| Category | Template | Form |
|---|---|---|
| Text | Text | Text |
| Author | Author | Author |
| Collection | Collection | Collection |
| Keywords | Keywords | Keywords |
| Subpage | Subpage | Subpage |
| Template | Form |
|---|---|
| BrowseTexts | BrowseTexts |
| BrowseAuthors | BrowseAuthors |
| BrowseLetters | BrowseLetters |
Template:GalleryAuthorsPreviewSmall
Special pages :
Letter to Inessa Armand, Not earlier than January 11, 1914
Published: First published in 1964 in Collected Works, Fifth (Russian) Ed., Vol. 48. Sent from Cracow to Paris. Printed from the original.
Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1977, Moscow, Volume 43, pages 375b-376a
...[1] I received the CO Page 8 is disgraceful. Why the devil didnât they let us know? We could have found some more material!! And it should have been dated not 28/XII, but earlier, for there is not a word about the International Bureau.
Many people are worrying over the decisions of the Bureau. Itâs silly!
An âexchange of opinionsâ is quite acceptable, and a resolution like that should not have been turned down.
That about the six being rejected is a lie. The six did not even present a demand! According to the Rules they couldnât: if there are 7 S.R.s in the Duma+6 S.D.s, then 1 S.R. only has a voice in the Inter-Parliamentary Commission.
The I.S. Bureau can only offer us bons offices for talks, for an âexchange of opinionsâ with other parties, groups, etc. This is all it does. Only this! The calling of a conference, etc., is a stupid Versimpelung of affairs by the liquidationist and philistine riffraff. These liquidator people are just muck. And if we âexchange opinionsâ theyâll be pleased!
Who wrote the article in the CO on the Beilis case?
Why werenât the proofs sent to us?? It should have been said that the bourgeois should form a republican party if they are really against the Beilis case.
- â The beginning of the letter is missing.âEd.