Letter to Apollinariya Yakubova, October 26, 1900

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

Yakubova, Apollinaria Alexandrovna (1870-1917)—a participant in the Social-Democratic movement from 1893, prominent exponent of Economism. A member of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class; in 1897-98 was one of the organisers of the St. Petersburg publication of the Economists’ newspaper Rabochaya Mysl. In 1998 was exiled to Siberia for a term of four years and emigrated in the summer of 1899. Assisted in the organisation of the Second Congress of the RSDLP which she attended as a non-voting delegate. After the split in the Party, she sympathised with the Mensheviks. Retired from political activities after 1905. p. 51

October 26

I received your letter of October 24 yesterday and am replying at once as requested.

I cannot forward the letter just now, as I am not sending any pasted-in things to the address I have, and only use the chemical method. I have no time to copy the letter by this means. I wrote to the addressee yesterday giving the substance of the letter, and I hope in the near future to communicate the whole letter to him. But if you can copy it into an unbound book by the chemical method, then I will send it at once.

I will give my sister the address: she was not in Paris in September, so you could hardly have been there at the same time. I hope you dropped her a few lines at the address I gave you.

Now, to business.

Your letter to me creates a strange impression. Apart from information concerning addresses and forwarding, it contains nothing but reproaches—bare reproaches without any explanations. You even go to the extent of attempting caustic remarks “(are you sure that you have done this for the benefit of the Russian workers’ movement and not for the benefit of Plekhanov?”)—but, of course, I am not going to exchange caustic remarks with you.

You reproach me for having “advised against”. You quote me very inaccurately. I remember very well that I did not express myself categorically, absolutely. I wrote: “We find it hard at the moment to advise anything”; that is to say, I made our decision depend directly on a preliminary elucidation of the matter. What this elucidation should have been, is clear from my letter: it was essential for us to be perfectly sure whether there had really been a “turn” in Rabochaya Mysl (as we had been told and as we were entitled to conclude from the fact that you proposed to Plekhanov that he should participate) and what kind of turn.

On this basic and main question you do not say a word.

That we regard Rabochaya Mysl as an organ of a special trend with which we differ in the most serious way is something of which you have long been aware. Some months ago both the addressee of your long letter and I flatly refused to take part in an organ of that trend, and obviously, in doing so ourselves, we could not but advise others to do the same.

The news of a “turn” in Rabochaya Mysl, however, put us in a “difficulty”. A real turn could substantially alter the situation. It is natural therefore that in my letter I expressed above all the desire to learn all the details of the turn—but you have not said a word in reply to this.

Perhaps, however, you consider that the answer to my question about the turn is contained in your letter to my friend? Perhaps, if you approached Plekhanov on behalf of the editorial board of Rabochaya Mysl, your letter to my friend could be regarded as an authentic expression of the board’s views? If so, then I am inclined to draw the conclusion that there has been no turn. If I am mistaken, please explain my mistake to me. The other day, another close supporter of Plekhanov wrote to me about the turn in Rabochaya Mysl. But, being in correspondence with you, I cannot, of course, believe these “rumours” of a turn which are not in any way confirmed by you.

Again, I had better say openly and straightaway (even at the risk of incurring further reproaches) that, being in complete solidarity with my friend (to whom you write), I subscribe to his words: “We shall have to fight you”—if there is no turn. But if there is—you must explain in full detail exactly what this turn is.

You write to my friend: “fight us, if you are not ashamed to do so”. He will answer you himself, of course, but I for my part beg leave to reply to this. I am not in the least ashamed to fight—seeing that things have gone so far that the disagreements have concerned fundamental issues, that an atmosphere has been created of mutual non-comprehension, mutual distrust and complete discordance of views (I am not speaking of Rabochaya Mysl alone; I am speaking about everything I have seen and heard, and not so much here as at home), inasmuch as a number of “splits” has already arisen on this basis. To get rid of this oppressive atmosphere, even a furious thunderstorm, and not merely a literary polemic, can (and should) be welcomed.

And there is no reason to be so much afraid of a struggle: a struggle may cause annoyance to some individuals, but it will clear the air, define attitudes in a precise and straightforward manner, define which differences are important and which unimportant, define where people stand—those who are taking a completely different path and those Party comrades who differ only on minor points.

You write that there have been mistakes in Rabochaya Mysl. Of course, we all make mistakes. Without a struggle, however, how is one to distinguish these minor mistakes from the trend which stands clearly revealed in Rabochaya Mysl and attains its culmination in the “Credo”. Without struggle there cannot be a sorting out, and without a sorting out there cannot be any successful advance, nor can there be any lasting unity. And those who are beginning the struggle at the present time are by no means destroying unity. There is no longer any unity, it has already been destroyed all along the line. Russian Marxism and Russian Social-Democracy are already a house divided against itself, and an open, frank struggle is one of the essential conditions for restoring unity.

Yes, restoring! The kind of “unity” that makes us conceal “Economic” documents from our comrades like a secret disease, that makes us resent the publication of statements revealing what views are being propagated under the guise of Social-Democratic views—such “unity” is not worth a brass farthing, such “unity” is sheer cant, it only aggravates the disease and makes it assume a chronic, malignant form. That an open, frank and honest struggle will cure this disease and create a really united, vigorous and strong Social-Democratic movement—I do not for a moment doubt.

Perhaps it is very inappropriate that in a letter to you of all people I have to speak so often of a struggle (literary struggle). But I think that our old friendship most of all makes complete frankness obligatory.

All the best.

Petroff

P.S. In a week or two I shall have another address: Herr Philipp Roegner, Cigarrenhandlung, Neue Gasse, Nürnberg (only for letters and in two envelopes). [Please do not write any initials in the letters—heaven knows whether the post here is quite reliable.]

---

A variant of part of the letter

First published in 1930 in Lenin Miscellany XIII. Printed from the original.

Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1977, Moscow, Volume 43, pages 47b-48a.

I clearly see two trends also in your letter to a friend: one quite legitimately lays the stress on the need for economic struggle, the need to be able to make use of the workers’ legal societies as well, “to respond in diverse ways to the day-to-day vital needs of the workers”, and so on. All this is legitimate and correct. You are mistaken if you think that the revolutionaries “are opposed to legal societies”, that such societies are “hateful” to them, that they “turn their backs on society”, and so on. The revolutionaries too recognise the necessity of economic struggle, of responding also to the day-to-day vital needs, and of learning to make use of legal societies as well. Not only have the revolutionaries never and nowhere advised to turn one’s back on society, but on the contrary have stressed that it is essential for Social-Democracy to take the lead in the social movement and to unite under the leadership of the revolutionary Social-Democratic Party all the democratic elements. However, it is imperative to take care that the legal societies and purely economic organisations should not separate the workers’ movement from Social-Democracy and revolutionary political struggle, but that they should, on the contrary, link them as closely and indissolubly as possible. But in your letter there is also that tendency (a harmful and, in my opinion, thoroughly reactionary one), the tendency to separate the workers’ movement from Social-Democracy and revolutionary political struggle—to put off the political tasks, to replace the concept “political struggle” with the concept “struggle for legal rights”, and so on.

How to draw the line between the sound and useful tendency and the harmful one? I believe there is no need for me to persuade you who have already had a taste of “meetings abroad” that we must not confine ourselves to mere talk. And would it not be ridiculous to fear examination of the question in print since it has already been discussed for a long time in letters and debates. Why should debates at meetings and writing letters be considered permissible and elucidation of controversial issues in the press a “most harmful thing capable only (???) of amusing our enemies”? This I cannot understand. Only polemics in the press can precisely establish the dividing line I am referring to, for some people are often bound to go to extremes. Of course struggle in the press will cause more ill feeling and give us a good many hard knocks, but we are not so thin-skinned as to fear knocks! To wish for struggle without knocks, differences without struggle, would be the height of naïveté, and if the struggle is waged openly it will be a hundred times better than foreign and Russian “Gubarevism”, and will lead, I repeat, a hundred times faster to lasting unity.