” (or, through conciliation and the like, with Cheidze and Skobelev—both of whom are notorious for posing as “internationalists”) amounts to “unity” with the Octobrists, and through them with Potresov and Co.; in essence, it means servility toward social‑chauvinists.
If Trotsky and his comrades failed to grasp this, then so much the worse for them.
“Number 1 ‘Dela’”—the key issue is the participation of workers in military‑industrial committees, and I am convinced that this is indeed the case.
Not only in the elections to the Duma, held the day after peace was declared—but in all questions of party practice, “unity” with Cheidze and Co. is now the crux of the matter.
We can rely only on those who have understood the full deception inherent in the idea of unity and the absolute necessity of breaking with this brotherhood—this clique of Cheidze and Co.—in Russia.
Bel[enin] ought to rally around precisely such individuals for leadership roles.
By the way: a split on the international stage has likewise become inevitable.
I consider it entirely timely for all conscious, leading workers in Russia to recognize this fact and adopt resolutions in favor of an organizational rupture with the Second International, with the International Bureau of Guisan, Vandervelde, and Co.—in favor of building the Third International solely against

LENIN. ---- LETTERS TO A. SHLYAPNIKOV.

the Kautskyites of every country (Cheidze and Co., just as Martov and Axelrod—Russian Kautskyites), but only by drawing closer to those who stand on the left-wing positions of Zimmerwald.
On the third point.
The most pressing issue now is the weakness of our connections with the leading workers in Russia—1!
No correspondence whatsoever!!
No one except James—and now even he is gone!!
This simply will not do.
Without proper, clandestine correspondence, we cannot distribute leaflets, arrange for transportation, coordinate on proclamations, send out their drafts, and so on. This is the crux of the matter!
Bel[enin] did not accomplish this—perhaps he could not, back then—on his first trip.
For the love of God, convince him that this must be done on his second journey!
Absolutely essential!!
The number of connections determines the near‑term success of a journey—by Jove!! (Of course, Bel[enin]’s personal influence is even more important, but he cannot afford to linger anywhere for long without exhausting himself and harming the cause.)
The success of a journey is measured by the number of connections forged in each city!!
At least two or three connections, in every city, with leading workers—so that they may write for themselves, master clandestine correspondence on their own (after all, even gods do not fire pottery), and each prepare one or two “successors” for themselves in case of failure. Do not trust this to chance alone—do not trust it to others.
Leading workers are capable—and indeed, they must—of doing this. Without it, we cannot ensure continuity and coherence in our work, and that is the most important thing.
Does that cover everything?
Regarding legal literature, I would add this: it is crucial to determine whether, should we fail to oust the Okupists through a bloc with the Machists, “Letopis” will publish my articles—with restrictions?
What kind of restrictions?
We need to examine the matter of “Volna” 10) in greater detail.
As for myself, I must say that I need income—otherwise, I’ll simply be forced to give up, by Jove!!
The cost of living is devilishly high, yet there is little to live on.
We must extract money by force (about money, Bel[enin] will speak with Kat[p] and with Gorky himself—if, of course, it proves inconvenient).
From the publisher of “Letopis,” to whom I have sent two of my pamphlets—and let him pay, promptly, and generously!
Also with Bonch 12).
And likewise regarding translations.
If we fail to set this up properly, then, by Jove, I won’t last—I’m quite serious, absolutely serious.
Lenin Collection.
1°

Lenin Collection.
I send you a firm handshake and offer a thousand best wishes to Bel[enin], and please write back to me at once, even if only a few words.
Yours, Lep[in]
P.S. Please tell me frankly: in what mood is Bukh[arp] going to leave? Will he write to us—or not? Will he fulfill our requests—or not? Correspondence is possible only via Norway (with America):
Tell him this and make arrangements accordingly 13).
[Postscript by N. K. Krupskaya.]
Dear friend, I am sending you the book you requested (from N[ipkolai] Iv[anovich]) today—and I earnestly ask that you immediately acknowledge receipt and share your thoughts on it.
Please visit Kobetsky, if you would—otherwise, Nikolai Ivanovich will leave, and we will be left with absolutely no connections to Denmark.
Also, please send me all the contacts you have with America, as well as with the Swedes and Norwegians.
Do this without fail.
Of course, Bel[enin] cannot leave without waiting for the book—but there is no need to wait too long, since I am sending it today.
I send you a hearty handshake.
Nadezhda Krupskaya.
*) The date on the manuscript was apparently added by the recipient.
2) The removal of James—namely, the arrest of A. I. Elizaroiva in Petrograd.
3) See note 5 to La 33.
4) We are speaking of Vladimir Ilyich’s article “On the Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism,” written in response to a national question article by Comrade Pyatakov.
Vladimir Ilyich’s article was first published only in 1924, in the journal “Zvezda” and in Volume XIII of the Collected Works of Vladimir Ilyich.
5) In fact, the discussion concerned not Spain, but Norway. The country’s name was altered for reasons of secrecy.
6)
“Letopis” was a legal journal organized by A. M. Gorky, oriented toward anti‑war activism, which appeared from December 1915 until the end of 1917. In his article “The Current Moment and the Prospects” (“Letopis,” May 1916),
developing the perfectly sound idea that Europe could emerge from war and its economic consequences only through social revolution,
V. A. Bazarov pointed out that it was no longer possible to divide our program into a maximum program and a minimum program, since the time had come to put the maximum program into practice.
To these positions, particularly taking issue with a number of unfortunate expressions, he responded