Date: 1905
Source: ru:PSS/v47

The conscious Social-Democratic workers will, sooner or later, come to a clear understanding of the prevailing conditions and will find their way onto the correct path. From Moscow, we have received letters from ardent “Bogdanovites” among the school’s students—openly agitating in favor of the Capri Center and doing everything in their power to help all Social-Democratic workers grasp the true significance of the Capri School.

Now, let us turn to the matter at hand. You, comrades, must carefully reflect upon the new situation that has arisen, so that together we may discuss it and take the appropriate steps, choosing the right moment for each action. You surely understand that a schism within the school is now inevitable: as you yourself write, you simply cannot remain in such a school. Of course, you do not expect to act in unison with the most fervent “Bogdanovites.” But since the inevitability of a schism has become clear, we must first clearly comprehend the significance of this split—clearly envision the struggles that will emerge from it, and anticipate how the Bogdanovites will seek to “neutralize” you all (that is, to deprive you of the ability to exert your influence and to tell the truth about the school), to discredit you all (the label “agent of the Bolshevik Center,” which, according to your own account, was first circulated by Alekshin, is only the beginning; the real attacks are yet to come—those sharp thorns and bitter berries lie ahead), and so on and so forth.

You must think this through thoroughly and act with firmness, decisiveness, and deliberation—as one would in battle: as you yourself write, “battles” over the question of fees are already raging within the school.

TO THE STUDENTS OF THE CAPRI SCHOOL. OCTOBER 1909

These are the opening skirmishes against you, wherever the Bogdanovites may make their presence felt.

To begin, you must first determine your exact numbers: How many resolute opponents of the “Bogdanovist” platform are there? Could this number be increased—or not? If so, how and when? And if not, what is the stance of the “neutrals”? You must consider what conduct you should adopt in the event of an inevitable schism, so that, to the greatest extent possible, you can win over these neutrals—or, at the very least, prevent them from falling entirely into the hands of the Bogdanovites.

Next, how do you intend to manage your departure from the school? Will you simply leave, or will you withdraw in protest over the dispute concerning the platforms? Naturally, if the struggle within the school has unfolded as rapidly as could be anticipated based on your first two letters, then the schism may already be a fait accompli—perhaps the Bogdanovites have already driven you out, quite simply driven you out—and in that case, there is little left to discuss. But if the schism has not yet occurred, then think carefully about how you should arrange your exit. You must provide answers to all Russian organizations. You must refute, with precise facts in hand, all those attacks that will now rain down upon you in the thousands from the “Bogdanovists.” You must prepare to defend both your views on the school itself and your position on the Bogdanovist “platform.”

If the question of your departure arises, you must secure the funds necessary for all of you to travel back to Russia. This is the school’s responsibility—just as, before the schism, it was the duty of the Bolshevik Center to provide financial assistance for travel back to Russia (following the December 1908 Party Conference), enabling Lyadov, Vsevolod, and Stanislav to return home. At that time, they had requested funds from us—and we provided them.

Of course, we will assist you with your passports and with arranging our meeting—in Paris or perhaps in some small town, where things can be kept more confidential and where you will spend less time traveling and pay less for your journey. We will discuss the details of our meeting further and decide on a suitable location at a later date. Our finances are far from abundant, and the support we can offer will be modest at best.

I am writing to you in order to clarify matters and to exchange opinions. Once we receive more precise responses from you, once all questions have been fully addressed through our correspondence, we will convene the Executive Committee of the expanded editorial board of “Proletary,” and then we will determine the amount of assistance, the timing and location of our meeting, and other related matters.

Please respond in greater detail. Could you provide us with a direct address where we might reach you?

Best regards,  
The Secretary of “Proletary”

Written in October 1909  

Sent from Paris to the island of Capri (Italy)

First published in 1933. Printed from manuscript  

In the Lenin Collection, Volume XXV  

ECONOMIC COMMISSION  
OF THE BOLSHEVIK CENTER

To monitor the economy systematically and to be able to reduce expenditures in a systematic manner, it is necessary to:

1) Compile monthly reports organized by categories that are comparable to one another, distinguishing between the most essential items—those least subject to change—and the most contingent and most easily reducible items (newspaper production costs versus aid; expedition housing and printing expenses versus paper prices and typesetter wages, etc.).

2) Over a relatively long period—say, 72 years—strive to compile a rational consolidated report, calculating the average expenditure for each item. (Diets separately; aid separately; random expenses and light transportation should not be lumped together; newspaper costs should be broken down by category: typesetters—paper—housing—expedition wages—printing, and so on.) Then, for each category, one must consider reductions—not merely approximate ones, but actual reductions—

4 ^/t у ^ 

л^гл -Чу^/*" ^1* ■" Л',в -' ■' ~ 

^ С. ■“ П_- - 

л. « 1 ік^м- " '■^У с_^пг- »- ■'■■г **> ™ 

^ н -З^У*! #_., X _ . + ^ * 

г* - -1ін « 

*■ ■»-!*- М К. ж 

« 

'*>
■/ *

^ А(_гш_+~.——*‘^* * ^А- 

ТЬ.*-^ - >-■ > '/' V*- Л- 

%& V У 

V *~#***4? ЛЛ-Й*‘ , 

^ у- (Гл *у- у •* ^ л*у 

^ ^ 'ЙІ- А - - - ЧЛЛ 

*■ *-^->- >*у*- -* 

/ _ Лл^- * *- “У - ^ ** "■ 

,*ІЛ— ^А*-Л *■ 9Ф$&У ***&$, ^ 

у — ■ ,А— 

__ 4* Iй,! Л ~ . . ».■ -■' Л .. Л 

*А-7"’ "У* Ѵ-^ ѵ 

;Ч™*А Л* Л# ^ - 

/Ѵ„ ^ ьФ *>Аѵ^ ;>- * *‘ 

*. ** «гу? * л « ^ -ч^ ѵ -у 

Letter from V. I. Lenin  
To the Economic Commission  
of the Bolshevik Center.  
1909

,<*7. «й^
^ ^

-Ѵ” 

Г г/,'» .^.гі 

Юр 

/ЛТ 

'ч «л 

і,'% 

*■*! 

І» - " - г 

*»(^ 

** 

^*г 

Я» ЛЙ^ 

щ 

9 *■ 

Г#/ 

$ц 

■Н'ДГ 

■'/Ж г *Аг/ 

/м 

Н-А6-". 

1*^ ' 

*■ 

■ч. 

”'' '■- 

% 

\**4 

Ѵ*Ѵ* 

^ й7# 

Г"™™! - ■ 

Щ % 

“ І 

>"1 

‘Сг-'Г 

||_ 

і — 

Ч 

/йГ 

* 

_ 4-*^* 

<Дчг &пг 

» 

і 

- 

1 - #1 

Л <., лр-^і і»/ 

за 

І"*и""™и1І 

т ■ 

Ѵ^Г“ 

Ѵрч 

■» 1 » 

— 

'#жр 

> 

*І*Г 

‘ . 1 ь
Аѵ

*н 

щ** 

Тл^іІ 

іЩ 

/ля] 

/м\ т 

шг 

ІПІ 

ПГ 

*ЪА ,із 

щі: Н 

л* ! ы* 

Зіі/ -Гі>1 

economic commission of the Bolshevik Center 

with an eye toward accurate projections (reduce this and that; purchase paper more cheaply or rent housing at a lower cost, and so on; cut expenses on “occasional” expenditures and light transportation, and so forth).

1909.

Months (yearly totals)  

VI  

VII VIII  

IX  

a Diets.  

2,560  

1,055  

1,930  

1,505  

b Aid to comrades.  

359.2  

553.70  

208.35  

653.35  

c To national organizations.  

d Transportation.  

1,064.65  

1,615  

1,760  

e Inheritance.  

21,000  

1,135  

f Expedition.  

1,501  

2,705  

1,080.90  

g Honorarium.  

454.5  

66.50  

77.30  

103.50  

h Random.  

169.75  

0  

tt  

oo  

i Secretariat and post.  

26.7  

47.70  

census  

136.20  

j Illegal publications (protocols).  

1,725  

1,545  

—  

—  

k Conference.  

2,258  

—  

—  

—  

l To Russia.  

5,947.55  

4,648.75  

933.40  

6,562.70  

m Repayment of old debts.  

—  

4,012.40  

—  

n Miscellaneous.  

—  

—  

1,000  

—  

16,468.95 16,608.45  

_ 240 36  

24 6.66...  

7,050  

1,774.60  

2,075  

5,169.65  
22,700

6,086.90
701.80
941.85
328.75

3,270
2,258

18,092.40  

4,312.40  

1,000.0  

Average per month (roughly)

8shmpa — total. Ed.


Approximately:  

Possible?  

Reductions  

t і p і t i  

t шипит  

тахипыт  

t  

thousands  

a) Expenses for foreign organizations and the newspaper.

3,776  

2.5  

—3.0  

2.5  

b) Aid to comrades.  

0.3  

—0.5  

0.2  

c) To national organizations.

0.2  

—0.3  

0.1  

(only  

to Latvians)  

d) Transportation.  

e) Expenses for receiving E and  

1,292  

0.6  

–0.8  

0.5  

debts. |  

6,753  

—  

—  

f) Illegal party publications.

0.3  

—0.5  

_  

g) Conferences.  

0.6  

—0.6  

0.5  

h) To Russia.  

4,523  

2.5  

—3.5  

2.5  

(only the Central Committee, no local branches)

i) Miscellaneous.  

0.1  

—0.2  

—  

18,940  

7.1  

—9.4  

6.3  

18,940
6,753
12,187

Written in 1909, no earlier than October. First published from manuscript  

in Paris (local edition)  

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE  

Dear Comrade!  

I request that in the next issue of the Central Committee’s publication, my resolution—rejected by two votes to two, with one abstention—be printed, along with my statement announcing my resignation from the Central Committee’s editorial board, and that copies of my resolution, the March resolution, and the adopted resolution, complete with voting results, be sent to me.

With socialist-democratic greetings,  
N. Lenin  

Paris, November 4, 1909.  

A. M. GORKY. NOVEMBER 16, 1909  

R. 8. I would also ask the Central Committee’s editorial board to inform me whether, for the next issue of the Central Committee’s publication, they will accept my essay—a discussion piece on methods for strengthening our party and its unity.

First published in 1933. Printed from manuscript  

in the Lenin Collection, Volume XXV  

A. M. GORKY  

November 16, 1909.  

Dear Alexei Maximovich! All along, I was firmly convinced that you and Comrade Mikhail were the most steadfast factionalists of the new faction—with whom it would be futile for me to attempt to speak in a friendly manner. Today, for the first time, I met Comrade Mikhail, had a heartfelt conversation with him about matters both personal and political, and realized that I had been gravely mistaken. The philosopher Hegel was absolutely right: life moves forward through contradictions, and living contradictions are far richer, more multifaceted, and more full of meaning than the human mind initially perceives. I had regarded the school solely as the center of the new faction—but it turned out that this was incorrect—not in the sense that the school was not the center of the new faction (for the school had always been—and still is—the center of the new faction), but in the sense that this view was incomplete, that it did not capture the whole truth. Subjectively, certain individuals had fashioned the school into such a center; objectively, the school was indeed that center—and moreover, the school drew its strength from the real working-class life of genuine working-class leaders. It turned out that, in addition to the contradiction between the old and new factions on Capri, a new contradiction emerged between a segment of Social-Democratic intellectuals and the Russian workers who, come what may, would lead social democracy back onto the right path—no matter what happened, despite all the foreign squabbles and disputes, the “histories” and the like. People like Mikhail stand as proof of this. And furthermore,


it became clear that within the school, a contradiction had also emerged between elements of the Capri Social-Democratic intelligentsia.

From what Mikhail told me, dear A. M., I see that you are now going through a very difficult time. You have had to confront the workers’ movement and social democracy from a perspective, in forms, and in ways that, time and again throughout the history of Russia and Western Europe, have led intellectual skeptics to despair regarding the workers’ movement and social democracy. I am confident that this will not happen to you—and after speaking with Mikhail, I feel a strong desire to shake your hand warmly. With your talent as an artist, you have brought immense benefit to the workers’ movement in Russia—and not just in Russia alone; you will continue to bring so much more benefit that it is absolutely unacceptable for you to give in to the heavy moods stirred up by episodes of foreign strife. There are times when the very nature of the workers’ movement inevitably gives rise to such foreign conflicts, schisms, quarrels, and even clashes between factions—this is not because the workers’ movement is inherently weak or because social democracy is fundamentally flawed, but because the elements from which the working class must forge its own party are far too diverse and uneven in scale. Nevertheless, the working class will forge a truly revolutionary social democracy in Russia—indeed, it will forge it sooner than sometimes seems, given the often-burdened circumstances of exile, and it will forge it more reliably than one might imagine, judging by certain external manifestations and isolated episodes. People like Mikhail are proof of this.

I warmly shake your hand—and Maria Fedorovna’s as well—because I now hope that we will meet again, not as enemies.

Your Lenin  

\U1. OiIiaIoiT.  

4. Kie Magie-Koze. 4.  

Ragiz. XIV.  

Sent to the island of Capri (Italy)  

First published on October 15,  
1924, in “Red Gazette,” No. 236  

Printed from manuscript  

A. M. GORKY. NOVEMBER 1909  

A. M. GORKY  

Dear A. M.! As for your visit—there’s no need for that. What good would it do for me to quarrel with Maximov, Lunacharsky, and others? You yourself write: “argue amongst yourselves”—and then you call on others to argue in public. That’s not the model we should follow. And as for pushing the workers away—again, that’s unnecessary. Suppose they accept our invitation and come to visit us—we’ll have a lively conversation with them, debating the merits of a single newspaper article that certain factionalists deride as “the most tedious, illiterate, useless, and utterly devoid of faith in the proletariat or socialism.”

Your assessment of the new schism is somewhat off the mark. On the one hand, both sides are nihilists—and “Slavic anarchists” too, my friend, but European figures in eras like ours fought, argued, and split apart far more fiercely than any Slavic group ever did! On the other hand, the schism will be no less profound than the one between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. If the root of the problem lies in the “nihilism” of those who “argue,” in the illiteracy and other shortcomings of those who don’t truly believe in what they write—and so on—then the schism isn’t deep at all, and in fact, it’s hardly a schism at all. But if the schism runs deeper than that between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks—if it goes beyond mere disagreement over the writings of those who doubt their own words—then you’re mistaken about the nature of the current schism, and you’re right to say, “I understand the people, but I don’t understand their cause.”

What appears to you and Maximov as insincerity, worthlessness, and the like in “Proletary” stems from a completely different perspective on the entire contemporary moment—and, of course, on Marxism itself. For nearly two years now, we’ve been stuck in place, endlessly pondering the very same questions that still seem “controversial” to Maximov—questions that have long since

We are talking about the organ of the Bolshevik Center—the newspaper “Proletary.” Ed.  

A note on “rightfully”: I must qualify this. Without understanding the underlying causes, one cannot truly understand the people—except in a superficial, outward way. That is, one may grasp the psychology of this or that participant in the struggle, but one cannot fully comprehend the meaning of the struggle itself, nor its partisan and political significance.


life has decided. And if we had continued to “argue” over those issues, we would still be spinning our wheels in vain. But by parting ways, we will show the workers two clear, straightforward, and definitive paths. The workers—social democrats—will make their choice quickly and easily, for the tactic of preserving revolutionary slogans from 1905–1906 in “preserved form,” rather than applying revolutionary methods to a new, different context, to a changed era that demands new approaches and new forms of organization—such tactics are dead ends. The proletariat marches toward revolution—and will march toward it—but not as it did before 1905. To those who “believe” that the revolution is coming, but fail to grasp that “not in the same way”—to them, our position will appear insincere, worthless, dull, founded on a lack of faith in the proletariat and socialism, and so on and so forth. The resulting divergence is undoubtedly deep enough to render a schism—at least a schism abroad—inevitable. Yet even in terms of the depth of the schism, it falls far short of the profound divisions that tore apart the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, when we speak of the depth of the schism within the party, within social democracy, within the ranks of Marxists.

You wonder why I do not perceive the hysteria, the indiscipline (you’re hardly the ones to talk, and Mikhail is hardly the one to listen), and the other vices of Mikhail. Well, I had a chance to test this in a small way: I had thought that our conversations with you would never amount to anything, that there would be nothing left to write about. Inspired by my conversation with Mikhail, I wrote immediately, in the heat of the moment, without even rereading my letter or putting it aside until the next day. The next day, I thought to myself: “I was foolish—I believed Mikhail.” But it turned out that, however carried away Mikhail might have been, he was, in the end, right—after all, our conversation with you did take place, though of course it wasn’t without its sparks, and it certainly didn’t end without a few jabs at “Proletary.” But what can you do about that!

I shake your hand warmly. N. Lenin