Collected Works of V. I. Lenin - Vol. 16 - From Marx to Mao

98V. I. LENINto the third editor, Maslov, but it turns out that Maslov,too, does not know why Plekhanov resigned. They hadworked for years with Plekhanov, they had tried to correctPotresov’s article in accordance with Plekhanov’s directiveand, when an accusation was made against them in printand openly, they suddenly find themselves unable to understandwhat Plekhanov is accusing Potresov of and theymake an “investigation” of it! Prior to this unfortunate occurrencethey were such skilled, such experienced literati—now they have become children who “don’t know” whatkind of spirit of repudiation of the revolution emanatesfrom Cherevanin’s articles, from Potresov, from the wholeof The Social Movement. Roland-Holst noticed this spiritin Cherevanin—obviously, also out of malice! But Cherevanin,while continuing together with Potresov to write in thesame spirit, inserted somewhere a reservation ... where isthere any liquidationism here? The Cadets= Vekhists withreservations. Cherevanin, Potresov and The Social Movement=repudiation of the revolution with reservations.Yes, yes, what a deliberately vague, maliciously indefinitecatchword “liquidationism” is!But the catchword “god-building” is just as deliberatelyvague and maliciously indefinite, cry Maximov and Lunacharsky.Cherevanin can be shielded by writing a reservation;in what way is Lunacharsky worse than Cherevaninand Potresov? And Lunacharsky together with Maximovconcoct a reservation. “Why do I reject this terminology?”—such is the heading of the main paragraph in Lunacharsky’sarticle. Let us change inconvenient terms, we will not speakeither of religion or of god-building ... one can speak ratherof “culture” ... just try afterwards to make out what weare offering you in the shape of a now, genuinely new andgenuinely socialist, “culture”. The Party is so importunate,so intolerant (Lunacharsky’s paragraph: On “Intolerance”)—well,let us change the terminology, they are notfighting against ideas, you see, but against “terminology”....And so, dear Golosists, are you not intending inNo. 18-19 to announce your rejection of terminology ... forinstance, as regards liquidationism? And so, editors of TheSocial Movement, are you not intending in Volumes III-Xto explain that “you have been misunderstood”, that you