Written: Written December 16, 1912
Published:
First published in 1960 in Istorichesky Arkhiv No. 2.
First published as a letter by Lenin in 1964 in Collected Works, Fifth (Russian) Ed., Vol 48.
Sent from Cracow to St. Petersburg.
Printed from a copy in Krupskaya’s handwriting.
Source:
Lenin
Collected Works,
Progress Publishers,
[1977],
Moscow,
Volume 43,
pages 317b-319.
Translated: Martin Parker and Bernard Isaacs
Transcription\Markup:
R. Cymbala
Public Domain:
Lenin Internet Archive
(2005).
You may freely copy, distribute,
display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
Archive” as your source.
Other Formats:
Text
• README
16/XII.
Dear Friend,
We received all your letters (the last about the “tractability” of your compatriot[1] regarding No. 16.... Question able, though!) and are replying. Is it possible that our letters go astray?
1) For goodness’ sake, take the most energetic steps to get W.[2] away from Krass and turn it over legally to Muranov, No. 5, and particularly to take the funds and the subscription money. Without this we are lost. Besides to allow the abuses to go on would be criminal.
2) Arrange a meeting over there of all six before they have time to scatter. There is plenty of time now; they will manage to do everything after the meeting as well.
3) Be sure to get the six to publish a statement in W. (even the five, at a pinch; we cannot delay any longer and wait).
4) Impress it finally and seriously upon Shibayev[3] and all his colleagues that they must write here twice a week and correspond conscientiously. Without this it is impossible to work together.
5) The same applies to Vetrov. He has not written once, and he could easily have sent even the text of the liquidators’ declaration. This is inexcusable.
6) Did you get the draft resolutions for Misha’s collegium? Do your level best to get them adopted.
The letters were sent mainly to the bank address. The draft leaflet, to the other, Shibayev address. Reply at once, if only in a few words, to acknowledge receipt of this letter.
P.S. Just learned of the defeat.
You must get Misha’s collegium to adopt a resolution against (the one No. 3 had), with the addition that the decision of the Duma group is a decision of seven semi-Party people, and circulate it in the districts. If even the base resolution of the 7 Mensheviks for Jagiello (and for the Bund) does not finally impel No. 6 to join us, the five must speak out in W. and speak out very sharply.
If the resolution about Jagiello was adopted under such circumstances as Rusanov’s not yet having arrived or there being no certainty about his not being a Social-Democrat, then the 7 simply fooled the 6, picked their pockets. In Rusanov’s place, on arriving later, I would not have joined the Social-Democratic Duma group and would have raised a terrific row.
But if it was known that Rusanov was not a Social-Democrat, then it was wrong to accept the base resolution without a protest.
At any rate I would advise the Petersburg Committee to adopt a resolution on approximately these lines (repeat the resolution which No. 3 has):
The Petersburg Committee strongly condemns the resolution of the 7 members of the Duma group who: a) did not obtain exact information about the Social-Democratic workers in Warsaw; b) made no mention in the resolution of the protest of all the Polish Social-Democrats against Jagiello; c) made no mention of the two (out of three) electors from the Warsaw workers; d) represented the bourgeois vote for the P.P.S. as evidence of “the growth of political consciousness among the bourgeoisie”, whereas it could only be a matter of an honest man gaining by two thieves falling out; e) deduced Jagiello’s Social-Democratism from his “statement” and from the bloc of a section of the Social-Democrats with a non-Social-Democratic party against the Polish Social-Democrats; f) and what is most important—drew an incredible distinction between “questions of the internal life of Social-Democracy” and “questions of political activity in the Duma, thereby encouraging the separation of the latter from the former”.
The Petersburg Committee condemns those who have taken such an anti-Party step and thereby divorced them selves from the “internal life of Russian Social-Democracy”.
[1] A reference to N. S. Chkheidze.—Ed.
[2] A reference to Pravda.—Ed.
[3] Evidently a reference to A. Y. Badayev.—Ed.
[4] Letters Nos. 262 and 264 were published in 1960 in the journal Istorichesky Arkhiv (Historical Archives) No. 2 as having been written by Nadezhda Krupskaya.
In preparing Vol. 48 of Collected Works, Fifth (Russian) Ed., for the press it was established that they had been written by Lenin but, for reasons of secrecy, had been copied by Krupskaya in invisible ink between the lines of letters sent openly through the mail.
| | | | | | |