In accordance with a decision of the ninth congress of the r
Download 4.26 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
56 TO THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF Z A
To the Editor: It is essential to reprint the “Material”, 144 even if in parts, since the issue was confiscated not on that account. Legal- ity, legality without fail!! If you can’t reprint it at once, announce immediately in print, for those who didn’t see the issue of October 29 that it will be reprinted. Written not earlier than November 1 4 , 1 9 1 3 Sent from Cracow to St. Petersburg First published in 1 9 3 3 Printed from the original in Lenin Miscellany XXV
126 57 TO THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF Z A
*
Sharp, and nothing more. For God’s sake, less sharpness. Analyse the arguments more calmly, repeat the truth as circumstantially and simply as possible. That, and only that, is the way to ensure definite victory. Written not earlier than November 1 6 , 1 9 1 3 Sent from Cracow to St. Petersburg First published in 1 9 3 3 Printed from the original in Lenin Miscellany XXV * This letter was attached to an unidentified article.—Ed. 127 58 TO MAXIM GORKY ...
* On the question of god, the god-like and everything connected with it, there is a contradiction in your posi- tion—the same, I think, which I used to point out in our talks when we last met in Capri. You broke (or appeared to break) with the Vperyod people, without having noticed the ideological basis of “Vperyodism”. The same has happened now. You are “most vexed”, you “cannot understand how the words ‘for the time being’ crept in”—that is how you write—and yet at the same time you defend the idea of God and god-building. “God is the complex of those ideas, worked out by the tribe, the nation, mankind, which awaken and organise social feelings, having as their object to link the individ- ual with society and to bridle zoological individualism.” This theory is obviously connected with the theory or theories of Bogdanov and Lunacharsky. And it is clearly wrong and clearly reactionary. Like the Christian socialists (the worst variety of “socialism”, and its worst distortion), you make use of a method which (despite your best intentions) repeats the hocus-pocus of the priests: you eliminate from the idea of God everything about it that is historical and drawn from real life (filth, prejudices, sanctified ignorance and degradation, on the one hand, serfdom and monarchy, on the other), and in- stead of the reality of history and life there is substi- tuted in the idea of God a gentle petty-bourgeois phrase (God= “ideas which awaken and organise social feelings”). * The beginning of the letter has never been found.—Ed. V. I. L E N I N 128
Your wish in so doing is to say something “good and kind”, to point out “truth and justice” and the like. But your good wish remains your personal affair, a subjective “inno- cent desire”. Once you have written it down, it goes out among the masses, and its significance is determined not by your good wishes, but by the relationship of social forces, the objective relationship of classes. By virtue of that relationship it turns out (irrespective of your will and in- dependently of your consciousness) that you have put a good colour and a sugary coating on the idea of the cleri- cals, the Purishkeviches, Nicholas II and the Struves, 1 4 5
since in practice the idea of God helps them keep the people in slavery. By beautifying the idea of god, you have beau- tified the chains with which they fetter ignorant workers and peasants. There—the priests and, Co. will say—what a good and profound idea this is (the idea of God), as even “your” leaders recognise, Messrs. democrats: and we (the priests and Co.) serve that idea. It is untrue that god is the complex of ideas which awaken and organise social feelings. That is Bogdanov idealism, which suppresses the material origin of ideas. God is (in history and in real life) first of all the complex of ideas generated by the brutish subjection of man both by ex- ternal nature and by the class yoke—ideas which consoli-
was a time in history when, in spite of such an origin and such a real meaning of the idea of God, the struggle .of democracy and of the proletariat went on in the form of a struggle of one religious idea against another. But that time, too, is long past. Nowadays both in Europe and in Russia any, even the most refined and best-intentioned defence or justification of the idea of God is a justification of reaction. Your entire definition is reactionary and bourgeois, through and through. God = the complex of ideas which awaken and organise social feelings, having as their object to link the individual with society and to bridle zoological individualism Why is this reactionary? Because it falsely colours the idea of “bridling” zoology preached by priests and feudals. In reality, “zoological individualism” was bridled not by
129 TO MAXIM GORKY the idea of God, it was bridled both by the primitive herd and the primitive community. The idea of God always put to sleep and blunted the “social feelings”, replacing the living by the dead, being always the idea of slavery (the worst, hopeless slavery). Never has the idea of God “linked the individual with society”: it has always tied the oppressed classes hand and foot with faith in the divinity of the oppressors. Your definition is bourgeois (and not scientific, not historical) because it operates with sweeping, general, “Robinson Crusoe” conceptions in general, not with definite
The idea of God among the Zyrian savages, etc. (includ- ing semi-savages) is one thing. With Struve and Co. it is something quite different. In both cases class domina- tion supports this idea (and this idea supports it). The “popular” conception of God and the divine is “popular” ignorance, degradation, darkness, just like the “popular conception” of the tsar, the devil and dragging wives by the hair. I completely fail to understand how you can call the “popular conception” of God “democratic”. It is untrue that philosophical idealism “always has in view only the interests of the individual”. Did Descartes have the interests of the individual more in mind than Gassendi? Or Fichte and Hegel as compared with Feuerbach? That “god-building is the process of the further develop- ment and accumulation of social elements in the individual and society” is simply terrible!! If there were freedom in Russia, the entire bourgeoisie would praise you to the skies for such things, for such sociology and theology of a purely bourgeois type and character. Well, that’s enough for the time being: this letter is too long as it is. Once again, I shake your hand and wish you good health. Yours,
V. I. Written in the second half of November 1 9 1 3 Sent from Cracow to Capri First published in 1 9 2 4 Printed from the original in Lenin Miscellany I
130 59 TO INESSA ARMAND 146
I have just had the telegram, and changed the envelope, which had been marked for A.... What’s happening to the Central Organ?? This is a disgrace and a scandal!! No sign of it yet, and not even the proofs. Enquire and get an explanation, please. The issue of Vorwärts where Kautsky used the rotten phrase that there is no Party (die alte Partei sei verschwun-
get hold of it (rue de Bretagne. 49 or somewhere else) and organise a protest campaign. We are for an exchange of opinion, for the resolution of the I.S.B.—this N.B.—but are absolutely against Kautsky’s scoundrelly phrase. 1 4 7
He should be beaten unmercifully for this, with the reservation that we are for Aussprache (exchange of opinion), etc. Written after December 1 8 , 1 9 1 3 Sent from Cracow to Paris Published for the first time Printed from the original in the Fourth (Russian) Edition of the Collected Works
131 FROM MARX TO MAO NOT
FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION
. . .
* Idiotically stupid are the people who have “taken fright” at trusted agents, 1 4 8
as something allegedly “in- sulting” to the Party cells. That means, the argument runs, that, there are no Party cells if they want trusted agents! Comedians! They chase words, without thinking about how devilishly complicated and subtle life is, producing
People for the most part (99 per cent of the bourgeoisie, 98 per cent of the liquidators, about 60-70 per cent of the Bolsheviks) don’t know how to think, they only learn words by heart. They’ve learnt the word “underground”. Firmly. They can repeat it. They know it by heart. But how to change its forms in a new situation, how to learn and think anew for this purpose, this we do not under- stand. The summer conference of 1913 (abroad) decided to over- come the Seven. The campaign of the working masses in the autumn of 1913 in Russia—the majority are for us!! A “circle” of “trusted agents” (without election by the Party cells!! Alarm!!—shout Antonov, Isaac and Co.) decided— and the masses carried it out. How can that be done? Well, that, is where one must learn to understand such a “cunning” mechanism. It could
cells. And it could not have been done, if there were no new and cunning forms of the underground and the Party cells.
* The beginning of the letter has never been found.—Ed. V. I. L E N I N 132
I am very interested in whether you will succeed in mak- ing our people understand this. Write in as much detail as you can. We have received one copy of Sputnik Rabochego. 1 4 9 5,000 copies have already been sold!! Hurrah!! Set about the women’s journal 150
super-energetically! Written at the end of December 1 9 1 3 Sent from Cracow to Paris Published for the first time Printed from the original in the Fourth (Russian) Edition of the Collected Works
133 QYQT 61 TO DAVID WIJNKOOP Cracow, January 12, 1914 Dear Comrade Wijnkoop, Thank you most cordially for your kind letter. I hope you have read in the German Social-Democratic papers (Vorwärts and Leipziger Volkszeitung) the articles of our opponents (for example, J. K. of the Rosa Luxemburg group, and Z. L., who represents no group in Russia, in Leipziger Volkszeitung). The German Social-Democratic press is boycotting us, particularly Vorwärts, and only Leipziger Volkszeitung has printed one article from us (signed by the editorial board of Sotsial-Demokrat, Central Organ of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party * ). In Bremer Bürger-Zeitung 1 5 1
Radek writes about Rus- sian affairs. Yet Radek also represents no group whatever in Russia! It is ridiculous to print articles by emigrants who represent nothing, and not accept articles from the representatives of organisations which exist in Russia! And the attitude of Kautsky—can anything be more idiotic? In relation to all other countries he studies the history of the movement, criticises documents, tries to understand the true sense of the differences, the political significance of splits. In relation to Russia, history does not exist for him. Today he repeats what he has heard from * See “The Split in the Russian Social- Democratic Duma Group” (present edition, Vol. 19, pp. 480- 84).—Ed. V. I. L E N I N 134
Rosa Luxemburg, yesterday he repeated what he had heard from Trotsky, Ryazanov and other writers who only represent their own “pious wishes”, tomorrow he will begin to repeat what other Russian students or emigrants are kind enough to tell him, and so on. While in Neue Zeit (!!) only common- places, declamations, no facts, no understanding of the essence of the questions on which we differ!! Pure childish- ness!!
We are being lectured on unity with the liquidators of our Party—an absurdity. It is we who are bringing unity into being, by rallying the workers of Russia against the liquidators of our Party. I attach a document which we circulated to members of the International Socialist Bureau. You will find there facts and figures which prove that we are the ones who represent the unity of the Party (and the vast majority of the workers) in Russia against groups of liquidators who are without workers. Unfortunately even Pannekoek in Bremer Bürger-Zeitung refuses to understand that you have to print the articles of the two wings of Social-Democracy in Russia, and not the articles of Radek who represents only his own personal ignorance and fantasy, and who does not wish to provide precise facts. Once again I thank you, dear Comrade Wijnkoop, you personally and the Executive Committee of the Social- Democratic Party, for your kind letter, and please pass on my greetings to Comrade Gorter. I hope you will forgive my bad French. Yours,
Wl. Uljanow. 51. Ulica Lubomirskiego, Krakau (Cra- covie). Written in French Sent to Amsterdam First published in Pravda No. 2 1 , Printed from the original January 2 1 , 1 9 3 4 135 62 TO INESSA ARMAND Dear Friend, I send you the draft Ukrainian appeal for Shakhtyorsky
1 5 2
and particularly ask you to be tactful in getting it adopted (not on my behalf, of course, and better not in your name either) through Lola 1 5 3
and two or three Ukrainians (of course, against Yurkevich and, if possible, without the knowledge of this disgusting, rotten national- ist philistine, who under the flag of Marxism is preaching the division of the workers by nationalities, a special nation- al organisation of the Ukrainian workers). You will understand why it is inconvenient for me to send such a draft in my own name. Lola wrote to me that he agrees with me against Yurkevich, but Lola is naïve. The matter, however, must not drag on. It is terribly important that a voice should be heard from amongst the Ukrainian
by nations. And now Shakhtyorsky Listok (received by me only today, Wednesday, April 1, as a supplement to the Sunday Put Pravdy) should immediately be made use of for this purpose. Rewrite my draft (I agree to all changes, of course, if only there remains the direct protest against the division by nations); let Lola alone or with someone else, etc., accept and translate it into Ukrainian, and then send it through me to Put Pravdy in his name or (better) on behalf of a group (though it be of two or three people) of Ukrainian Marxists (still better, Ukrainian workers).
V. I. L E N I N 136
This should be done tactfully, quickly, against Yur- kevich and without his knowledge, because this twister will make trouble. (I have received your story of Stepanyuk’s report and the speech by Yurkevich; frankly speaking, I was angry with you—you didn’t understand what the essence of Yurkevich’s position was. And I again—I’m sorry—called you the Holy Virgin. Please don’t be angry, it was because I’m fond of you, because we’re friends, but I can’t help being angry when I see “something that recalls the Holy Virgin”.) Reply as quickly as possible and say whether you can carry out this assignment properly, and how soon. On Monday I sent you the collection and a note attached to Nadya’s letter. Have you received them? All the best, Yours,
If my draft could be retold by a Ukrainian voice, and with a couple of vivid Ukrainian examples, that would be best of all!! I will bring pressure to bear on Put Pravdy. Written on April 1 , 1 9 1 4 Sent from Cracow to Paris Published for the first time Printed from the original in the Fourth (Russian) Edition of the Collected Works 137 63 TO INESSA ARMAND Dear Friend, I enclose Lola’s letter. 1 5 4
Return it at once after reading it. (He is obviously twisting, but all the same we shall make a small step forward through him. I beg you very much, if you go to Zurich, do your utmost to see the Ukrainian Social-Democrats, ascertain their attitude on the question of a separate national-Ukrainian Social-Democratic organisation, and try and organise even a little group of anti-separatists.) If Nik. Vas. has not yet been at our printing-press, let him ask them: 1) to stick both leaflets on paper with the printed heading of the press; 2) to write out in German (or, if they don’t know the language, then in French) an exact estimate of the cost of ( α) setting, (β) the same paper 5,000&1,000, (γ) printing and everything else. As regards an intensive effort to discover contacts (in order to prepare for “the important affair” 1 5 5
)—and espe- cially for correspondence—both in Paris and in Switzerland, I hope you will do your best. Yours,
V. U. P.S. Would it not be possible before your departure to concentrate all our books (and those which Kamsky has from Orlovsky’s library) with Nik. Vas., and make him swear an oath not to allow them to be plundered. If brother * * This word was written by Lenin in English.—Ed. V. I. L E N I N 138
has written about his books, do the same with them. From this library (Orlovsky’s, Kamsky has it) please get, or have procured, the Minutes of the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., and send them to me as quickly as possible. One more thing s. v. pl.: It is essential to republish the Party Programme and Rules (with the changes of January 1912). 1 5 6
Please let the Committee of Organisations Abroad have them set up (after ascertaining the exact cost) and send us the page proof: we shall say then how many should be printed. [“Programme and Rules of the R.S.D.L.P.”] Is there in Paris No. 11 of Sotsial-Demokrat (February or March 1910)? If there is, send us all the copies. Written on April 2 4 , 1 9 1 4 Sent from Cracow to Paris Published for the first time Printed from the original in the Fourth (Russian) Edition of the Collected Works
|
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling