Letter to Alexander Shliapnikov, Late in May 1916

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

For Comrade Alexander

Dear Alexander,

Of course we shall give Belenin 300 kronen, if he has already so firmly decided on his plan for a trip. It will be a pity if he goes. In any case, you must do everything to ensure his return in a few months.

As regards the “Japanese”, you shouldn’t think that they have made “considerable concessions” in the draft you have sent on. They haven’t made any at all! On the contrary, the demand that the two should have the right to haul in dissenting contributors is an innovation, an addition, a surenchère. And this innovation clearly exposes their “policy” in the worst sense of the word. If the founders, the publishers, the young contributors want freedom of opinion for themselves—freedom of discussion—that is legitimate. But if people, behind this legitimate desire, try to smuggle in “discussion” which is not their own, but that of “ contributors”, isn’t it clear that this is a game?

Never has there been anything like this anywhere. If the two want publicity for all kinds of intrigues abroad—let them go ahead, and let them be responsible for it. I cannot participate in this either directly or indirectly.

You will ask, perhaps, where is the proof that it is a question of intrigues abroad? I wrote to you about this long ago, and you have not replied a single time. The proof is the issue of Gazeta Robotnicza (February 1976), from which we have Radek and Bronski as “contributors”.

That is a fact.

These gentlemen were the first in the Zimmerwald Left to start an intrigue—and at what a time! They want to “play off” Chkheidze and Trotsky.

At such a moment the two publishers do not blush to propose to us that we should give them “freedom and a guarantee” of discussion for such contributors! This is either madness, or the height of impudence.

And equal representation with them (6=3+3), is that not the same thing? Why, they once gave you to understand (and you wrote this yourself) that they would accept the co-opting of two, supporters of the CO But when it came to having a written agreement, they beat a retreat. Isn’t that the game of petty hucksters?

If people are in agreement, sincerely and in principle, to have a journal or a miscellany support the Programme of the Party, then the majority must be for it. Otherwise there is no sincerity, no principle, only “the purse strings”.

My view is, explain all this to them clearly, in popular language, if necessary in writing, and give them an ultimatum: either this way (7=4+3), or you send in your conclusion about their “game” to the Bureau. That will be the correct Party reply.

All the best,

Yours,

Lenin