Written: Written March 20 or 21, 1916
Published: First published in 1964 in Collected Works, Fifth (Russian) Ed., Vol. 49. Sent from Zurich to Berne. Printed from the original.
Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, , Moscow, Volume 43, pages 520b-522a.
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
I had a translation of the Dutch “Annullierung der Staatsschulden”. State debts can be used instead of war debts: I don’t see any great difference.
How to punish the “concierges”? Their share in the total debt is insignificant, and they could be assigned a pension from the state treasury (if they served a long time as concierges).
If you still “have doubts”, don’t insert it, or hold up the issue for a couple of days. I think this Dutch point, as an exception, is suitable for a “peace programme” (we Could add) as it contains the only positive demand in connection with the revolution or the mass struggle (did I insert this—I don’t remember?)... should be....
It would be awkward if we inserted it afterwards and there were no mention of it in the C.O.’s article on this subject. We had better hold it over for a couple of days and discuss it by letter.
I shall fix things up about the Wiener Arbeiter-Zeitung and make inquiries about Tyszka (maybe he is in Schriften des Vereins für Sozial-Politik?).
Re arrangements with Alexander (he has gone to Norway, where A. K. is, and now we must put the pressure on him as hard as we can).
I simply cannot agree to I+II about Kommunist.
Your arguments are most inconsistent.
“Only manoeuvre away”?... If so, why risk the business?
“We’re to blame for getting tied up with an old woman”... Of course! But those who are to blame are the first to make amends. What logic is it to say: I am to blame, therefore I do not make amends!!!
I don’t consider myself “to blame”: at that time a bloc was useful. I made it. Today it is harmful. I shall be to blame if I don’t change it.
My business reasons you haven’t even touched on: squabbles among the staff (on 3 points), complaints to the C. C.; letters to the editors; letters to Nashe Slovo (Bronski’s, perhaps Radek’s, etc.) σσ= squabbles instead of business.
And over what? Over the “name”?? It’s ridiculous.
I have received N. I.’s answer to the theses: sheer piggery, not a single well-thought-out word.
With Alexander the matter must be put as a point of principle: after No. 1–2 they came out with “differences”. Equality (or a place)in the Editorial Board cannot be grant ed under such differences. It is inadmissible. N. I.’s old waverings on this question (of democracy) should be collected and it should be demanded that they think every thing over, digest it, and write giving the reasons for all their differences for the C.C. (a small pamphlet). Not for publication, but for the C.C. We shall examine it and reject it, meanwhile on with Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata.
 “Cancellation of State Debts” (the heading to Point 1 of the draft programme of the Revolutionary Socialist League and the Social-Democratic Party of Holland published in the Bulletin of the I.S.C. No. 3 for February 29, 1916).—Ed.
 Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata (Sotsial-Demokrat Collection) was founded by Lenin and published by the Editorial Board of the newspaper Sotsial-Demokrat. Two numbers were published in 1916, containing several articles by Lenin. Copy was prepared for No. 3, which was to contain Lenin’s article “A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism”, but owing to lack of funds this collection was not put out.