Published:
First published in 1933 in Lenin Miscellany XXV.
Printed from the original.
Source:
Lenin
Collected Works,
Progress Publishers,
[1977],
Moscow,
Volume 43,
pages 228b-229a.
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.
• README
Dear Comrade,
Please print in the next issue of the C.O. my resolution rejected by two votes against two with one abstention and my notice of resignation from the Editorial Board of the C.O.,[1] and also send me Copies of my resolution, Martov’s and the one adopted, with the results of the voting.
With S.D. greetings,
N. Lenin
Paris, November 4, 4909
P.S. I would also ask the Editorial Board of the C.O. to let me know whether it will accept for publication in the next issue my discussion article on the methods of consolidating our Party and its unity.
[1] The background of this letter is as follows: The Editorial Board of Sotsial-Demokrat refused to print Lenin’s article “On Methods of Consolidating Our Party and Its Unity” as an editorial and suggested that he submit it as a signed article. In reply Lenin submitted the question of methods of consolidating the Party and its unity for discussion by the Editorial Board and proposed a draft resolution on it (see present edition, Vol. 16, p. 77). Lenin and Kamenev voted for the resolution, Martov and Warski ware against, and Zinoviev, who in general objected to the adoption of a political resolution on this question, abstained. Since the article and the resolution were rejected, Lenin submitted his resignation from the Editorial Board of the C.O.
The Executive Committee of the Bolshevik Centre drew up a collective statement to the Editorial Board of Sotsial-Demokrat from the Bolshevik members of the Board and the representative of the Polish Social-Democrats to the effect that the “incident”, being based on a misunderstanding, should be considered closed (see Collected Works, Fifth [Russian] Ed., Vol. 47, p. 287).
| | | | | | |