30/V.

Comrade Lutov­inov!

I have read your letter of 20/V and find myself under a very gloomy impression. I had expected that in Berlin, having rested a bit, recovered from illness, looked at things "from the side" (things are more visible from the side) and thought matters through, you would arrive at clear and precise conclusions. Here you gave the appearance of a "mood" of discontent. A mood — something almost blind, unconscious, unthought-through. Well, I thought, in place of mood there will now be clear and precise conclusions. Perhaps, I thought, we may diverge over these conclusions, but in any case there will be precise and clear conclusions from one of the "founders" of the "opposition" (as you yourself acknowledge in your letter).

The gloomy impression from your letter is because there is neither clarity nor precision, but again only dark mood and moreover "strong words."

This cannot be.

Facts — you recall this yourself — are a stubborn thing. Well then, look at what facts you have mentioned. I will list all your factual points:

1) The Central Committee of railwaymen is composed "of old bureaucrats."

Is this a fact? Names? I know no one except Rudzutak, but I know that it was composed with care. Mistakes could have been made. They need to be corrected. But for that you must first point them out precisely, so that there is no room for dark mood (and often concealed in this darkness is gossip: gossip loves darkness and anonymity).

You have not given names. There are no facts.

Rudzutak? Why is he not a worker? "Physically worn out"? Try to find among us someone not worn out. We will return him from Turkestan as soon as we cure Ioffe and Sokolnikov.

In what consists our "factional tendentiousness"? In the fact that they place at the head of the Central Committee of railwaymen a supporter of the party congress majority? This, in your view, is "factionalism"? If so, I ask you to explain to me what should be understood by factionalism and what by party-mindedness.

Will you not declare as "party-mindedness" the fact that the leader of the former "workers' opposition" at the recent conference of metalworkers submitted a Central Committee slate in which out of 22 members of the RCP — 19 were supporters of the former "workers' opposition"?331 If this is not "factional tendentiousness," not a revival of faction, then you somehow use the concept of factionalism in a quite special way, somehow unusual, even somehow inhuman.

2) At the head of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions "a physically worn-out man." That is, Tomsky? They wanted to replace him with a troika of secretaries, and now they have removed him entirely. So your shot against factionalism turned against you. Now that is a fact.

3) In the struggle against outrages in the Berlin mission you encounter "wild resistance from Moscow up to Ilyich."

Excuse me, this is fiction.

You praised Stom­onyk­ov extravagantly, whom Krasin defended. At the head of the old mission stood Kopp. Kopp was removed, Stom­onyk­ov remained.

What is this? "wild resistance from Moscow"?

Or wild lies about Moscow?

From the standpoint of "facts," which of these tough little words is closer to the truth? eh?

There were outrages in the Berlin mission, Moscow (and Krasin) did not interfere, did not resist, but helped you fight against them, strengthening Stom­onyk­ov's authority, him whom you praised in the highest terms.

4) You supposedly discovered here (in Berlin) a series of "most brazen scoundrels and thieves," and Moscow does not remove them.

Names? Not a single one.

Fact or gossip?

Or do you not know how complaints are addressed to the Central Committee? to the Organizational Bureau? to the Politburo? to the Plenum of the Central Committee?

Not a single complaint from you has ever gone to the Politburo or to the Plenum. That is a fact.

(Parenthetically: we had a disagreement with you over Shklovsky, but you did not bring it to the Politburo.332 I have known Shklovsky as a Bolshevik since years before the revolution. As an honest man, he would have helped the struggle against "scoundrels and thieves." And you hindered Shklovsky's departure to Berlin, although here he is not a worker, is out of action.)

5) Grzhebin. About him, and only about him, I read yesterday your and Stom­onyk­ov's protest to the Central Committee. We will examine it at the first session.333

There were disagreements about Grzhebin in our Central Committee. Some said: remove him entirely, because he might cheat as a publisher. Others said: as a publisher he will publish more cheaply. Let him cheat us by 10,000, but he will publish more cheaply and better.

We chose a commission equally from both viewpoints. I did not enter it in view of my "bias" (in the opinion of some) toward Gorky, Grzhebin's defender.

The commission decided the matter unanimously. I do not remember precisely how it decided: it seems — to buy from Grzhebin if it would be cheaper.

Consequently, your conclusion: "they were guided not by state considerations," but by reassuring Gorky, — is outright falsehood. And you write: "I am convinced"!!!

If people form "convictions" before checking facts, which are not difficult to check, what is that called?

6) Lomonosov, a brilliant specialist, but "exposed by Krasin in the most criminal commercial dealings."

Untrue. If Krasin had exposed Lomonosov in a crime, Lomonosov would have been removed and brought to trial. You heard a sound and . . . made gossip of it.

Krasin wrote to me and the Central Committee: Lomonosov is a brilliant specialist, but is less suited to commerce and made mistakes. Having come here, met with Lomonosov, reviewed the documents, Krasin not only did not speak of crime, but did not even speak of mistakes.

Choose: either begin seriously a case in the Control Commission (or wherever you wish) about Lomonosov's crimes, or take back such carelessly picked-up hearsay?

7) "They appoint to the trade department such, for example, scoundrels: in the past — a factory owner whose property the Soviet power confiscated, and now they send him to sell these furs. Pardon me, but what can come of this?"

Thus you write. Well, how could one not become gloomy. The founder of an entire opposition and reasons thus!

It is the same as if some dark peasant said: "they took away lands and ranks from a thousand of the Tsar's generals, and now they assign these generals to the Red Army"! Yes, we certainly have more than a thousand former generals and landowners from the Tsar's time serving in the most important posts in the Red Army. And it defeated the enemy.

God will forgive the dark peasant. And you?

If you know such a "scoundrel," how can you, a Soviet official, remain silent about his name? Not press a case against the person?

And if you do not know the name, then again it is hearsay? again gossip?

I have gone through literally everything that resembles, even remotely resembles, facts from your letter. Zero, zero, and zero.

If I did not know you, then receiving such a letter as yours, I would have said:

either this is a nervous sick person, who hysterically grasps scraps of rumors and cannot think, reason, verify; or this is a helpless person through lack of development and obscurity, who has become a victim of gossip; or this is a disguised Menshevik, who is consciously sowing gossip.

Knowing you, I say to you that your letter is a remarkable "human document," showing how an "opposition founder" lets himself be carried away by the desire to play opposition by all means and shout, apropos of nothing, about protectionism, about commissars run amok, about "the system," etc.

"After all it is not about persons, but about the system itself. Now I raise the question: proletariat or demagnetized declassed petty-bourgeois intelligentsia," — you write.

This is ridiculous. Your letter is precisely a magnificent human document, showing us its author as a specimen of demagnetized petty-bourgeois intelligentsia. For indeed from proletarians by profession there have more than once emerged in life demagnetized petty-bourgeois intellectuals according to their actual class role.

The demagnetized petty-bourgeois intellectual whines, cries, loses composure before any manifestation of outrage and evil, loses self-control, repeats any gossip, strains to speak something incoherent about "the system."

The proletarian (not by his former profession, but by his actual class role), seeing evil, takes up the struggle in a businesslike manner: openly and officially supports the candidacy of a good worker Ivan, proposes to replace a bad Peter, presses a case — and conducts it energetically, firmly, to the end — against scoundrel Sidor, against the protectionist outburst of Titus, against the most criminal dealing of Miron, develops (after 2–3 months of training in new work and practical familiarization with new environment) businesslike, practical proposals: to introduce such-and-such a system of commissars or political commissars, to change such-and-such orders here, to send such-and-such a number of well-known communists (with such-and-such seniority) to such-and-such posts.

Such proletarians, even having lost their proletarian profession, knew how to build the Red Army and defeat with it (in spite of a thousand traitors and scoundrels, who were and remained thousands among military specialists and military bureaucrats).

Such proletarians will never descend to the class role of demagnetized petty-bourgeois intellectual, helplessly thrashing about, throwing in the towel before gossip, calling scraps of gossip "the system."

There is my frank answer to you. Though seldom, I will answer fully — another time I would not have time for it.

TO E. M. SKLYANSKY. 30 MAY 1921

Out of old friendship I will say: you need to take care of your nerves. Then reasoning will appear, not mood.

With comradely greetings, Lenin

Published in 1957 in the journal "Questions of the History of the CPSU," No. 2

Published in full in 1959

Written 30 May 1921

First published incompletely in Lenin Collection XXXVI

Printed from the manuscript