W O R K E R S O F A L L C O U N T R I E S , U N I T E!

LENIN
COLLECTED WORKS

34

A
 THE RUSSIAN EDITION WAS PRINTED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH A DECISION
OF THE NINTH CONGRESS OF THE R.C.P.(B.)
AND THE SECOND CONGRESS OF SOVIETS
OF THE U.S.S.R.
ИНCTИTУT МАРÇCИзМА — ЛЕНИНИзМА пpи ЦK KНCC

B. n. l d H n H
СОЧИНEНИЯ

И з дa нuе чеmвеpmoe

ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОЕ ИЗДАТЕЛЬСТВО
ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОЙ ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ
MОСКВА
V. I. L E N I N
cOLLEcTED WORKS

VOLUME
34
LETTERS
November 1895 – November 1911

PROGRESS PUBLISHERS
MOSCOW
 TRANSLATED FROM THE RUSSIAN
BY C L E M E N S D U T T
EDITED BY B E R N A R D I S A A C S

PUBLISHERS’ NOTE

Translated from the fourth Russian edi-

tion of V. I. Lenin’s Collected Works. Cor-
rections have been made in some of the let-
ters and notes in accordance with the fifth
Russian edition.

From Marx to Mao

M
L
© Digital Reprints
2012
www.marx 2 mao.com

First printing 1966

Second printing 1974
Third printing 1977

Printed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

10101—447
l 125—76
014(01)—77
 7

CONTENTS

Page
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Letters Addressed to :

1895

1 . P . B . AXELROD . Beginning of November. . . . . . . 20

2 . P . B . AXELROD . Middle of November . . . . . . . . 23

1897

3 . P . B . AXELROD . August 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

1898

4 . A . N . POTRESOV . September  . . . . . . . . . . . 25

1899

5 . A . N . POTRESOV . January 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6 . A . N . POTRESOV . April 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7 . A . N . POTRESOV . June 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

1900

8 . NADEZHDA KRUPSKAYA . August, Prior to 4 . . . . . 44

9 . ADDRESSEE UNIDENTIFIED . September 5 . . . . . . . 48
10 . APOLLINARIA YAKUBOVA . October 6 . . . . . . . . 51
8 CONTENTS

1901
11 . G . V . PLEKHANOV . January 30 . . .. . . . . . . . 55
12 . P . B . AXELROD . March 0 .. . . .. . . . . . . . 58
13 . P . B . AXELROD . April 5 . .. . . .. . . . . . . . 60
14 . N . E . BAUMAN . May 4 . .. . . .. . . . . . . . 65
15 . P . B . AXELROD . May 5 . .. . . .. . . . . . . . 67
16 . LYDIA KNIPOVICH . May 8 .. . . .. . . . . . . . 70
17 . THE ISKRA PROMOTION GROUP . June 5 . . . . . . . . 71
18 . L . Y . GALPERIN . Between June 18 and  . . . . . . 72
19 . N . E . BAUMAN . June 5 or 26 . . . . . . . . . . . 73
20 . G . V . PLEKHANOV . July 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
21 . S . O . TSEDERBAUM . Second Half of July . . . . . . . 76
22 . G . V . PLEKHANOV . July 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
23 . P . B . AXELROD . July 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
24 . G . V . PLEKHANOV . July 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
25 . G . V . PLEKHANOV . October 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
26 . G . V . PLEKHANOV . November  . . . . . . . . . . . 88
27 . THE ISKRA ORGANISATIONS IN RUSSIA . December, Prior
to 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
28 . INNA SMIDOVICH . December 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

190
29 . L . I . GOLDMAN . January 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
30 . G . V . PLEKHANOV . February 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
31 . G . V . PLEKHANOV . April 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
32 . P . B . AXELROD . May 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
33 . G . M . KRZHIZHANOVSKY . May 6 . . . . . . . . . . . 101
34 . G . V . PLEKHANOV . May 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
35 . G . V . PLEKHANOV . June 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
36 . G . D . LEITEISEN . July  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
 CONTENTS 9

37 . P . G . SMIDOVICH . August  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

38 . V . A . NOSKOV . August 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
39 . E . Y . LEVIN . August  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
40 . V . P . KRASNUKHA AND YELENA STASOVA . September 4 116
41 . P . A . KRASIKOV . November 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
42 . E . Y . LEVIN . Not Earlier Than December 11 . . . . . 120
43 . G . V . PLEKHANOV . December 14 . . . . . . . . . . . 123
44 . V . I . LAVROV AND YELENA STASOVA . December 7 . . . 126
45 . F . FROM MARX
V . LENGNIK . December 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

TO MAO 1903


46 . I . V . BABUSHKIN. . . . . . . .
January 6 . . . . . 129
47 . YELENA STASOVA . January 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 1

48 . T H E KHARKOV COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. Janu-

ary 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
49 . YELENA STASOVA . January 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
50 . I . V . BABUSHKIN . January 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

NOT FOR
51 . G . M . KRZHIZHANOVSKY . January 7 . . . . . . . . . 1 3 7

52 . T H E UNION OF RUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS . ABROAD

COMMERCIAL
February 4 or 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
53 . Y . O . MARTOV. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
February 5 141
54 . THE DISTRIBUTION
NIZHNI- NOVGOROD
Prior to February 3
. . . . .
COMMITTEE OF THE
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
R S D L P
144
55 . THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE WITH THE TEXT OF NA-
DEZHDA KRUPSKAYA’S LETTER . March 5 or 6 . . . . . 146
56 . THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE . Between March 6 and 9 148
57 . G . V . PLEKHANOV . March 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
58 . THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE . March 31 . . . . . . . . 152

59 . G . M . KRZHIZHANOVSKY . April 3
. . . . . . . . . . . 153
60 . THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE . April 6 . . . . . . . . . 154

61 . YEKATERINA ALEXANDROVA . Later Than May  . . . 156

10 CONTENTS

62 . ALEXANDRA KALMYKOVA . September 7 . . . . . . . . 160

63 . A . N . POTRESOV . September 13 . . . . . . . . . . . 164

64 . G . M . KRZHIZHANOVSKY . Between September 10 and 14 1 6 7

65 . ALEXANDRA KALMYKOVA . September 30 . . . . . . . . 168

66 . THE ODESSA COMMITTEE OF THE R . S . D . L . P . October 1 1 7 1

67 . Y . O . MARTOV . October 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 3

68 . G . D . LEITEISEN . October 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

69 . G . M . KRZHIZHANOVSKY . October 0 . . . . . . . . . 1 7 7

70 . THE CAUCASIAN UNION COMMITTEE OF THE R . S . D . L . P .

October 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
71 . THE DON COMMITTEE OF THE R . S . D . L . P . October . . . . 181
72 . T H E MINING AND METALLURGICAL WORKERS UNION.
October . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
73 . G . V . PLEKHANOV . November 1 . . . . . . . . . . . 184
74 . G . M . KRZHIZHANOVSKY . November 4 . . . . . . . . 186
75 . THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R . S . D . L . P . November 4 1 8 7

76 . V . A. NOSKOV AND G . M . KRZHIZHANOVSKY . Novem-

ber 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
77 . G . V . PLEKHANOV . November 6 . . . . . . . . . . . 189
78 . G . M . KRZHIZHANOVSKY . November 8 . . . . . . . . . 191
79 . M . N . LYADOV . November 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
80 . G . V . PLEKHANOV . November 18 . . . . . . . . . . . 199
81 . THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R . S . D . L . P . Decem-
ber 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
82 . THE ISKRA EDITORIAL BOARD . December 1 . . . . . . 202
83 . G . M . KRZHIZHANOVSKY . December 18 . . . . . . . . 204

84 . N . Y . VILONOV . Between December 17 and  . . . . . 207

85 . THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R . S . D . L . P . Decem-

ber  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
86 . THE EDITORS OF ISKRA . December 4-7 . . . . . . . 213
87 . THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R . S . D . L . P , Decem-
ber 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
 CONTENTS 11

1904
88 . THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R . S . D . L . P . January  218
89 . G . M . KRZHIZHANOVSKY . January 4 . . . . . . . . . 220
90 . THE ISKRA EDITORIAL BOARD . January 8 . . . . . . . 223

91 . G . V . PLEKHANOV , CHAIRMAN OF THE PARTY COUNCIL .

January 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
92 . G . V . PLEKHANOV , CHAIRMAN OF THE PARTY COUNCIL .
January 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
93 . THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R . S . D . L . P . Janu-
ary 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
94 . G . M . KRZHIZHANOVSKY . Between February  and 7 . . 229
95 . THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE P . P . S . February 7 . . 231
96 . THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R . S . D . L . P . February 232
97 . THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF ISKRA . February 6 . . . . 234
98 . THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R . S . D . L . P . March 13 235
99 . F . V . LENGNIK . May 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
100 . G . M . KRZHIZHANOVSKY . Not Earlier Than May 6 . . 238
101 . L . B . KRASIN . Not Earlier Than May 6 . . . . . . . 240
102 . YELENA STASOVA AND F . V . LENGNIK . June 19 . . . . 242
103 . Y . O . MARTOV , SECRETARY OF THE PARTY COUNCIL .
August 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
104 . M . K . VLADIMIROV . August 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
105 . THE ISKRA EDITORIAL BOARD . August 4 . . . . . . . 248

106 . M E M B E R S O F T H E M A J O R I T Y C O M M I T T E E S A N D A L L
ACTIVE SUPPORTERS OF THE MAJORITY IN RUSSIA WITH
THE TEXT OF A LETTER TO LYDIA FOTIYEVA. About
August 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
107 . V . A . NOSKOV . August 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
108 . V . A . NOSEOV . August 30 or 31 . . . . . . . . . . . 252
109 . V . A . NOSKOV . September  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
110 . Y . O . MARTOV , SECRETARY OF THE PARTY COUNCIL .
September  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
111 . Y . O . MARTOV , SECRETARY OF THE PARTY COUNCIL .
September 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
12 CONTENTS

112 . PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONFERENCE OF THE SOUTHERN

COMMITTEES AND TO THE SOUTHERN BUREAU OF THE
C . C . , R . S . D . L . P . Later Than October 5 . . . . . . . . 257
113 . THE MAJORITY COMMITTEES . Later Than October 5 . . 258
114 . THE SIBERIAN COMMITTEE . October 30 . . . . . . . . 259
115 . A . M . STOPANI . November 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
116 . A . A . BOGDANOV . November 1 . . . . . . . . . . . 266
117 . NADEZHDA KRUPSKAYA . December 3 . . . . . . . . . 268
118 . A . A . BOGDANOV, ROZALIA ZEMLYACHKA, AND M . M . LIT-
VINOV . December 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
119 . M . M . LITVINOV . December 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
120 . ROZALIA ZEMLYACHKA . December 10 . . . . . . . . . 277

121 . THE CAUCASIAN UNION COMMITTEE OF THE R . S . D . L . P .

Later Than December 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
122 . THE CAUCASIAN UNION COMMITTEE OF THE R . S . D . L . P .
December 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
123 . MARIA ESSEN . December 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
124 . ROZALIA ZEMLYACHKA . December 6 . . . . . . . . . 283

125 . A . I . YERAMASOV . Between December 3, 1904 and Jan-

uary 4, 1905 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
126 . THE ST . PETERSBURG ORGANISATION OF THE R . S . D . L . P .
October-December. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286

1905
127 . A COMRADE IN RUSSIA . January 6 . . . . . . . . . . 287
128 . ROZALIA ZEMLYACHKA . Beginning of January . . . . . 291

129 . T H E S E C R E T A R Y O F THE MAJORITY COMMITTEES B U-

REAU . January 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
130 . AUGUST BEBEL . February 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
131 . S . I . GUSEV . February 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
132 . S . I . GUSEV . February 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
133 . S . I . GUSEV . Beginning of March . . . . . . . . . . 299
134 . S . I . GUSEV . March 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
 CONTENTS 13

135 . S . I . GUSEV . March 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304

136 . THE ODESSA COMMITTEE OF THE R . S . D . L . P . March 5 . 307
137 . S . I . GUSEV . April 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
138 . OLGA VINOGRADOVA . April 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
139 . THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST BUREAU . July 8 . . . . 312
140 . THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R . S . D . L . P . July 11 . . 314
141 . THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R . S . D . L . P . July 1 . . 317
142 . THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R . S . D . L . P . July 8 . . 320
143 . A . V . LUNACHARSKY . August  . . . . . . . . . . . 323
144 . THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R . S . D . L . P . August 14 326
145 . A . V . LUNACHARSKY . Between August 15 and 19 . . . 328
146 . P . N . LEPESHINSKY . August 29 . . . . . . . . . . . 330
147 . P . N . LEPESHINSKY . August 29 . . . . . . . . . . . 333
148 . A . V . LUNACHARSKY . End of August . . . . . . . . . 334
149 . THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R . S . D . L . P . Sep-
tember 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
150 . P . A . KRASIKOV . September 14 . . . . . . . . . . . 338
151 . S . I . GUSEV . September 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342

152 . THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R . S . D . L . P . Octo-

ber 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
153 . THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R . S . D . L . P . Octo-
ber 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
154 . THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R . S . D . L . P . Octo-
ber 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
155 . THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R. S. D. L. P. Octo-
ber 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
156 . A . V . LUNACHARSKY . October 11 . . . . . . . . . . . 352
157 . S . I . GUSEV . October 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
158 . MARIA ESSEN . October 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360
159 . THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R . S. D. L. P. Octo-
ber 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
160 . G . V . PLEKHANOV . End of October . . . . . . . . . . 363
14 CONTENTS

161 . MOTYA AND KOSTYA, MEMBERS OF THE ODESSA ORGA-

NISATION OF THE R . S . D . L . P . End of October-Beginning of
November . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367

1907
162 . MAXIM GORKY . August 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
163 . A . V . LUNACHARSKY . Between November  and 11 . . . 370

1908
164 . MAXIM GORKY . January 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372
165 . MAXIM GORKY AND MARIA ANDREYEVA . January 15 . . 373
166 . THEODORE ROTHSTEIN . January 9 . . . . . . . . . 375
167 . MAXIM GORKY . February  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
168 . MAXIM GORKY . February 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
169 . A . V . LUNACHARSKY . February 13 . . . . . . . . . . 383
170 . MAXIM GORKY . February 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385
171 . MAXIM GORKY . March 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
172 . MAXIM GORKY . March 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388
173 . MAXIM GORKY . First Half of April . . . . . . . . . 391
174 . A . V . LUNACHARSKY . April 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . 392
175 . MAXIM GORKY . April 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
176 . MAXIM GORKY . April 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394
177 . V . V . VOROVSKY . July 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
178 . P . YUSHKEVICH . November 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . 396

1909
179 . ROSA LUXEMBURG . May 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
180 . A . I . LYUBIMOV . August 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
181 . G . Y . ZINOVIEV . August 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
182 . A . I . LYUBIMOV . Beginning of September . . . . . . . 401
183 . MAXIM GORKY . November 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403
184 . MAXIM GORKY . November, Not Earlier Than 0 . . . . 405
185 . I . I . SKVORTSOV - STEPANOV . December  . . . . . . . 407
 CONTENTS 15

1910
186 . DRAFT OF A LETTER TO THE “ TRUSTEES ” . February-
Early March . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411
187 . N . Y . VILONOV . March 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
188 . G . V . PLEKHANOV . March 9 . . . . . . . . . . . 416
189 . N . Y . VILONOV . April 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
190 . MAXIM GORKY . April 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
191 . N . A . SEMASHKO . October 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423
192 . JULIAN MARCHLEWSKI . October 7 . . . . . . . . . . 424
193 . G . L . SHKLOVSKY . October 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . 430
194 . MAXIM GORKY . November 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . 432
195 . MAXIM GORKY . November  . . . . . . . . . . . . 434
196 . N . G . POLETAYEV . December 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . 436

1911
197 . MAXIM GORKY . January 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437
198 . A . RYKOV . February 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441
199 . MAXIM GORKY . May 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446
200 . ANTONIN NEMEC . November 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 448

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449
Identification of Pseudonyms, Nicknames and Initials Used in
the Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517
 17

PREFACE

The thirty-fourth and thirty-fifth volumes contain Lenin’s

correspondence with organisations and persons—letters, tel-
egrams and notes—during the period from 1895 to 1922.
The documents in these volumes comprise a considerable
part of Lenin’s correspondence and form a valuable supple-
ment to his writings published in the preceding volumes
of the Collected Works. These documents reflect the immense
and varied activity of Lenin in building up the Bolshevik
Party, a party of a new type, his irreconcilable struggle
against opportunists of all shades, his struggle for the
proletarian revolution, for the dictatorship of the proletariat,
his leadership of the world’s first Soviet socialist state.
Volume 34 includes letters of Lenin written in the period
from November 1895 to November 1911.
The letters of 1895-1901 reflect Lenin’s activities in build-
ing up the Social-Democratic Labour Party in Russia, his
struggle against Narodism, “legal Marxism” and Econom-
ism. The letters addressed to G. V. Plekhanov, Lydia Kni-
povich, N. E. Bauman and others show how Lenin’s plan
for the creation of the first all-Russia newspaper of the rev-
olutionary Marxists—Iskra—was carried out; they re-
veal Lenin’s leading role in Iskra, and his struggle within
the editorial board of the newspaper.
A considerable part of the volume consists of the letters
of 1901-04. A group of letters of this period, addressed to
G. V. Plekhanov, deal with questions concerning the draft-
ing of the revolutionary programme of the proletarian party.
In his correspondence with local committees—those of
Kharkov and Nizhni-Novgorod, the St. Petersburg organi-
sation (letters to I. V. Babushkin and others), and the
18 PREFACE

Organising Committee for convening the Second Party Con-

gress—Lenin calls on the Social-Democratic organisations
in Russia to unite on the basis of the programmatic and
organisational principles of Iskra, and gives precise direc-
tives for developing Party work and preparing for the
Party Congress. In a number of letters written after the
Second Congress Lenin exposes the splitting activities of
the Mensheviks, wages a relentless struggle against certain
demoralised Bolsheviks (Krasin, Noskov, Galperin) who
had gone over to the Mensheviks and helped them gain
a majority in the Central Committee. These are his letters
to the Central Committee, to the Siberian Committee, to
N. Y. Vilonov, A. M. Stopani, Rozalia Zemlyachka and
others.
The letters to the Caucasian Union Committee reflect
Lenin’s leadership of the Bolshevik organisations in the
Caucasus.
The letters of the period of the first Russian revolution
(1905-07) reflect Lenin’s struggle for the convocation of
the Third Party Congress, for the implementation of its
decisions, and for the tactical principles of Bolshevism.
Included here are letters to the Central Committee, S. I.
Gusev, Rozalia Zemlyachka and others.
The letters of the period of Stolypin reaction reveal Lenin’s
struggle against liquidationism, Trotskyism, otzovism and
ultimatumism, conciliation, and distortions of the theoret-
ical principles of the revolutionary Marxist Party. This
volume includes a letter to G. Y. Zinoviev in which Lenin
brands Trotsky as a despicable careerist and factionalist.
A number of letters published in this volume expose the
international revisionists who supported the Russian Men-
shevik opportunists.
An important place in Lenin’s correspondence of 1908-11
is occupied by his letters to Maxim Gorky.
The letters in this volume depict Lenin’s struggle to
create a Marxist revolutionary party, to rally the Party’s
forces and make the Bolsheviks an independent party, a
party of a new type, a party of Leninism, a Bolshevik
party.
The following letters, which have previously appeared
in various publications, are included in Lenin’s Collected
 PREFACE 19

Works for the first time: to the Editorial Board of Iskra,

February 26, 1904; to M. K. Vladimirov, August 15, 1904;
to the Caucasian Union Committee, December 20, 1904;
to the St. Petersburg organisation of the R.S.D.L.P., Octo-
ber-December 1904; Letter to a Comrade in Russia, January
6, 1905; five letters to A. V. Lunacharsky, 1905, 1907 and
1908; to Maxim Gorky, February 7, 1908; to P. Yushkevich,
November 10, 1908; two letters to A. I. Lyubimov, August
and September 1909; a letter to G. Y. Zinoviev, August 24,
1909; draft of a letter to the “Trustees”, February-March
1910; to N. G. Poletayev, December 7, 1910; to A. Rykov,
February 25, 1911.
Published for the first time is the letter in this volume
to G. D. Leiteisen, July 24, 1902, in which Lenin notes
the union of Russian Social-Democratic organisations
around Iskra.

* * *
The letters in volumes 34 and 35 are arranged in chrono-
logical order; those sent from Russia are dated according
to the old style, those sent from abroad are dated according
to the new style. Where Lenin’s manuscript is undated, the
editors have given the date at the end of the letter. Each
letter has a serial number and it is stated to whom and
where it was sent, the date of writing and the address of
the sender.
Besides brief notes, each volume of the letters is provided
with an index of deciphered pseudonyms, nicknames and
initials.
20

QXU

1
TO P. B. AXELROD 1
You are probably cursing me for this delay. There were
some good reasons for it.
I will recount them in order. First of all, I was in Vilna. *
I had talks with our people about the Miscellany. 3 Most
of them are agreed on the need for such a publication and
promise support and supply of material. Their mood is
in general sceptical (I recalled your expression about the
pal. ** provinces), as much as to say—we shall see whether
it will correspond to agitational tactics, to the tactics of
the economic struggle. I stressed that this would largely
depend on us.
Further, I was in Moscow. I saw no one, for there was
no trace of the “Teacher of Life”. Is he all right? If you
know anything about him and have an address, write to
him to send it to us, otherwise we cannot find any contacts
there. Great havoc has been played there, 4 but it seems
that some people have survived and the work did not cease.
We have material from there—a description of some strikes.
If you have not had it, write and we shall send it to you.
After that I was in Orekhovo-Zuyevo. Places like this,
frequently to be met with in the central industrial area,
are extremely peculiar: a purely manufacturing town with
tens of thousands of inhabitants, whose only means of liveli-
hood is the mills. The mill management is the sole author-
ity. The mill office “runs” the town. There is the sharpest
division of the people into workers and bourgeois. Hence

* The key is the same as the one we have been using. 2

** The word “pal.” has not been deciphered.—Ed.
 TO P. B. AXELROD 21

the workers’ frame of mind is rather oppositional, but,

after the recent smash-up there, so few of our people are
left and all of them so closely watched that contacts are
very difficult. However, we shall be able to deliver the
literature.
Further, the delay has been due to local trouble. This
also accounts for the meagreness of the material sent.
I don’t like the address in Zurich. Can’t you find another—
not in Switzerland, but in Germany? That would be much
better and safer.
Further, in sending your reply—a book on technology,
address: Mr. Luchinsky, Alexandrovsky Iron Works, Chem-
ical Laboratory, St. Petersburg—add, if there is room,
other material: pamphlets issued in Geneva, interesting
cuttings from Vorwärts, 5 etc. Write in detail about the Mis-
cellany: what material there is already, what is planned,
when the first issue will appear, and what exactly is lack-
ing for the second. We shall probably send money, but later
on. Reply as quickly as possible so that we may know wheth-
er this method is suitable.
Send the Pole a rendezvous address as quickly as pos-
sible, since we need delivery facilities. The address is: stu-
dent Mikhail Leontievich Zakladny, Technological Institute,
the same town, ask for Ivanov. The money for the pub-
lication in Russian of his Geschichte, etc., has been prom-
ised. *
Another request: we are badly in need of ink; as to what
kind, you can find out from Mögli, who has it. Could you
send it somehow? Is there no opportunity? Please think
it over or ask your “practical men” to do so. By the way,
you asked us to approach them directly. In that case, tell
us: 1) do they know our method and key? 2) do they know
who these letters come from?
You are now being sent: 1) information about the expul-
sion of the Dukhobors; 2) an account about rural workers
in the south; and 3) a description of the Thornton mills—
for the time being, only the beginning, about a quarter,
of this is being sent.

* The publication and its author have not been ascertained.—Ed.

22 V. I. L E N I N

It is necessary to write with Chinese ink. Better still, add

a small crystal of potassium dïchromate (K 2 Cr 2O 7 ): then it
won’t wash off. Use the thinnest paper possible. All the best.
Yours....
Regards to the comrade.
Written at the beginning of November 1 8 9 5
Sent from St. Petersburg to Zurich
First published in part in 1 9 2 3 Printed from the original
First published in full 1 9 2 4
 23

2
TO P. B. AXELROD
We have received the Breslau report. 6 We unstuck it
with great difficulty, in the course of which a large part
was torn (the letter, thanks to the good paper, remained
intact). Evidently you have not yet received the second
letter. You must use very thin paste—not more than a
teaspoonful of starch (and it must be potato starch, not
wheat starch, which is too strong) to a glass of water. Or-
dinary (good) paste is needed only for the top sheet and
coloured paper, and the paper holds well, under the action
of a press, even with the thinnest paste. At any rate, the
method is suitable and it should be used.
I am sending you the end of Thornton. We have material
on the strike 1) at Thornton’s, 2) at Laferm’s, 3) on the Iva-
novo-Voznesensk strike, 4) on the Yaroslavl strike (a work-
er’s letter, very interesting), and on the St. Petersburg Boot
Manufacturing Factory. I am not sending it, as we have
had no time yet to copy it and because I do not count on
being in time for the first issue of the Miscellany. We have
established contacts with the Narodnaya Volya printing-
press, 7 which has already put out three things (not ours)
and has taken one of ours. * We are planning to publish a
newspaper, 8 in which this material will be printed. This
will be definitely settled in about 12 to 2 months’ time. If
you think the material will arrive in time for the first issue,
let us know at once.
Yours,
Ilyin
Have you any difficulty in handling our parcels? We
must jointly improve the method.
Written mid-November 1 8 9 5
Sent from St. Petersburg to Zurich
First published in 1 9 2 3 Printed from the original

* Send us material, if you have any, for workers’ pamphlets.

They will gladly print it.
24

QXW

3
TO P. B. AXELROD
Dear Pavel Borisovich,
I am very, very glad to have succeeded after all in get-
ting a letter from you (I received it yesterday, i.e., August 15)
and news of you and of G. V. Your and his opinions on my
literary efforts * (for the workers) have been extremely en-
couraging. There is nothing I have wanted so much, or
dreamed of so much, as an opportunity of writing for work-
ers. But how to do this from here? It is very, very difficult,
but not impossible, I think. How is the health of V. Iv.?
I know only one method—the one by which I am writing
these lines. 9 The question is whether it is possible to find
a copyist, who will have no easy task. You, apparently,
consider it impossible and this method, in general, unsuit-
able. But I do not know any other. . . . It is a pity, but I
do not despair: if one does not succeed now—one can suc-
ceed later on. Meanwhile, it would be good if you were to
write occasionally by the method which you use with your
“old friend”. 10 That will enable us to keep in touch, which
is the most important thing.
You, of course, have been told enough about me, so there
is nothing to add. I live here all alone. I am quite well and
occupy myself both with the journal 11 and with my big job.**
All the very best. Kind regards to V. Iv. and G. V. I
have not seen Raichin for over a month. I hope to go to
Minusinsk soon to see him.
August 16 Yours,
V. U.
Written August 16, 1897
Sent from the village
of Shushenskoye to Zurich
First published in 1 9 2 4 Printed from the copy written
by A. I. Ulyanova-Yelizarova

* See “Explanation of the Law on Fines Imposed on Factory

Workers” (present edition, Vol. 2).—Ed.
** Lenin was working at that time on his book The Development
of Capitalism in Russia (see present edition, Vol. 3).—Ed.
 25

QXX

4
TO A. N. POTRESOV 12
September 2, 1898
Yesterday I received your letter of August 11 with the
list of books and the printed matter—the Archiv. 13 The
article of the “eminent political economist” is highly in-
teresting and excellently composed. The author evidently
disposed of very rich material, which had luckily fallen
into his hands. Generally speaking, in the journalistic
field, he appears to be even a better writer than in the
purely economic field. Archiv, in general, is an interesting
journal and I shall certainly subscribe to it for next year.
I should like also to subscribe to some English periodical
or newspaper (weekly); can you advise me which to select?
I have no idea what there is in the English publicistic field
that is most interesting and is available in Russia.
As regards Struve’s article, 14 on which we hold different
opinions, it has to be said, of course, that it is impossible
to judge accurately of the author’s views from it alone. It
seemed to me, for instance, and still seems to me, that he
definitely set himself “general classificatory tasks” (the
title itself indicates this), whereas you consider that he set
himself “no such tasks”.... That “it is necessary to win our
handicraft workers away from so-called people’s industry”
is something with which, of course, I am wholly and defin-
itely in agreement, and I think that this still confronts our
“disciples” 15 as an unsolved problem. It was in Struve’s
article that I saw a plan for solving this problem.
Have you paid attention to N. G.’s articles in Russkoye
Bogatstvo 16 (in the two last issues) against “materialism
and dialectical logic”. They are highly interesting—from
the negative aspect. I must admit that I am not competent
26 V. I. L E N I N

to deal with the questions raised by the author, and I am

extremely surprised that the author of Beiträge zur Geschichte
des Materialismus * has not expressed his opinion in the
Russian literature and does not vigorously oppose neo-
Kantianism, letting Struve and Bulgakov 17 polemise on
specific questions of this philosophy, as if it had already
become part of the views of Russian disciples. 18 Space
would surely be found for philosophical articles in more
than one of our periodicals; moreover, a book could get
through easily. His polemic with Bernstein and Conrad
Schmidt interests me greatly, and I very much regret that
I am quite unable to obtain Zeit. 19 I should be greatly ob-
liged to you if you could help me in this. It would be quite
sufficient, of course, to receive this journal even for a short
period. Do you have the issue of Die Neue Zeit (of a few
years ago) which carried an article by the same author
on Hegel (the 30th Anniversary of his death—something
of that kind)? 20 Neither I nor any of the comrades here get
Die Neue Zeit, although they promised to send it from St.
Petersburg! The devil take all those people who make prom-
ises and do not keep them!
Another interesting article is that of Ratner’s on Capital
in Russkoye Bogatstvo (for July). I cannot stand such lovers
of the golden mean, who do not dare to come out openly
against doctrines with which they have no sympathy, but
wriggle, make “amendments”, evade the main issues (such
as the theory of the class struggle) and beat about the bush
of particulars.
The articles by another author in Die Neue Zeit on social
trends in Russia also sound very interesting 21 : your men-
tioning them is extremely tantalising. If I have understood
you rightly, this author expresses an idea already expound-
ed by him elsewhere (on the danger of einer politischen
Isolierung des russischen Proletariats**). It seems to me that
“alienation from society” does not necessarily signify “iso-
lation”, *** for there is society and society: in fighting Na-
* The author of this book was G. V. Plekhanov.—Ed.
** Political isolation of the Russian proletariat.—Ed.
*** That we must by no means allow such “isolation”—in this
I believe the author to be wholly and a thousands times right, espe-
cially against narrow adherents of “economics” 22 .—Ed.
 TO A. N. POTRESOV 27

rodism 23 and all its offshoots, the disciples thereby come

closer to those gauches * who tend to break decisively
with Narodism and adhere consistently to their views.
From such people the disciples would hardly begin dissociat-
ing themselves unreservedly. Rather the contrary. A “con-
ciliatory” (or, rather, alliancist) attitude towards such
people is wholly compatible, in my opinion, with the fight
against Narodism and all its manifestations.

Please write. All the best.

V. Ulyanov

Well, well, you have already come to blows—and how!—

with sticks and what not! Fortunately, Eastern Siberia
seems to be lagging somewhat behind the Vyatka Gubernia
in bellicosity. 24
Sent from Shushenskoye village
to Orlov, Vyatka Gubernia
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original

* Lefts.—Ed.
28

QX
5
TO A. N. POTRESOV
January 26, 1899
I have received your letter of December 24. I am very
glad that you have at last got rid of your illness, of which
rumours had even reached us. I heard of it during the holi-
days while I was in Minusinsk, and kept thinking where
and how I could obtain news of you. (I thought it inconve-
nient to write to you directly, as you were said to be se-
riously ill.) Well, you have now revived just in time for
a literary undertaking which is also being revived. Of
course, you know already about Nachalo, 25 which is to
be started in the middle of February. I hope you have now
fully recovered—it is already a month since you wrote
the last letter—and that you will be able to work. You
are probably fairly well provided for in the matter of books
and order the chief new ones? If you are not too short of
funds for ordering books, I think you can work even in
the backwoods—at least I judge by myself, comparing my
life in Samara seven years ago, when I was reading almost
exclusively other people’s books, and now, when I have be-
gun to acquire the habit of ordering books.
In regard to the Heritage I have had to agree with your
opinion that to consider it as something of an integral na-
ture is a bad tradition of the bad years (the eighties). Perhaps
I really ought not to tackle historico-literary themes. . . .
My justification is that nowhere do I propose acceptance
of Skaldin’s heritage. 26 That one must take over the heri-
tage from other people is indisputable. It seems to me that
my defence (from possible attacks of opponents) will be the
note on p. 237, where it was precisely Chernyshevsky 27 I
had in mind and where I gave reasons why it was inconve-
nient to take him as a parallel. * It is admitted there that
Skaldin is a Liberalkonservativ, that he is “not typical”
* “The Heritage We Renounce” (see present edition, Vol. 2,
pp. 491-534, footnote on p. 505).—Ed.
 TO A. N. POTRESOV 29

of the sixties, that it is “inconvenient” to take “typical”

writers; I did not have Chernyshevsky’s articles and do
not have them, moreover the chief ones have still not been
republished, and I should hardly be able to avoid snags here.
Furthermore, I would begin defending myself by pointing
to the fact that I gave an exact definition of what I under-
stand by the “heritage” of which I am speaking. Of course,
if the article nevertheless gives the impression that the au-
thor proposes to accept precisely Skaldin’s heritage, this
is a fault that cannot be remedied. I forgot what is perhaps
my chief “defence”, namely, that if Skaldin is a “rarity”,
then bourgeois liberalism, more or less consistent and free
from Narodism, is by no means a rarity, but a very broad
trend of the sixties and seventies. You retort: “Coincidence
and continuity are poles apart”. But the crux of the matter
is that the article says it is necessary to purge bourgeois
liberalism of Narodism. If this is true and if it is feasible
(a particularly important condition!), then the result of the
purge, the residue after it, will be bourgeois liberalism
that not only coincides with Skaldin’s but is its successor.
Thus, if I am accused of accepting Skaldin’s heritage, I
shall be entitled to answer that I am merely undertaking
to purge it of admixtures, but that I myself have nothing
to do with it and, in addition to cleaning various Augean
stables, have more congenial and more positive occupa-
tions.... Well, I’m afraid I have let myself be carried away
and really imagine myself a “defendant”!
We have not corresponded for such a long time that to
tell you the truth I have forgotten when I last wrote you
about the articles “Die historische Berechtigung”. I believe
I wrote before I received them? * Now I have read them
and have found that the author’s main idea is fully accept-
able (especially at the end concerning the two extremes or
snags that have to be avoided). In giving the reasons,
however, one should really bring out more sharply the
Klassencharakter of the Bewegung ** of which the author
speaks (he mentioned it, but only in passing and very
briefly), and furthermore not to regard the Fronde-like

* See p. 26 of this volume.—Ed.

** Movement.—Ed.
30 V. I. L E N I N

agrarians with such favour; in their liberalism there is

more of the Fronde and of a sense of grievance on account
of einundsechzig * than of a desire for “the most rapid
industrialisation” of the country. It is worth while recalling
their attitudes towards seasonal work, migration, etc. The
author should have formulated the task more accurately:
to free all fortschrittliche Strömungen ** from the rubbish
of Narodism and agrarianism and to utilise all of them in
this purified form. In my opinion, “utilise” is a much more
exact and suitable word than Unterstützung und Bundes-
genossenschaft. *** The latter indicates the equality of these
Bundesgenossen,**** yet they must (in this I fully agree with
you) follow in the wake, sometimes even “with clenched
teeth”; they have absolutely not grown so far as to reach
equality and will never grow to reach it, owing to their
cowardice, disunity, etc. Unterstützung, however, will come
by no means from the Intelligenz und fortschrittliche Grundbe-
sitzer5 alone, but also from many others, both from Semites
and from fortschrittliche Kaufleute und Industrielle 6 (the
author has quite wrongly passed them over: it is still a
question whether they constitute a smaller percentage in
their milieu than in that of the Grundbesitzer 7 ) and those
Bauern 8 who tend to represent Urteil and not Torurteil,
Kukunft and not Vergangenheit 9 of their class, and very
many others. In two respects the author has tipped the
scales in the other direction: firstly, in combating the
Economists he has left aside praktische, immediate For-
derungen, 10 which are important not only for industriel-
len Arbeiter, but also for Hausindustrielle and Landarbei-
ter, 11 etc. Secondly, he has fought against an abstract,

* Sixty-one (1861).—Ed.
*** Progressive trends.—Ed.
*** Support and alliance.—Ed.
****5 Allies.—Ed.
Intelligentsia and progressive landowners.—Ed.
6
Progressive tradesmen and industrialists.—Ed.
7
Landowners.—Ed.
8
Peasants.—Ed.
9
Reason and not prejudice, the future and not the past.—Ed.
10
Demands.—Ed.
11
Not only for industrial workers, but also for handicraftsmen
and agricultural workers.—Ed.
 TO A. N. POTRESOV 31

neglectful attitude to gemässigten fortschrittlichen * ele-

ments (it is fair to say that they should by no means be en-
tirely neglected, they should be utilised) and thereby, as it
were, obscured the independent and more resolute position
adopted by the Bewegung he represents. In the historico-
philosophical sense the proposition which he advances (and
which was earlier advanced by Inorodzew in Soziale Prax-
is 28 ) is indisputable, viz., that among our present Genos-
sen ** there are no few verkleideten Liberalen. *** To a
certain extent this can also be said of Deutschland versus
England. That is, so to speak, our good fortune; it enables
us to count on an easier and swifter beginning; it compels
us to utilise all these verkleideten. But the author’s formu-
lation can, perhaps, give rise to some misinterpretation (one
Old-Believer told me: but this is belittling and depersonalis-
ing. . . ), on the, one hand, and a certain feeling of distrust
and embarrassment among Genossen. In this respect Ino-
rodzew’s formulation, too, in my opinion, was unfortunate.
As regards the heart of the matter, however, I think there
are no differences of opinion with the author.
About Parvus, I haven’t the slightest notion of his per-
sonal character and do not at all deny his great talent.
Unfortunately, I have read very few of his works.
Do you expect to obtain Kautsky’s Die Agrarfrage, ****
which has recently come out?
Regarding Wert, Yevg, Solovyov and M. Filippov, I
must say that the first-named I do not know at all, and I
have read very little of the other two. That there is and will
be “weathering”, I have not an iota of doubt. Hence it is espe-
cially necessary to have not only verkleidete Literatur. *****
All the best.
V. U.
Sent from Shushenskoye village
to Orlov, Vyatka Gubernia
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original

* Moderately progressive.—Ed.
** Comrades.—Ed.
*** Disguised liberals.—Ed.
**** The Agrarian Question.—Ed.
***** Disguised literature.—Ed.
32

6
TO A. N. POTRESOV
April 27, 1899
I was very glad, A. N., to receive your letter of March 27,
which at last broke your long and persistent silence. A heap
of questions to be discussed has indeed accumulated but
there is no opportunity of having any detailed conversation
here on subjects that are mainly of a literary nature. And
now there is the journal 29 : without talks with one’s col-
leagues one feels too cut off for writing. There is only Ju-
lius, who takes all this quite closely and actively to heart,
but the accursed “long distances” prevent sufficiently de-
tailed conversation with him.
I shall begin with what interests and agitates me now
most of all—Bulgakov’s article in issues 1-2 and 3 of Na-
chalo. On reading your opinion of him, I was exceedingly
pleased to meet with sympathy on the most essential point—
the more so because, apparently, one cannot count very much
on sympathy from the editorial board. . . . If Bulgakov’s
article made a “repellent” and “pitiful” impression on you,
it absolutely infuriated me. Up till now, though I have
read and re-read Bulgakov, I simply cannot understand
how he could write an article so completely nonsensical
and in such an extremely unbecoming tone, and how the
editors found it possible not to dissociate themselves by
at least a single comment from such a slashing attack on
Kautsky. Like you, I am “convinced that our people are
utterly [just so!] confused and puzzled”. And who wouldn’t
be puzzled when told—in the name of “modern science”
(No. 3, p. 34)—that Kautsky is all wrong, arbitrary, so-
cially incredible, “with equally little of both real agronomics
and real economics” (No. 1-2) and so forth? Moreover, Kaut-
 TO A. N. POTRESOV 33

sky is not expounded, but simply distorted, while Bulga-

kov’s own views as part of any coherent system are entirely
lacking. No man with any sense of party spirit or sense of
responsibility to all the Genossen and their whole programme
and practical activity would dare to take such “side
kicks” (to use your apt expression) at Kautsky, without
giving anything himself, but merely promising ... a learned
work on “Ost-Elbe”! Apparently, he feels himself free from
all comradely obligations and responsibility, a “free” and
individual spokesman of professorial science. I do not for-
get, of course, that under Russian conditions it is impossible
to demand of a journal that it admit some Genossen and
exclude others—but a journal like Nachalo is not an alma-
nac, allowing Marxism just because it is the mode (à la
Mir Bozhy, 30 Nauchnoye Obozreniye, 31 etc.), but an organ
of a definite trend. It is incumbent on such a journal, there-
fore, to put a certain restraint on learned “kickers” and on
all “outsiders” in general. It is to the fact that its editors
have run it as an organ of a definite trend and not as an
almanac that Novoye Slovo 32 owes its great success.
I read through Kautsky’s book before Bulgakov’s article
appeared and I did not find in the latter a single at all in-
telligent argument against Kautsky. What I did find was
a heap of distortions of Kautsky’s ideas and theses. What
sheer nonsense Bulgakov talks when he asserts, for example,
that Kautsky confuses technics and economics, that he tries
to prove the “ruin of agriculture” (No. 3, p. 31. Kautsky
says just the opposite: S. 289), that he denies agriculture
any tendency to develop (No. 3, p. 34), and so on!
I have already written, and sent to the editorial board
a fortnight ago, a first article on “Capitalism in Agriculture
(Kautsky’s Book and Mr. Bulgakov’s Article)” and am
now starting on a second dealing with the end of Bulgakov’s
article. * I greatly fear that P. B. will reject it, either on ac-
count of its considerable length (it turns out to be larger than
Bulgakov’s article, firstly, because I have to give reasons
for refuting such unsupported and carelessly pronounced
verdicts as, for example, that Marx was wrong in teaching
that the ratio  decreases in agriculture; secondly, because
* See present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 105-59.—Ed.
34 V. I. L E N I N

it is essential to expound Kautsky), or because a polemic

is considered undesirable (of course, I have not used in the
article a single abusive expression, like those above, and
in general I have tried to avoid anything personal against
Bulgakov. The tone in general is in no way sharper than in
my article against Tugan-Baranovsky 33 on the theory of
the market * ). I should be very glad to hear your opinion,
when you have read Kautsky’s book and finished reading
Bulgakov: what exactly do you find “true” in Bulgakov?
And do you think it possible to let Bulgakov’s article in
the journal go unanswered?
In general, all this “new critical trend” in Marxism,
espoused by Struve and Bulgakov (P. B. is apparently in
favour of Bulgakov), looks highly suspicious to me: resound-
ing phrases about “criticism” against “dogma” and so forth—
and absolutely no positive results of the criticism. Moreover,
compiling an article à la Bulgakov required, besides “crit-
icism” and sympathy for professorial “modern science”,
tactlessness nec plus ultra.
I sent Struve a reply to his article on the market. ** My
sister 34 writes to me that this reply will be published in
Nauchnoye Obozreniye and that P. B. intends to answer it
in the same journal. I cannot agree with you that “the crux
of the question lies in the concrete impossibility of an ab-
stractly conceivable proposition” and my main argument
against P. B. is precisely that he mixes up abstract-theoreti-
cal and concrete-historical questions. “Concretely impos-
sible” is not only realisation as put forward by Marx, but
also land rent as put forward by him, and average profit,
and the equality between wages and the value of labour-
power, and much more besides. But the impossibility of
something being realised in a pure form is not a refutation.
I am quite unable to see any contradiction between my
assertions in the Studies 35 and in Nauchnoye Obozreniye,
nor do I see the “bourgeois apologetics” with which Struve
has been trying to frighten readers. What I find most objec-

* “A Note on the Question of the Market Theory (Apropos of

the Polemic of Messrs. Tugan-Baranovsky and Bulgakov)” (see pre-
sent edition, Vol. 4).—Ed.
** “Once More on the Theory of Realisation” (see present edi-
tion, Vol. 4).—Ed.
 TO A. N. POTRESOV 35

tionable in his article is the fact that he drags in critical

philosophy and that he makes remarks such as that Marx’s
theory of value and profit “indisputably suffers from a con-
tradiction”. P. B. is perfectly well aware that this is dis-
putable—why then sow confusion in the minds of our peo-
ple, who so far have received no systematic proof of this con-
tradiction and its correction from any single spokesman of
the “new critical trend”?
And Bulgakov’s sally (No. 3, p. 34, note) against the theory
of Zusammenbruch * !—without any mention of Bernstein
and with the irrevocable authority of a “learned” decree!
I know about the publication of Bernstein’s new book and
I have ordered it but it is hardly likely to be sent. The
article about it in the Frankfurter Zeitung 36 and in Zhizn 37
(not a bad journal! Its literary section is really good, even
better than any others!) has quite convinced me that I did
not rightly understand Bernstein’s disjointed articles and
that he has got himself so tangled up in lies that he really
deserves to be begraben, ** as the author of Beiträge zur Ge-
schichte des Materialismus*** expressed it in an open letter
to Kautsky. Bernstein’s arguments, which are new to me,
against the materialist conception of history, **** etc., are
(according to Zhizn) astonishingly feeble. If P. B. is such
an ardent defender of Bernstein that he is all but prepared
to “quarrel” over him, it is very, very sad, because his
“theory” against Zusammenbruch—excessively narrow for
Western Europe—is altogether unsuitable and dangerous for
Russia. Do you know that it is already being made use of
by our “young” people (ultra-Economists), who in one
publication gave an account of the Stuttgart debates in
such a way that for them Bernstein, Peus, and others were
defenders of “economics, not politics”? What does P. B.
* Collapse (of capitalism).—Ed.
** Buried.—Ed.
*** Contributions to the History of Materialism.—Ed.
**** 38
Incidentally, do you remember how one of our common
friends in the “beautiful faraway” maliciously ridiculed and soundly
scolded me for having called the materialist conception of history
a “method”? And behold, it turns out that Kautsky, too, in using
the same word: “method”, is guilty of the same grievous sin. (Zhizn,
January, Book II, p. 53.) Have you any news of this friend? Is his
health better? Is there any hope that he will write?
36 V. I. L E N I N

think of such “allies”? If by the successes of the ultra-Econ-

omists you mean the resignation of Volgin and his closest
comrades, I know about it 39; it was a great shock to me and
I am now puzzled as to how matters stand and what the
future has in store. I think it terribly harmful that this
dispute with the ultra-Economists was not fully and com-
pletely ventilated in the press: it would have been the only
serious way of clearing things up and establishing certain
precise theoretical propositions. Instead, there is now com-
plete chaos!
My book has come out * and I have asked that it should
be sent to you (I have not yet received it myself). I have
heard that the P. S. to the preface was late, came under
the preliminary censorship and, it seems, “got into trouble”.
I shall await your comments with interest.
I ordered Karelin’s book and read it before I received
it from you. I liked it very much; it is devilishly annoying
that it was pared down! Aren’t you going to write a review
of it?
An acquaintance of mine has sent me A. P.’s “Magazine
Notes” (on the “heritage” and the “inheritors”). I wonder
whether the continuation intended to carry on a further
polemic with me or not? I liked A. P.’s article very much;
the issue was much the worse for the cuts in the article.
Truth to tell, I see no differences of opinion between us:
you deal with a different question—not what the attitude of
the disciples is to Russian democracy in general and wheth-
er they reject it (I wrote exclusively about this), ** but
what the relations were between democrats of various types
in the good old days. I was concerned only with Mikhailov-
sky’s 40 mistake in supposing that we reject democracy
altogether—whereas you fasten on his other mistake, the “slur-
ring over” of substantially important distinctions in the
“heritage”. I saw Maslov’s note in No. 3 of Nauchnoye
Obozreniye directed against me, but to tell you the truth
I was not interested in it. By the way, the cuts in A. P.’s
article confirmed my opinion that it is “inconvenient” to
* The Development of Capitalism in Russia (see present edition,
Vol. 3).—Ed.
** “The Heritage We Renounce” (see present edition, Vol. 2).—
Ed.
 TO A. N. POTRESOV 37

take a more striking testator than Skaldin (a sad confirma-

tion!). In general, I find the tone of the journal that of a
dying body. If that is so, the end and death is only a ques-
tion of time. It is simply speculation on Ratlosigkeit * and
bureaucracy in the department which, etc. One could hold
one’s tongue without any harm and not without advantage
to the cause. As a matter of fact, compared with the modern
tone, our Materials could be a model of “moderation” and
“solidity”.... 41

All the best.

V. U.

Write more often, if it’s not too much bother, otherwise

I am quite unable to get press news from anyone.
I am sending the Historische Berechtigung** by registered
post. Please don’t think me careless about returning books:
you did not mention any time limit and so I did not refuse
comrades who asked to be allowed to read it. I shall be very
grateful for the end of Karelin.
Do you have any German reviews of Kautsky? I have
read only that in the Frankfurter Zeitung—irate and empty
à la Bulgakov.
I am very pleased on the whole with the issues of the jour-
nal. 42 It is splendidly edited. Have you read Gvozdyov’s
book43 and what do you think of it?
Sent from Shushenskoye village
to Orlov, Vyatka Gubernia
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original

* Perplexity.—Ed.
** Historical Justification.—Ed.
38

7
TO A. N. POTRESOV
June 27, 1899
Last Friday, the 18th, I received your letter of June 2,
but I have not received either Mehring or Karelin, about
which you write. I waited a little at first, thinking there
was a delay in the post, but now I am forced to believe
that either the parcel has been lost or you put off sending
it. If the former is the case, lodge a complaint at once.
Your comments on my book * gave me great joy. All
the same, I think you are exaggerating in speaking about
a translation of it: I doubt whether the Germans would
want to read a thing so crammed with facts of purely local
and minor significance. True, they translated N.—on 44
(but then he already had a great reputation and the recom-
mendation, probably, of Engels, although the latter had
intended to make hay of it, according to Monist). Have you
come across reviews of it in the German literature? If I
am not mistaken, they have translated him into French
too. I was somewhat surprised at your statement that you
“at last succeeded in obtaining” my book. . . . Didn’t you
receive it from Moscow or St. Petersburg? I asked that it
should be sent to you, as to all the rest of my friends, and
they all got it. If you have not received it, let me know and
I shall write again to Moscow. So far I have not seen any
reviews of it in the press, but I don’t expect to find any
before the autumn—but then the only newspaper I read is
Russkiye Vedomosti, 45 which continues to maintain a “tact-
ful silence”....

* The Development of Capitalism in Russia (see present edition,

Vol. 3).—Ed.
 TO A. N. POTRESOV 39

I have read Bulgakov’s article in Archiv. I do not in-

tend to write a reply to him for the German public too:
for one thing, I couldn’t do it in German; secondly—and
this is the chief thing, for it would be possible, perhaps,
to find a translator from Russian—an article of the kind
that I wrote for the Russian public, i.e., with a detailed
exposition of Kautsky’s book, would be quite unsuitable
for the German public. I cannot answer Bulgakov’s special
references (from German statistical data) for I have no ma-
terial. Nor would I undertake to write for the Germans
about his general standpoint (Kantian and ... Bernsteinian,
if one can use the term). I think it really is necessary to
correct the Germans’ idea of the Russian disciples, but
for this (unless someone would undertake to write a special
article) a simple paragraph about my article against Bulga-
kov, when this article is published in a Russian journal,
would suffice. * But if it is not published at all—owing to
the demise of Nachalo and the refusal of Zhizn, or the cen-
sorship—then the matter will take quite a different turn.
Regarding the “sensational discoveries” of the Russian
disciples and their neo-Kantianism, I am becoming more
and more indignant. I have read Tugan-Baranovsky’s ar-
ticle in No. 5 of Nauchnoye Obozreniye. . . . What utterly
stupid and pretentious nonsense! Without any historical
study of Marx’s doctrine, without any new researches, on
the basis of schematic errors (arbitrary alteration of the
norm of surplus-value), on the basis of elevating to a gen-
eral rule an exceptional case (raising the productivity of
labour without decreasing the value of the product: an
absurdity if this is taken as a general phenomenon)—on
the basis of this to talk about a “new theory”, about
Marx’s mistake, about reconstruction. . . . No, I cannot
believe your statement that Tugan-Baranovsky is becom-
ing more and more a Genosse. Mikhailovsky was right in
calling him an “echo man”: his article in Mir Bozhy
(“according to Beltov”, you remember? in 1895) and

* Lenin refers to the article “Capitalism in Agriculture (Kautsky’s

Book and Mr. Bulgakov’s Article)” (see present edition, Vol. 4)
The article was published in the journal Zhizn in Jan.-Feb. 1900.—Ed.
40 V. I. L E N I N

this article confirm the severe judgement of the prejud-

iced critic. It is confirmed also by what I have heard about
his personal qualities from you and from Nadya. Of
course, all this is not enough to draw a final conclusion
and I am quite likely to be mistaken. It would be interesting
to know your opinion of his article.
And then there’s this idea of distinguishing between
“sociological” and “economic” categories, set going by
Struve (in No. 1 of Nauchnoye Obozreniye) and repeated
both by P. Berlin (in Zhizn) and by Tugan-Baranovsky.
In my view it promises nothing but an utterly meaningless
and scholastic play at definitions, to which the Kantians
give the resounding name of “critique of concepts” or
even “gnosiology”. I simply cannot understand what sense
there is in such a distinction. How can there be something
economic apart from social?
Incidentally, concerning neo-Kantianism. What stand
do you take? I have read and re-read with great pleasure
Beiträge zur Geschichte des Materialismus, I have read the
articles of the same author in Neue Zeit against Bernstein
and Conrad Schmidt (Neue Zeit, No. 5, 1898-99; the later
issues I have not seen), 46 I have read Stammler (“Wirt-
schaft und Rech”) * whom our Kantians (P. Struve and
Bulgakov) have so highly praised, and I definitely side with
Monist. Stammler especially rouses my indignation; I fail
to see in him even a hint of anything fresh and significant....
Sheer erkenntnistheoretische Scholastik ** ! Stupid “defini-
tions” of a mediocre lawyer, in the worst sense of this last
word, and no less stupid “conclusions” drawn from them
After Stammler, I re-read the articles of Struve and Bulga-
kov in Novoye Slovo and found that neo-Kantianism was a
thing to be seriously reckoned with. I could no longer re-
strain myself and stuck in my comments and attacks against
it, both in reply to Struve (on his article in Nauchnoye Oboz-
reniye. *** Why and by whom the publication of this reply
is being held up—I fail to understand. It was to have ap-

* Economy and Law”.—Ed.

** Epistemological scholasticism.—Ed.
*** “Once More on the Theory of Realisation” (see present edi-
tion, Vol. 4).—Ed.
 TO A. N. POTRESOV 41

peared in No. 6 of Nauchnoye Obozreniye. But it is not there.

Meanwhile, my silence is beginning to make things awkward
for me: for example, Nezhdanov’s article in Zhizn No. 4 47 )
and in reply to Bulgakov. I say, “I could no longer re-
strain myself” for I am only too well aware of my lack of
philosophical education and I do not intend to write on these
subjects until I have learned more. That is just what I am
now doing—I have started with Holbach and Helvètius,
and am now taking up Kant. I have got hold of the chief
works of the chief classical philosophers, but I do not have
the neo-Kantian books (I have only ordered Lange). Tell
me, please, whether you or your comrades have them and
whether you could not share them with me.
On the same subject I have been greatly interested by
the review in No. 5 of Nachalo (May issue, which is in
the last stages of consumption) on Bogdanov’s book. I
don’t understand how I could have missed the notice of
this book’s publication. I have only now ordered it. Al-
ready from Bogdanov’s first book I suspected Monist, and
the title and contents of the second book strengthen my
suspicions. And how disgustingly pointless and disgust-
ingly supercilious this review is! Not a word on the real
issue and ... a reprimand for ignoring Kantianism, although
it is evident from the reviewer’s own words that Bogdanov
does not ignore Kantianism, but refutes it, having a different
standpoint in philosophy. . . . I think (if I am not mistaken
about Bogdanov) it is impossible to let this review go unan-
swered. 48 The only thing I can’t understand is how Ka-
mensky could have left unanswered the articles of Struve
and Bulgakov in Novoye Slovo against Engels. Could you
explain this for me?
Your information about the reaction against Marxism
which has begun in St. Petersburg was news to me. I am
puzzled. “Reaction”—does that mean among the Marxists?
And which ones? P. B. again? Is it he and his Co. who are
developing a tendency to unite with the liberals? I am
looking forward to your explanations with great impatience.
I fully agree that the “critics” are only confusing our people,
while giving absolutely nothing, and that a serious fight with
them (especially over Bernstein) will be necessary (only
will there be somewhere to fight. . . ? ). If P. B. “absolutely
42 V. I. L E N I N

ceases to be a Genosse”—so much the worse for him. It will

be a great loss, of course, for all Genossen, for he is very tal-
ented and knowledgeable, but, of course, “friendship is
friendship, but service is service”, and this does not do
away with the need to fight. I fully understand and share
your “fury” (caused by the epithet “loathsome” [sic!] in
regard to Monist—because of what? because of the article
in Neue Zeit? because of the open letter to Kautsky about
who will begraben whom?) and I am eager to know about
his answer to your letter giving vent to this fury. (I have
not yet seen Bernstein’s book). Gründliche Auseinanderset-
zung is necessary, of course, but it will not and cannot
appear in Nachalo or Zhizn: only specific articles against the
“critics” of Marxism will be published. What is required
for it is a third kind of literature * and Platform (if I
have understood you rightly). Only then, at last, the Genossen
will be dissociated from “outsiders” and “kickers”, and
only then will no kind of personal whimsies or theoretical
“sensational discoveries” be able to produce confusion and
anarchy. The accursed Russian disorganisation is wholly
to blame here!
It is not clear to me in what way your article on the her-
itage (I have read only the first one) was aimed at the St.
Petersburgers. I have not seen the article “Out of Turn”.
Send it to me.
I should very much like to have a more detailed and
circumstantial talk about the Blitzableiter. ** But this, evi-
dently, will have to be left for another time. My term of
exile ends on January 29, 1900. I hope they don’t extend
it—a calamity that not infrequently strikes exiles in Eastern
Siberia. I am dreaming of Pskov. And you?
Nadya sends her regards.

All the very best.

V. U.

P. S. I have just re-read the end of my article against

Bulgakov in the rough copy . . . and I have noticed that my

* Illegal Marxist literature.—Ed.

** Lightning conductor.—Ed.
 TO A. N. POTRESOV 43

tone there is conciliatory; implying, as it were: I am an

“orthodox” and vigorous opponent of the “critics” (that I
said plainly), but we must not exaggerate these disagreements
[as Mr. Bulgakov does] in the face of common enemies.
It is quite possible that this “conciliatory” tone [I have
tried my hardest to be mild and polemise as a Genosse]
will prove inappropriate or even ridiculous if expressions
like “loathsome” are employed, and if the “critics” cause
a definitive cleavage. In that case I should find myself
“guilty though guiltless”; not having seen Bernstein’s book,
not knowing all the views of the “critics”, and being at a
“respectable distance”, my view [when I wrote that article]
was quite an “old one”, simply that of a contributor to
Nachalo. . . . It looks as if my statement about the theory
of the class struggle not having been touched on by the “crit-
ics” is incorrect? 49
Sent from Shushenskoye village
to Orlov, Vyatka Gubernia
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original
44

QPP

8
TO NADEZHDA KRUPSKAYA 50
I have long been intending to write to you about affairs,
but various circumstances have always interfered. My life
here is all bustle, even painfully so—and this (N. B.) despite
the extraordinary precautions taken against it! I live al-
most, one might say, in solitude—and yet there is this
bustle But then I suppose it’s unavoidable in every new
situation, and it would be a sin to complain, seeing that
I am not half as nervy as our dear bookseller 51 who succumbs
to black melancholy and momentary prostration under the
influence of this bustle. But there is much that is good be-
sides the bustle. Well, I shall now tell you something about
the affairs of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats
Abroad, and I shall do so on the basis of facts and accounts
of the other side....
In the first place, a completely wrong idea of Vademecum
prevails in Russia as a result of the cock-and-bull stories
of the Rabocheye Dyelo supporters. To hear them—it is
nothing but indulgence in personalities, and so forth,
nothing but acting general and making mountains out of
molehills for the sake of denigrating individuals, nothing
but the use of “impermissible” methods, etc. Actually, this
thing is a major issue of principle, and the attacks on indi-
viduals are merely an appendage, an appendage that
is inevitable in view of the confused relations which the
“young” have tried to create and aggravate to the utmost
Vademecum is an outcry, a forthright outcry against
banal Economism, against the “shame and disgrace” of
Social-Democracy. “I never thought I would have to
experience such shame,” exclaims Plekhanov at the end
of the preface to the documents he has published. “We
 TO NADEZHDA KRUPSKAYA 45

must get out of this chaotic and disgraceful situation

at all costs. Woe to the party that patiently tolerates such
confusion!” And against all the various accusations levelled
at Plekhanov we must first of all categorically establish
that the whole essence of his pamphlet is precisely declara-
tion of war against the “disgraceful” principles of “Credo-
ism” and “Kuskova-ism”, precisely a split over principles,
and the split and “fracas” in the Union are merely a side
effect of this dissension over principles.
If the split over principles has been combined with this
“fracas” (at the Congress of the Union of Russian Social-
Democrats Abroad in April 1900, things literally came to
the pitch of brawling, hysteria, and so on and so forth,
which led to Plekhanov’s resignation), if things took this
turn, the blame for it rests with the young. It was from the
standpoint of Economism that the young waged a system-
atic, stubborn and dishonest struggle against the Eman-
cipation of Labour group during 1898—“dishonest” because
they did not show their colours openly, because they base-
lessly put all the blame on “Russia” (keeping silent about
the anti-“Economist” Social-Democrats of Russia), and be-
cause they have used their connections and practical resources
to push aside the Emancipation of Labour group in order
to declare the latter’s unwillingness to let in “disgraceful”
ideas and disgraceful stupidity to be an unwillingness to let
in all “young forces” in general. This struggle against the
Emancipation of Labour group, this pushing it aside, was
carried out on the sly, in a “private” fashion, by means
of “private” correspondence and “private” conversations—
plainly and bluntly speaking, by means of intrigue, be-
cause the role of the Emancipation of Labour group in the
Russian Social-Democratic movement never was, never will
be and never can be a private matter. The young proclaimed
“new” views against the old, but concealed those views
so artfully and diplomatically (thereby showing that for
them the very question of views was a private matter) that
it was left for the old to set forth the gist of the disputes.
“We sent to St. Petersburg an account of our disputes with
the young ones” writes Plekhanov (p. XLVII of Vademecum).
Thus, as early as 1898 the Emancipation of Labour group
proved that for it the whole question lay in the vacillation
46 V. I. L E N I N

over principles on the part of the young, who were capable

of sinking as low as complete denial of socialism. As early
as 1898 the Emancipation of Labour group came out with
an appeal to Russian Social-Democrats against ideological
waverings, 52 but this appeal proved to be the voice in the
wilderness, since after the arrests in the summer of 1898
all outstanding leaders of the Party were swept from the
battlefield and only the voice of the Economists responded
to the appeal.
It is not surprising that after this the Emancipation of
Labour group resigned from the editorial board, it is not
surprising that open war against Economism became more
and more urgent and inevitable. But here, to the aid of the
Economic trend, came people who were united to these
Economists by long-standing hostility towards the Eman-
cipation of Labour group and these people did not shrink
from the attempt to abet Economism, without washing
dirty linen in public, and to enable the Economists to con-
tinue, with greater convenience than ever before, the tactics
of “private” propaganda of their views under the flag of
Social-Democracy and under cover of ambiguous statements
by the new editorial board, which wanted to imitate that
dear little calf who sucked two mothers at once.
In the very first issue of Rabocheye Dyelo the new editors
declared that they “do not know what young comrades
P. B. Axelrod is talking about” in attacking the Econo-
mists. They declared this despite the fact that the whole
history of the Union in recent years was a history of its
struggle with the “young”; they declared this despite the
fact that one of the members of the editorial board of Rabo-
cheye Dyelo was himself an adherent of the Economic trend
(Mr. V. I—n). 53 To an outsider, to one who has not pon-
dered over the history of Russian Social-Democracy and
the Social-Democratic Union Abroad during the last few
years, it may seem quite incomprehensible and strange
that such a slight and (apparently) casual remark dropped
by the editors of Rabocheye Dyelo (“we do not know what
young comrades P. B. Axelrod is talking about”) could
spark off the most passionate polemics, ending in the split
of the Union and its disintegration. Yet there is nothing
strange about this seemingly strange phenomenon. The
 TO NADEZHDA KRUPSKAYA 47

slight remark of Rabocheye Dyelo’s editors in connection

with their publication of Mr. V. I—n’s articles fully and
clearly revealed the cardinal distinction between two concep-
tions of the immediate tasks and most urgent demands of
Russian Social-Democracy. The first conception can be ex-
pressed in the words laissez faire, laissez passer in relation to
Economism. These are tactics of a conciliatory attitude
to Economism, the tactics of concealing the “extremes” of
Economism, of defending Economism against open struggle
against it, the tactics of “free criticism”, i.e., free crit-
icism of Marxism on the part of all overt and covert ideol-
ogists of the bourgeoisie. The other conception required
a resolute struggle against Economism, an open protest
against the threatening vulgarisation and narrowing of
Marxism, an irrevocable break with bourgeois “criticism”.
Written in August
prior to 2 4 th, 1 9 0 0
Sent from Switzerland to Ufa
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original
48

9
ADDRESSEE UNIDENTIFIED
September 5, 1900
Nuremberg
Comrade,
It looks as if we shall not be able to meet—we are not
going to either Mainz or Paris and leave here tomorrow. 54
It is a great pity, but we must accept the situation and con-
fine ourselves to conversing by post.
Firstly, I hasten to correct a remark in your first letter,
a correction I would ask you to convey also to the person
who told you of my “promise to meet”. That is not true.
I did not promise to meet, but said that we would officially
(i.e., on behalf of our group 55) get in touch with the Union 56
when we were abroad, if this appeared to be necessary. It was
wrong of G. 57 to forget about this condition, and to forget
besides to tell you that I spoke with him in a personal ca-
pacity and, consequently, could not have promised any-
thing definite in anticipation of our group’s decision. When
we heard out the other side here 58 and learned about the
congress and the split, we saw that there was now no need
for an official contact. That’s all. Consequently, the Union
has no right whatever to “lay claim” to me, whereas I claim
that G. told certain other persons of our conversation, al-
though he had formally promised me that, prior to our
group making contact with the Union, he would inform no
one except the arrested person. Since you have informed me
of his claim, I hope you will not refuse, being in Paris, to
inform him likewise of this claim of mine. If “the rumour
is heavy on the ground”, 59 it is G. who is to blame for it. *

* Secondly, yet another little departure: I heard out both G.,

whom I met in the course of several days, and the other side. You, on
the other hand, heard out only the Unionists; but no more or less
influential and authoritative representatives of the other side. Hence,
it seems to me that it is you, if anybody, who has violated the rule of
“audiatur et altera pars” (“hear the other side as well”.—Ed.)
 ADDRESSEE UNIDENTIFIED 49

Now passing to the heart of the matter. Amalgamation

is impossible. So is federation, if the word is understood in
its real sense, i.e., a certain agreement, a treaty, mutual
obligations, etc. “The endeavour to afford each other as much
help as possible”—is, I think, not bound up with federation,
but is possible also without it, and is possible in general, al-
though I do not know whether it is easily practicable. If the
Union sincerely desired this, it would hardly have started with
ultimatums and the threat of a boycott (that was precisely
the meaning of the words used by the person who delivered
your letter); that cannot serve to improve relations.
FROM MARX
We are an independent literary group. We want to remain
independent. We do not consider it possible to carry on
without such forces as Plekhanov and the Emancipation
TO MAO
of Labour group, but no one is entitled to conclude from this


that we shall forego even a particle of our independence.
That is all we can say at the moment to people who want
to know above all what our attitude is to the Emancipation
of Labour group. To anyone who is not satisfied with this,
we have nothing to say except: judge us by our deeds if you
do not believe our words. If, however, it is a question not
of the present moment, but of the more or less near future,
then, of course, we shall not refuse to impart to people
NOT FOR
with whom we shall have close relations more detailed
information on the form of the relations between us and the
COMMERCIAL
Emancipation of Labour group.
You will ask: what kind of relations will you have with
the Union? For the time being none, because it is our unal-
DISTRIBUTION
terable decision to remain an independent group and enjoy
the closest co-operation of the Emancipation of Labour
group. This decision, however, is distrusted by the Union,
which fears that we will not be capable of sustaining our
complete independence, that we will fall into an “impos-
sible” (your expression) polemical tone. If our activity
dispels this distrust on the part of the Union, good relations
can be established between us, otherwise they cannot. Voilà
tout. You write: “The Union is looking to you”; but obvious-
ly we can only help the Union with writings, and it is no
less obvious that at the present time, when all our vital
juices must go to nourish our coming offspring, 60 we cannot
afford to feed other people’s children.
50 V. I. L E N I N

You write that 1) there are no disagreements in principle,

and that 2) the Union is ready to prove in practice its de-
termination to fight the “Economic trend”. We are certain
that on both these points you are mistaken. Our conviction
is based on such writings as, the postscript to the Anti-Credo,61
the reply to Vademecum. 62 No. 6 of Rabocheye Dyelo, 63 the
preface to the pamphlet A Turning Point in the Jewish
Labour Movement, and others. We intend to come out in
writing with a refutation of the opinion that there are no
disagreements in principle (so that we shall have some
relations with the Union: relations between parties engaged
in a polemic).
Now for the last and main point: are we right or not in
regarding you as having had “a very, very sharp change
of views ” ? Let us recall how things stood in Russia: you
knew that we wanted to found an independent literary en-
terprise, you knew that we were for Plekhanov. Consequent-
ly, you knew everything, and not only did not refuse to
participate, but, on the contrary, yourself used such an
expression as “our” enterprise (do you remember our last talk
in your flat en trois?), thus giving us grounds for expecting
the closest participation from you. Now, however, it turns
out that you are silent on the question of your participation,
that you set us the “task” of “settling the conflict abroad at
all costs”, that is to say, a task which we have not undertaken
and are not undertaking—without, of course, giving up
the hope that our foundation of an independent enterprise
with the co-operation of the Emancipation of Labour group
may create a basis for settling the conflict. Now, apparently,
you doubt the expediency of our group establishing an
independent enterprise, for you write that the existence of
two organisations with “each leaving the other to act as the
spirit moves it” will be bad for the cause. It seems indubi-
table to us that your views have undergone a sharp change.
We have now set before you with complete frankness how
matters stand with us, and we should be very glad if our
exchange of views on the question of “impending tasks”
were not limited to this.
Address: Nürnberg, Ph. Roegner.

First published in 1 9 2 4 Printed from the original

 51

10
TO APOLLINARIA YAKUBOVA 64
October 26
I received your letter of October 24 yesterday and am
replying at once as requested.
I cannot forward the letter just now, as I am not sending
any pasted-in things to the address I have, and only use
the chemical method. I have no time to copy the letter by
this means. I wrote to the addressee 65 yesterday giving
the substance of the letter, and I hope in the near future to
communicate the whole letter to him. But if you can copy
it into an unbound book by the chemical method, then I
will send it at once.
I will give my sister the address: she was not in Paris
in September, so you could hardly have been there at the
same time. I hope you dropped her a few lines at the address
I gave you.
Now, to business.
Your letter to me creates a strange impression. Apart
from information concerning addresses and forwarding, it con-
tains nothing but reproaches—bare reproaches without
any explanations. You even go to the extent of attempting
caustic remarks (“are you sure that you have done this
for the benefit of the Russian workers’ movement and not
for the benefit of Plekhanov?”)—but, of course, I am not
going to exchange caustic remarks with you.
You reproach me for having “advised against”. 66 You
quote me very inaccurately. I remember very well that I
did not express myself categorically, absolutely. I wrote:
“We find it hard at the moment to advise anything”; that
is to say, I made our decision depend directly on a prelim-
inary elucidation of the matter. What this elucidation
52 V. I. L E N I N

should have been is clear from my letter: it was essential for

us to be perfectly sure whether there had really been a “turn”
in Rabochaya Mysl 67 (as we had been told and as we were
entitled to conclude from the fact that you proposed to
Plekhanov that he should participate) and what kind of
turn.
On this basic and main question you do not say a word.
That we regard Rabochaya Mysl as an organ of a special
trend with which we differ in the most serious way is
something of which you have long been aware. Some months
ago both the addressee of your long letter and I flatly re-
fused to take part in an organ of that trend, and obviously,
in doing so ourselves, we could not but advise others to
do the same.
The news of a “turn” in Rabochaya Mysl, however, put
us in a “difficulty”. A real turn could substantially alter
the situation. It is natural therefore that in my letter I
expressed above all the desire to learn all the details of the
turn—but you have not said a word in reply to this.
Perhaps, however, you consider that the answer to my
question about the turn is contained in your letter to my
friend 68 ? Perhaps, if you approached Plekhanov on behalf
of the editorial board of Rabochaya Mysl, your letter to
my friend could be regarded as an authentic expression of
the board’s views? If so, then I am inclined to draw the
conclusion that there has been no turn. If I am mistaken,
please explain my mistake to me. The other day, another
close supporter of Plekhanov wrote to me about the turn
in Rabochaya Mysl. But, being in correspondence with
you, I cannot, of course, believe these “rumours” of a turn
which are not in any way confirmed by you.
Again, I had better say openly and straightaway (even
at the risk of incurring further reproaches) that, being in
complete solidarity with my friend (to whom you write),
I subscribe to his words: “We shall have to fight you”—if
there is no turn. But if there is—you must explain in full
detail exactly what this turn is.
You write to my friend: “fight us, if you are not ashamed
to do so”. He will answer you himself, of course, but I for
my part beg leave to reply to this. I am not in the least
ashamed to fight—seeing that things have gone so far that
 TO APOLLINARIA YAKUBOVA 53

the disagreements have concerned fundamental issues, that

an atmosphere has been created of mutual non-comprehen-
sion, mutual distrust and complete discordance of views
(I am not speaking of Rabochaya Mysl alone; I am speaking
about everything I have seen and heard, and not so much
here as at home), inasmuch as a number of “splits” has already
arisen on this basis. To get rid of this oppressive atmos-
phere, even a furious thunderstorm, and not merely a liter-
ary polemic, can (and should) be welcomed.
And there is no reason to be so much afraid of a struggle:
a struggle may cause annoyance to some individuals, but
it will clear the air, define attitudes in a precise and straight-
forward manner, define which differences are important and
which unimportant, define where people stand—those who
are taking a completely different path and those Party com-
rades who differ only on minor points.
You write that there have been mistakes in Rabochaya
Mysl. Of course, we all make mistakes. Without a strug-
gle, however, how is one to distinguish these minor mistakes
from the trend which stands clearly revealed in Rabochaya
Mysl and attains its culmination in the “Credo”. * Without
struggle there cannot be a sorting out, and without a sorting
out there cannot be any successful advance, nor can there
be any lasting unity. And those who are beginning the
struggle at the present time are by no means destroying

* Note. In your letter to my friend, for example, there is both

misunderstanding and the Economic trend. You are right in stressing
that an economic struggle is necessary, that one must know how to
make use of legal societies, that all kinds of responses and so forth
are necessary, that one should not turn one’s back on society. All
that is legitimate and true. And if you think that revolutionaries
have a different view, that is a misunderstanding. Revolutionaries
say merely that every effort must be made to ensure that legal societies
and so forth do not separate the workers’ movement from Social-
Democracy and the revolutionary political struggle but, on the con-
trary, unite them as closely and indissolubly as possible. In your
letter, however, there is no effort to combine, but there is an effort
to separate, that is, there is Economism or “Bernsteinism”, 69 for
example, in the statement: “The labour question in Russia, as it
stands in reality, was first raised by Rabochaya Mysl”—in its arguments
about the judicial struggle and so forth.
I apologise if my reference to your letter to my friend offends you;
I wanted only to illustrate my thought.
54 V. I. L E N I N

unity. There is no longer any unity, it has already been

destroyed all along the line. Russian Marxism and Russian
Social-Democracy are already a house divided against it-
self, and an open, frank struggle is one of the essential
conditions for restoring unity.
Yes, restoring! The kind of “unity” that makes us con-
ceal “Economic” documents from our comrades like a secret
disease, that makes us resent the publication of statements
revealing what views are being propagated under the guise
of Social-Democratic views—such “unity” is not worth a
brass farthing, such “unity” is sheer cant, it only aggravates
the disease and makes it assume a chronic, malignant form.
That an open, frank and honest struggle will cure this
disease and create a really united, vigorous and strong
Social-Democratic movement—I do not for a moment doubt.
Perhaps it is very inappropriate that in a letter to you
of all people I have to speak so often of a struggle (literary
struggle). But I think that our old friendship most of all
makes complete frankness obligatory.

All the best.

Petroff

P. S. In a week or two I shall have another address: Herr

Philipp Roegner, Cigarrenhandlung, Neue Gasse, Nürnberg
(only for letters and in two envelopes). [Please do not
write any initials in the letters—heaven knows whether
the post here is quite reliable.]
Written October 2 6 , 1 9 0 0
Sent from Munich to London
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original
 55

QPQ

11
TO G. V. PLEKHANOV 70
January 30, 1901
I have received your letter just now, dear G. V., imme-
diately on my return from a “final” talk with Judas. 71
The matter has been settled and I am terribly displeased
with the way in which it has been settled. I hasten to write
to you while my impressions are still fresh.
Judas did not argue about the “democratic opposition”;
he is no romantic and not one to be frightened with words.
But, as far as “item 7” is concerned (the utilisation of ma-
terial for Iskra, material reaching Sovremennoye Obozreniye),
he outsmarted our people, all of whom, P. B. y compris,
stood up for him, against me. He, Judas—you see—expected
that Iskra would be more popular, more “working-class”;
he finds that our free use of material received by Sovremen-
noye Obozreniye could create competition. . . . He demands
that material for Iskra should be used only by agreement
with the representative of Sovremennoye Obozreniye—agree-
ment ceases to be necessary only if it is impossible to
communicate with this representative, a condition that,
obviously, will rarely operate, for Judas says frankly that
he proposes either the existence of a representative im
Auslande * (“not more than 12 hours from Munich”) or
very punctual correspondence. He would like to publish
each month five sheets—that is to say, about 200,000 char-
acters—just as much as in two sheets of Iskra. That he
will be able to supply so much material is hardly to be
doubted, for he is well-to-do, writes a great deal and has
good connections. The thing is clear: the competition is

* Abroad.—Ed.
56 V. I. L E N I N

aimed not so much against Zarya 72 as against Iskra; the

same preponderance of political material, the same news-
paper character—review of current events, short articles
(Judas with very true intuition attaches very great impor-
tance to the frequent publication of booklets with smallish
articles). We shall be swamped with material of this kind,
we shall be running around carrying out errands for Judas,
who by his control of Sovremennoye Obozreniye (it is obvious
that he will be master and complete master there for he has
the money and 99 per cent of the materials—it is rarely,
if ever, that we shall be in a position to give them even
a very little) will make a magnificent liberal career and
try to shoulder aside not only the heavyish Zarya, but Iskra
as well. We shall be running around, keeping ourselves
busy with proof-reading and transportation, while His
Highness Mr. Judas will be rédacteur-en-chef of the most
influential (in broad circles of so genannten* public opinion)
little journal. But “romantic” comfort can be offered these
rechtgläubigen: let it be called “Supplement to the Social-
Democratic journal Zarya”, let them console themselves
with catchwords, but meanwhile I shall take the whole
affair into my hands. One is entitled to ask—will not the
famous “hegemony” of Social-Democracy prove under the
circumstances to be mere cant? In what will it find expres-
sion other than in the catchword “Supplement to the So-
cial-Democratic journal”? That he will overwhelm us with
material is indubitable, for we can’t manage as it is to
write enough both for Zarya and Iskra.
Either the one or the other: either Sovremennoye Oboz-
reniye is a supplement to the journal Zarya (as arranged)
and then it should appear not more frequently than Zarya,
with complete freedom to use material for Iskra. Or we
sell our birthright for a mess of pottage and prove genas-
führt ** by Judas, who feeds us with catchwords.
If it is our destiny and if it is possible for us to achieve
real hegemony, it will be exclusively by means of a polit-
ical newspaper (reinforced by a scientific organ), and when
we are told with infuriating insolence that the political

* So-called.—Ed.
** Led by the nose.—Ed.
 TO G. V. PLEKHANOV 57

section of our newspaper must not compete with the polit-

ical enterprise of the liberal gentlemen, our pitiful role
becomes as clear as daylight.
I have made a copy of this letter, and am appending
it to the Minutes of today’s meeting as a statement of my
protest and of my “dissenting opinion”, and I invite you
too to raise the banner of revolt. Better a break than this
factual subordination to the Credo programme alongside
loud phrases against Credo-ism.
If the majority expresses itself in favour—I shall, of
course, submit, but only after having washed my hands
of it beforehand.
Sent from Munich to Geneva
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the
typewritten copy
with insertions in
Lenin’s handwriting
58

12
TO P. B. AXELROD
March 20, 1901
Dear P. B.,
I have received all your letters and have given Auntie
news of her old friend. 73 There was no need for you to worry
about addresses and to think that there had been any change.
I am still living at the same place and you should write
to me at the old address:
Herrn Georg Rittmeyer, Kaiserstrasse 53/0, München.
Inside: für Meyer.
I am not expecting my wife for some time yet: her term
of exile only ends on Sunday, and she has to make some
calls on the way, so she can hardly be here before the sec-
ond half of April. Even when she does come you can still
write to Rittmeyer, 74 for he will always forward every-
thing to me, and I in turn will let you know in good time
of any change of address.
We are having trouble with Zarya. That capricious gen-
tleman Dietz 75 definitely rejected your editorial article;
he was frightened by the references to Iskra, scented a
whiff of “groups”, etc., and referred to the fact that both
Bebel and Singer (shareholders in his G.m.b.H.) are rather
afraid, 76 and so on. To our very great regret, we had to
give up your article, replacing it by a few words “to the
readers”. This new censorship is horribly unpleasant! The
cover, too, has suffered: they deleted even “several Rus-
sian Social-Democrats”. When shall we get rid of the “tu-
telage” of these Dreck-Genossen?!
We are having unpleasantness with that Calf (Judas)
too. A very angry letter has come from his friend (= the
proposed source of money= goldene Wanze 77 ), saying: I am
 TO P. B. AXELROD 59

sending 200 (two hundred!) rubles for Sovremennoye Oboz-

reniye, and bear in mind, he says, that it is for this enter-
prise and not for yours. We are all indignant, and it has
been decided: 1) not to publish the statement about the
coalition, 2) to send the Calf and his “friend” an ultimatum:
either firm financing of our enterprise or we refuse, 3) to
finish the Witte memorandum. 78
Well, haven’t we been fooled again by Judas?
There is one consolation: No. 2 of Iskra has reached Rus-
sia safely. It is a success and letters are pouring in. The
devil knows what is happening in Russia: demonstrations
in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kharkov, Kazan; martial law
in Moscow (by the way, they arrested my youngest sister
there and even my brother-in-law, 79 who had never taken
part in anything!); bloody battles; prisons crammed full,
and so on.
In a few days we are expecting Brother 80 and our com-
mon friend—Feld 81 —who have already left (at last!); the
latter (so far) has safely fulfilled everything required of
him.
We are publishing a May-Day leaflet, 82 and then we
shall start on No. 3 of Iskra, and perhaps also No. 4 at the
same time—there is a lot of material.
Zarya will come out on Saturday, they say, and will
be sent to you directly from Stuttgart.
Our finances are in a very bad way. Hence for the time
being we must definitely refrain from all expenditure on
inviting a man out (proposed by you as a carrier).

All the very best.

Yours,
Meyer
Sent from Munich to Zurich
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original
60

13
TO P. B. AXELROD
March 25, 1901
Dear P. B.,
I haven’t had a talk with you for a long time, I could
not get down to it and, besides, Alexei has written
to you about all business matters, * but the need of a talk
has become too great for me to put it off any longer. I
should like to consult you about both the Parisians and
Zurichers, 83 as well as about matters in general.
Do you know that the Parisians (long ago, about two
or three weeks) have “dissolved the Iskra promotion group”
and have refused (for the second time) to co-operate, on
the grounds of our having “violated organisational neutral-
ity” (sic! that we were unfair to the Union 84 and wrongly
attacked it in Zarya). This was written by the author of
“Comments on the Programme of Rabocheye Dyelo”, 85 who
hinted most unambiguously that Rabocheye Dyelo was on
the mend (in Listok No. 6 86 it has even over-mended itself,
in our opinion!) and consequently . . . consequently . . . Viv-
rons verrons ** —this “dear comrade” concluded. Obviously
(like certain “young forces” about whom G. V. wrote), he
is aiming at a better position in Rabocheye Dyelo. The sheer
scoundrelism of it made us so indignant that we did not
even answer them. In Iskra No. 4 (we have been promised
that No. 3 will be ready by May 1 and intend to start on
No. 4 immediately) we are going to flay Rabocheye Dyelo
for its shilly-shallying.
I really don’t know whether to give these intrigants up

* I have been ill here for a week with influenza.

** We shall wait and see.—Ed.
 TO P. B. AXELROD 61

as a bad job or to make yet another attempt. They are,

undoubtedly, capable people, they have written, they have
(both of them) supplied material (Danevich as well), they
have collected money skilfully (as much as 350 frs—no-
where yet has so much been collected abroad for Iskra).
As a matter of fact, we are not blameless either in regard
to them: we have not paid them sufficient attention, we
have not sent a single article for examination and “com-
radely advice”, we have not offered any “section” (if only
a foreign review in Iskra or comments in a social chronicle
on certain issues). Apparently, under the conditions obtain-
ing abroad, it is impossible, quite impossible, not to have
something of the sort. Now take the Berliners 87 (Arsenyev
was there recently)—they too want a definite position;
simply to help Iskra, they say, can satisfy a student, but
we or Dvinskaya (she and her husband are withdrawing from
the Union, in which, when the members were questioned,
only three—Grishin 88 y compris!—expressed themselves
in favour of the conference. Vive camarade G.!) require,
they say, something of the sort, you know....
I just don’t know what to do! It is necessary to “invent”
an organisation—without that es geht nicht. *
It has occurred to me that the following plan of organisa-
tion could be tried: the Sotsial-Demokrat organisation, 89
the editorial board of Zarya and various groups (the Ber-
liners, for example, the Parisians, perhaps, etc.), or various
persons, unite in a League, 90 let us say. Literary activity
to be handled in three ways: the Emancipation of Labour
group has its print-shop, Zarya has its own, with an elected
Literary Committee as closest collaborator, taking part in
periodic joint editorial sessions and publishing (over the
signature of the Literary Committee) pamphlets, etc., in
the print-shops of Sotsial-Democrat and Zarya—eventuell
also in a third print-shop should the League set one up
(there is such a prospect). The supreme decision on literary
questions in the League will belong to a conference of three
members: from the Emancipation of Labour group, from
Zarya, and from the Literary Committee. There will be a
joint, elected management.

* There is nothing doing.—Ed.

62 V. I. L E N I N

Such, in substance, is my plan (of course, Iskra, being

a Russian publication, does not formally come into the
League). In principle this plan is approved here—by
Elder Sister too. I believe that such a “constitution” (“Aus-
trian” Alexei jokingly calls it) holds no dangers for us, and
something of the kind is absolutely necessary, otherwise
there will be general dissatisfaction and we may lose all
our people. In this way we shall be fully guaranteed against
dissensions and squabbles, keeping full control of our print-
shops and editorial boards, while giving people the requi-
site scope without which they will not agree to co-operate.
Please write what you think of this idea, and talk it
over with G. V. (to whom I am not writing, for he should
soon be here and will, of course, call on you on the way).
I am not going into details; they can be easily settled. If
we all (i.e., the whole Sotsial-Demokrat) agree on this,
the chances are that the Berliners (who have a print-shop
and are eager to “work” from a definite “position”) will
join us, and then we shall be able to counterpose to the
Union a united “League” developing extensive activities.
There is no need to fear an elected management, for it
will only control transport and the collection of money
abroad, divided in a definite proportion between Sotsial-
Demokrat, Zarya, etc., but it will not have anything to
do with Iskra, which informally will be behind Zarya and
together with Zarya. Formally the League can be declared
the ally abroad of the Iskra organisation in Russia, which
we are already establishing.
Nor is there any need to fear literary stupidities, for
(1) the Literary Committee can be bound by its Rules as
far as independent publishing is concerned; (2) it will pub-
lish over its own signature: the Emancipation of Labour
group and Zarya will not be confused with it; (3) our peo-
ple as well can be in it; (4) it will be subordinated to the
conference, in which we have a majority.
I don’t know, of course, whether this will satisfy the
Parisians—they are so proud. We feel awkward about
approaching them. If you approve of the plan, would you
care to write to them and throw out a feeler, seeing that
they spoke to you earlier in Paris about their sad situation;
you could now suggest this way out to them. If you ap-
 TO P. B. AXELROD 63

prove of the idea, we shall get in touch with Koltsov and

ask him to draft Rules for the League. *
Now about the Lettish Zurichers. I don’t know whether
you have heard that the transport arranged with their help
came to grief: 3,000 copies of Iskra (No. 1) were seized by
the police, who got hold of the smuggler as well. Later
one of them wrote to us, asking for more fare money. We
replied that we could not give any more for this route—
we would not dare to put it before our organisation—but
if he would undertake specially to get one pood across (as
he undertook to do when he talked with me), then let him
come and pick it up.
There was not a word in reply. Do you know whether,
perhaps, they have taken offence? What are they doing
and planning? If you see any of them, please have a talk
to find out how matters stand.
We are beginning to think about No. 2 of Zarya—it is
time to do so. The Witte memorandum will soon be fin-
ished,** in about 2-3 weeks (for some reason Dietz is incredibly
slow with it; so far only 9 sheets are ready). So far we have
no material apart from Nevzorov’s article on the historical
preparation of Russian Social-Democracy which you already
know about. We are hoping for a leading article by G. V.
on recent events, his article contra Struve, your article
(from editorial comments)—that’s true, isn’t it?; an article
by Luxemburg is promised (a new introduction to her
articles “Die sozialistische Krise in Frankreich”, *** which
articles we intend to translate), and Kautsky has promised
an article on academicians and proletarians.
We have no foreign reviews. How do matters stand with
the “Austrian” article? Isn’t anything coming from Amer-
ica?—and from Switzerland? It is said that Danevich is
ill. There is no one we can ask to write about Germany—
apart from Parvus, who promised (?) a foreign review but
that is not quite the thing.

* It would be good to come before our people with a joint draft

of Sotsial-Demokrat and Zarya.
** “The Persecutors of the Zemstvo and the Hannibals of Lib-
eralism” (see present edition, Vol. 5).—Ed.
*** “The Socialist Crisis in France.”—Ed.
64 V. I. L E N I N

In the fourth issue of Iskra it is proposed to have an

article on terrorism (by Alexei); there is: “The Autocracy
and the Zemstvo” (continuation), “The Autocracy and Fi-
nance” (by Parvus), something for the social chronicle (there
is a supplement on demonstrations) and the working-class
movement. We are thinking of issuing No. 4 in a single
sheet (No. 3 has expanded so much, to two sheets, 8 pages
(seven pages are now ready), like No. 1—and part had
to be left out.)! We must exert every effort to expedite the
publication of Iskra—to make it a monthly.
Good-bye! All the best. Regards to all your family. From
my wife too.

Yours,
Petrov

P.S. Write to me at Rittmeyer’s.

Before I forget: on the instructions of Elder Sister

I inform you that 250 frs. has been received. The report
on this is published in Iskra No. 3 (“From America through
Axelrod”). I am sending you via Stuttgart 10 copies
of Zarya—send them to Ingerman, Mokriyevich, etc. Elder
Sister is writing an article for the Germans on the demon-
strations.
Sent from Munich to Zurich
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original
 65

14
TO N. E. BAUMAN 91
May 24, 1901
We received your letter with the report for January,
February, March and April. Thanks for the detailed and
clear list of income and expenditure. But as regards your
activity in general, we are still unclear what exactly this
activity is and what its results are. You wrote that you
have your hands full and there is no one to replace you,
but you have still not kept your promise to describe this
activity. Is your work confined to forwarding literature
to the points named in the report? Or are you engaged in
forming a group or groups? If so, where and what kind,
what has been done already, and what are these groups
for—for local work, for sending to us for literature, or for
something else?
We ask about this because the question is very important.
Things with us are going none too well. We are bad off
financially, Russia gives almost nothing. Shipping is still
unorganised and haphazard. Under these conditions, our
“tactics” must aim wholly at 1) sending here the fullest
possible amount of the money collected in Russia for Iskra,
and reducing local expenditure to a minimum; 2) spending
money almost exclusively on shipment, as we already have
receiving agents functioning in Pskov and Poltava who are
comparatively very cheap and no burden on our exchequer.
Please think this over carefully. Our daily bread, by
which we barely manage to keep alive, consists as before
solely of suitcases. For a couple of them we pay about a
hundred rubles, and the chance nature of the persons sent
entails a vast amount of delay, carelessness, loss, etc. Noth-
ing is being done to organise the sending of “suitcasers”
from Riga (which, according to both Raznotsvetov and
66 V. I. L E N I N

Ernst, is possible). There is no news from Leopold. 92 Noth-

ing is being arranged in Finland, although this is also
possible, as we are assured from various quarters. Is it
reasonable, in such a state of affairs, to spend 400 rubles
in four months on local reception and intermediaries for
forwarding literature?
We think you should move into the immediate vicinity
of the frontier for the sake of shipping at least 2-4 suit-
cases and 10-20 pounds per month by personal handling.
What do you say to this?
Sent from Munich to Moscow
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original
 67

15
TO P. B. AXELROD
May 25, 1901
Dear P. B.,
You have already heard, of course, from G. V. of the
plan for our organisation and of the new “conciliatory”
enterprise of Nevzorov, Danevich and Ryazanov (who have
taken the title of the Borba group 93 ). We answered their
inquiry (whether we agreed to a preliminary conference
between Sotsial-Demokrat, the Union, and Zarya, i.e., their
representatives) by consenting. G. V. said here that, of course,
it was necessary to agree and that he had already written
to you about it. Today Ryazanov (who has already spent
about two days here) told me that he had received a letter
from Gurevich, who informed him that official agreement
had been received only from us, that so far there was still
nothing from the Emancipation of Labour group, that he
had seen Krichevsky and Ivanshin and was almost sure
of their agreement to the conference, that the place sug-
gested is Brussels and the date about June 4, and that the
Bund organisation abroad 94 also wished to attend the con-
ference.
Please write to them as soon as possible about the official
agreement to the conference on the part of the Emancipa-
tion of Labour group (as the representative of Sotsial-
Demokrat), and about your attitude to the question of
place and time. * On the first point we wrote that we are
in favour of Zurich or some place closest to it (and that
Switzerland, of course, is the most convenient place also
for the Emancipation of Labour group) and that we should
* I am repeating Gurevich’s address, just in case: Mr. E. Goure-
vitsch, 38 bis Rue Gassendi, 38 bis Paris.
68 V. I. L E N I N

like the conference to be held quickly, if possible in May,

for in June we have not so much free time at our disposal.
(Our desire to hasten the conference is really to be explained
by the fact that it is more advantageous to us to get it over
quickly so as to begin our own organisation sooner and have
time for preparing for a decisive fight against the Union
in the event of a break. The fight, probably, will be shifted
to Russia, too, in the summer.)
Please support our desire to hasten the conference *
(putting forward any sort of grounds) and to hold it in
Switzerland. I think they can hardly object to Switzerland,
firstly, because two of the four (Zarya and Sotsial-Demokrat
against the Union and Borba) are in favour of Switzerland;
secondly, Switzerland is bound to be the natural place for
a congress of representatives of the Swiss, German and
French groups. Perhaps it would be possible to agree not
on Zurich but on Basle, for instance? Let me know, please,
when you send your official agreement.
I shall now tell you about Ryazanov. On the question
of our organisation (the Iskra organisation abroad) he at
first got into a huff when he learnt that we had no intention
of enlarging the editorial board and were proposing only
a deliberative role for them. He spoke with feeling about
Nevzorov being a man who had a great past and services
to his credit (exactly the way Nevzorov last summer spoke
about Ryazanov!)—he expressed indignation, resorted to
irony, and so on and so forth. But a little later, seeing that
all this hadn’t the slightest effect on us, he became disposed
to make concessions. He declared that he, perhaps, would
agree to our plan (“Nevzorov would never agree”), but the
best thing would be a federation between Sotsial-Demokrat,
Zarya and Borba, that Borba was ready to give up the idea
of publishing its own organ (we never believed they could
set one up) and confine itself to a series of pamphlets.
On the whole, it looks as if it will be possible to work
with them; they may jib a little, but will nevertheless
join in.
As far as a rapprochement with the Union is concerned,
Ryazanov at first stated that he did not put any hopes at

* They are said to want it round about June 10. We don’t mind.
 TO P. B. AXELROD 69

all on the conference, that it was only Gurevich who enter-

tained such an idea, and so forth. But when he learnt that
we were not making the abolition of the Union a conditio
sine qua non, and that we were ready to allow the existence
of a scientific organ (Zarya) and a political newspaper
(Iskra) side by side with a popular miscellany or workers’
journal (Rabocheye Dyelo), he made a decisive change of
front and declared that he had long ago spoken about this
to Krichevsky, that he regarded it as the natural way of
ending discord and that he himself was now ready to work
for the realisation of such a plan. Let him do some work!
Perhaps amalgamation or federation on such a basis will
really occur—it would be a big step forward.
Another reason why we are in favour of Zurich, I would
add, is that Alexei is anxious to have more time to talk
over all kinds of matters with you.
If the questioning of all members of Sotsial-Demokrat
(for an official answer to the Borba group) requires much
time, please try, if possible, to shorten this time somehow.
Delay in calling the conference is extremely undesirable.
Regarding participation of the Bund organisation
abroad, we think it should be refused (without making a
casus belli out of it in the last resort) on the grounds of
paragraph 1 of the decisions of the Congress of the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party in 1898. (On the strength
of this paragraph the Bund is autonomous only in questions
specifically concerning the Jewish proletariat and, con-
sequently, cannot act as an independent party to negotia-
tions.)
How about your article for Iskra? Do you intend to pro-
vide something for the second booklet of Zarya, about which
G. V., of course, has told you?
With warmest greetings and best regards from all of us.

Yours,
Petrov
Sent from Munich to Zurich
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original
70

16
TO LYDIA KNIPOVICH 95
How do you propose printing Iskra in Russia? At a secret
printing-press or a legal one? If the latter, write immediately
whether you have anything definite in view; we are
ready to snatch at this plan with both hands (it is possible,
we have been assured, in the Caucasus), and it would not
require much money. * If the former, bear in mind that
in our printed sheet (4 pages) there are about 100,000 char-
acters [and that each month!]; would a secret printing-
press be able to cope with that? Will it not waste a vast
amount of money and people with excessively great risk?
Would it not be better to use this money and energy on
shipments, which Russia, in any case, cannot do without.
Written May 2 8 , 1 9 0 1
Sent from Munich to Astrakhan
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original

* If you have any more or less reliable contacts with legal print-
ing-plants, talk the matter over with them without fail and write:
to us; we have our own, very practical (and tested) plan on this score. 96
 71

17
97
TO THE I S K R A PROMOTION GROUP
Doctor * should take up residence at the frontier, in
Polangen for example (we have connections with the non-
Russian side in those places, and we have also our own
depot), study the local conditions (he would have to know
Lettish and German there, but perhaps one could manage
without that), try to find a plausible occupation (we are
assured that it is possible to live there by private practice),
establish good relations with the local petty officials and
accustom them to frequent crossings of the frontier. The
frontier there is crossed not with a passport, but with a
Grenzkarte ** (valid for 28 days). With such frequent cross-
ings it will be possible to carry across (on one’s person or
in a suitcase by our method, which requires a small case
for medical instruments) a little at a time, some pounds of
literature on each occasion. It is very important for us
that the crossings should be regular and frequent, even
if with very little at a time. If the person will undertake
to arrange this and do the work himself, we will give him
the fare money and a couple of months’ living expenses,
until he settles down.
Written June 5 , 1 9 0 1
Sent from Munich to Berlin
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original

* The identity of this person has not been established.—E d .

** Frontier card, enabling people living in the frontier zone to
cross the frontier.—Ed.
72

18
TO L. Y. GALPERIN 98
†/|
A further shipment to Persia via Vienna was made only
recently, so it is premature to talk of failure. It may be
successful. Inform the addressee in Tabriz that he will
be receiving books from Berlin and write us when they are
received.
As regards arrangements for printing Iskra in the Cau-
casus, we have already sent X a detailed inquiry but have
not yet had an answer. * We must know exactly what the
plan is (whether a legal or an illegal printing-press), how
feasible it is, what amount of printed matter it reckons
on (can Iskra be printed monthly?), how much money is
needed initially and per month. Our funds just now are
very low, and we cannot make any promises until we have
detailed information, which please send immediately.
Make every effort to obtain money. We have already
written about this through X to one of your acquaintances
and advise you to ask ZZ also to take up the matter; one
of the members of the Iskra group already spoke to him
about money at the beginning of last year (remind him
of the conversation in a theatre in one of the capitals). 99
As regards the Eastern shore of the Black Sea, you must
look for routes without fail. Devote your efforts especially
to the French steamships—we hope to find a means of
contact with them from here.
Written between June 1 8 or 2 2 , 1 9 0 1
Sent from Munich to Baku
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original

* See p. 70 of this volume.—Ed.

 73

19
TO N. E. BAUMAN
To Rook
We have just received news from Nikolai (= Ernst) of
the shipment to him of 42 poods, which he has in a safe
place; that is the first thing. The second is that he always
has an opportunity of getting our man together with the
smuggler across the frontier and that such people are need-
ed. So we make the following proposal to you: take a trip
to the spot at once, travel with one of your passports to
Nikolai in Memel, find out about everything from him,
then cross the frontier by Grenzkarte or with a smuggler,
pick up the literature lying on this side (i.e., in Russia)
and deliver it everywhere. It is obvious that for success
in this matter it is essential to have one more person from
the Russian side to help Nikolai and exercise control over
him, someone always ready to cross the frontier secretly,
but chiefly occupied with receiving literature on the Rus-
sian side and forwarding it to Pskov, Smolensk, Vilna,
Poltava. [We have lost faith altogether in Nikolai and
his Co.; we have decided not to give them another farthing
and we can hope to use this route only on condition that
a wholly reliable man of ours takes a direct part in the
shipments.] You would be a suitable man for this, for (1) you
have already visited Nikolai once, and (2) you have two
passports. It is a difficult and serious matter, requiring
changes of residence, but it is also most important for us.
Think it over carefully and reply immediately, without
putting it off for a single day. If you are not prepared to
undertake this job, we must find someone else for it imme-
diately. Hence we once again earnestly request you to
reply at once.
Written June 2 5 or 2 6 , 1 9 0 1
Sent from Munich to Moscow
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original
74

20
TO G. V. PLEKHANOV
July 7, 1901
Dear G. V.,
How is your work going? All this time I have been want-
ing to write you about the ending to Orthodox’s article,
i.e., the later addendum concerning Berdayev’s article 100
in No. 6 of Mir Bozhy. Our Struvefreundliche Partei 101
rejected this ending by a majority of 2 w votes against 1 4
(Alexei “divided himself” into w and 4 )—I was left in the
minority with my “in favour”. They didn’t like the note
on romantic love either, nor the general character of the
addendum. In my opinion, however, it gave a brief, sharp,
clear and business-like rebuff to the gentleman in question;
the concluding verses are especially good!
We are again told in letters from Russia that there is
to be a congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour
Party—in one town even an invitation has been received.
It is extremely important to make haste with the programme.
Write, please, whether you are thinking of undertak-
ing and can undertake this work. Apart from you and
P. B. there is really no one: the formulation requires inten-
sive thinking out, but with the bustle existing here, for
example, it is quite impossible to concentrate and give
proper thought to it. Those old drafts of the programme
and the article (that is, one draft and one article) which
Alexei brought you—and which he quite wrongly took
back—are hardly likely to be of much use, are they? What
do you think? If, however, you need them, we shall imme-
diately send them to you.
I have ordered Shakhovskoi and Tezyakov. 102 Why do
you need them for the programme? You are not thinking
of drawing up demands for the agricultural workers on the
basis of them, are you? And what is your attitude to demands
 TO G. V. PLEKHANOV 75

for the peasantry? Do you in general accept the possibility

of such demands in the Russian Social-Democratic pro-
gramme?
The proofs of your article have not yet come. Zarya No. 2
contains: Old Believer on Russkoye Bogatstvo, V. I. on
Berdayev, I have written on the Witte memorandum and
trounced the Preface 103 (I am thinking of sending it to
you for your advice, but I don’t know whether there will
be enough time), Alexei has an essay on “The Tasks of
the Socialist Intelligentsia”—you have seen it, what do you
think of it? I shall write, too, against Chernov. * And will
you do the review of the miscellany At the Post of Honour?
For Iskra (No. 6 is being set up and will appear in July,
No. 7 should appear in August) we are expecting from you
articles concerning the letter of a worker and on the “Re-
birth of Revolutionism in Russia”.
Parvus is still standing by his “organisation”!
Kautsky passed through here. He is going on holiday
and does not promise to write anything just now;
Nevzorov has sent Iskra a “disgusting” (the comment
of V. I. and Puttman) article against the article “Where
To Begin” 104 —a hymn to the committees, a defence (eva-
sive) of Rabocheye Dyelo, etc. We shall return it to the
author (we shall make a copy and send it to you, if you
like).
Yes, regarding the plan of federation or amalgamation
with the Union, I hope you have seen our counter-plan?
If not, ask Koltsov to get it from Dvinskaya. I doubt
whether anything will come of this.
All the very best.
Yours....
Oh, yes, about the money from the Belgians for our
movement. I think one-third should be given to Rabocheye
Dyelo: for the sake of 50-100 francs it is not worth while
to give cause even for talk.
Sent from Munich to Geneva
First published in 1 9 2 6 Printed from the original

* “The Agrarian Question and the ‘Critics of Marx’” see present

edition, Vol. 5).—Ed.
76

21
TO S. O. TSEDERBAUM 105
We have just received a letter with the plan of Pakhomy’s
Brother, Yablochkov and Bruskov. We cannot conceal that
not only are we unable to agree with any part of this plan
(though the first part is perhaps debatable), but we were
simply astonished by it, especially by the second part,
namely: 1) that everyone move to St. Petersburg, 2) that
a regional organ of the Iskra organisation in Russia be
established. So astonished that we apologise beforehand
for any too sharp word that may slip into our comments.
It is unbelievable! After a whole year of desperate efforts
we have barely succeeded in starting to form a staff of lead-
ers and organisers in Russia for this vast and most urgent
task (this staff is still terribly small, for we have only 2-3
persons in addition to the three mentioned above, whereas
an all-Russia organ requires more than one dozen such ener-
getic collaborators, taking this word not merely in a literary
sense), and suddenly the edifice is to be dismantled again
and we are to return to the old primitive methods! I cannot
imagine more suicidal tactics for Iskra! A regional organ
like the existing Yuzhny Rabochy 106 means a mass of money
and personnel expended all over again on editorial offices,
technical facilities, delivery arrangements, etc., and for
the sake of what? For the sake of five issues in eighteen
months! Even this it will not be able to do now in eighteen
months, for Yuzhny Rabochy had the advantage of being
founded by a full-formed Committee, i.e., by a whole or-
ganisation at the apogee of its development. At present
there are only three of you. If, instead of combating the
narrowness which makes the St. Petersburger forget about
Moscow, the Muscovite about St. Petersburg, the Kiev
 TO S. O. TSEDERBAUM 77

man about everything except Kiev, if instead of training

people to handle all-Russia affairs (it takes years to train
them for this, if we want to build a political party worthy
of the name), if, instead of this, we shall again encourage
primitive methods, local narrowness and the development
of a Gothamite instead of an all-Russia Social-Democracy,
it will be nothing but Gothamite foolishness, it cannot
be anything else. It has been found out by experience how
unequipped we are for creating a really political organ,
how few contributors and reporters we have, how few people
with political connections, how few practical workers to
handle technical jobs and distribution.
Russia has few of them, as it is, without our splintering
them still further and dropping an all-Russia undertaking
that has already been launched and which needs all-round
support, for the sake of founding a new local enterprise.
At best, in the event of this new plan being a shining suc-
cess, it will lower the standard of Russian Social-Democracy,
lower its political significance, because there cannot be a
“local” political newspaper, since in a local organ the general-
political section is always bound to suffer. You write:
a “mass” organ. We totally fail to understand what kind
of animal this is. Do you mean to say that Pakhomy’s
Brother, too, has begun to think that we must descend to
a lower level; from the advanced workers to the mass,
that we must write more simply and closer to life? Do you
mean to say our aim is to descend closer to the “mass”
instead of raising this already stirring mass to the level of
an organised political movement? Is it letters from factories
and workshops that we lack, and not political exposures,
political knowledge and political generalisations? And in
order to extend and deepen our political generalisations
we are invited to fragment our work as a whole into regional
undertakings! And besides depreciating the cause politi-
cally they will inevitably depreciate it technically by the
plan for a regional organ. By combining all forces on Iskra,
we can set up a monthly newspaper (this has now been
proved after a year’s experience) with really political mater-
ial, but in the case of a regional organ it is impossible just
now to think even of four issues per annum. If we don’t
skip impatiently from one plan to another, and are not put
78 V. I. L E N I N

out by temporary setbacks and the slow growth of an all-

Russia undertaking, it would be quite possible after six
months or a year to achieve a fortnightly organ (which is
persistently in our thoughts). We assume, of course, that
Pakhomy’s Brother, Yablochkov and Bruskov stand by the
previous line, approving both the political trend and the
organisational plan of Iskra, but if they have altered their
views on these matters, that is quite a different question,
of course. We are quite at a loss to understand why these
people have lost confidence in this plan, and so quickly
too (because they cannot fail to see that the new plan de-
stroys the old one). Is it because of shipments? So far we
have attempted only once to arrange a route and this at-
tempt has not yet led to a complete failure—and even after
two or three failures we ought not to throw up the sponge.
Have not these people begun to sympathise with publica-
tion in Russia, rather than abroad? Surely they know that
everything was done for the former and about 1,000 rubles
spent, but so far without result. We must say that in general
we consider that any plan for publishing any sort of regional
or local organ of the Iskra organisation in Russia is decid-
edly incorrect and harmful. The Iskra organisation exists
to support and develop the paper, and to unite the Party
through it, and not for a dispersion of our forces, of which
there is more than enough without this organisation. As
for everyone going to St. Petersburg, we can only say that
we have very few Party workers like P., B. and Pakhomy’s
Brother and we need to preserve them. Living in one place,
the danger of a general roundup is a hundred times greater.
If they find that one person there is not enough (it’s for
them to decide), let them add to him the one who is being
released in the autumn (Pakhomy’s Brother), but not both.
And then, for the sake of both security and united work, let
them not forget that it is extremely desirable to change
their place of residence from time to time. If, finally, suc-
cess were achieved in winning over the Committee in St.
Petersburg, it should, of course, be made to devote itself
heart and soul to Iskra and its more frequent publication,
and to oppose all new primitive undertakings. Primitivism
is a much more dangerous enemy than Economism, for
vital roots of Economism, we are profoundly convinced,
 TO S. O. TSEDERBAUM 79

are deeply buried in primitivism. And there will never

be any political movement (political not in words only,
but in fact, i.e., one directly influencing the government
and preparing a general assault) until we overcome this
primitivism and eradicate all belief in it. If St. Petersburg
has bought 400 copies of Yuzhny Rabochy, the Sotsialist 107
group has set about distributing 1,000 copies of Iskra
Let them organise the distribution of this number of copies;
let them arrange for it to contain a detailed St. Petersburg
section (if necessary, it will be a special supplement), and
then there will have been accomplished the very task that
has overshadowed for you all other tasks of winning over
St. Petersburg. Let us remind you that all “practical work-
ers” are agreed that Yuzhny Rabochy has no advantages
over Iskra as regards accessibility to workers, so that this
argument, too, falls to the ground. It is absurd and crim-
inal to disperse forces and funds—Iskra has no money,
not a single Russian agent is obtaining a farthing for it,
and yet everyone is thinking up some new undertaking
requiring new funds. All this shows a lack of self-discipline
We must be more patient; by means of our plan we shall
achieve our ends, albeit not so soon, whereas what can be
reckoned on by implementing the proposed plan is clear
from the lamentable experience of Rabocheye Znamya. 108
Our friends began to carry out their plan in such haste
that Yablochkov travelled to St. Petersburg in defiance
of the condition laid down, abandoning Odessa, in which
the presence of our agent was essential. We demand that
the new plan be discarded. If our arguments are thought
unconvincing, let all new plans be put off until our con-
gress, which we shall convene, if necessary, when the thing
has been got going. As far as popular literature is con-
cerned, the idea is to extend the publication of popular
pamphlets. This letter expresses the opinion not only of
our group but also of the Emancipation of Labour group.
Written in the second half Printed from the typewritten
of July 1 9 0 1 copy found in police records
Sent from Munich to Vilna
First published in 1 9 2 5
80

22
TO G. V. PLEKHANOV
July 25, 1901
Dear G. V.,
Yesterday I received the books on the agrarian question,
Thank you for them. I am pretty deeply immersed in my
“agrarian” article against Chernov (and partly Hertz and
Bulgakov). I think this Chernov needs to be trounced
unmercifully. *
Velika was here just now and read extracts from your
letter to her. As regards the proofs, we have already done
“everything in our power”, i.e., we have sent Dietz cor-
rections to be inserted in the text if it is not too late; if
it is, we shall specify them without fail at the end of the
book so that there will be no great harm done really. My
wife read the proofs and compared them with the manu-
script (the phrase on which you have made the marginal
note, “I didn’t have that!” proved to be a slip of the pen on
your part. As I have just seen from the manuscript, you
actually did write “the May uprising”. We have corrected
this too). Since proof-reader mistakes are unavoidable,
we shall from now on apply the “tactics” proposed by you:
we shall send the author the first proofs (the second will
be too late), for him to correct not individual letters and
characters, since that will be done by the proof-reader and
is indeed not important, but only places where the sense
is distorted by the omission of words and phrases or by
the replacement of one word by another.

* See “The Agrarian Question and the ‘Critics of Marx’” (present

edition, Vol. 5).—Ed.
 TO G. V. PLEKHANOV 81

I received my article * from P. B. with his letter. P. B.

is also in favour of toning it down. Needless to say, I have
already introduced all the mitigations concretely indicated
by you and P. B. As regards changing the whole tone of
the article, or replacing all attacks by tongue-in-cheek
edification, although I like this plan of yours, I doubt
whether I could do it. If I didn’t feel any “irritation”
against the author I would not have written like that. But
since there is “irritation” (understandable not only to us
but to every Social-Democratic reader of the preface), I am
no longer able to conceal it, and cannot exercise cunning
here. I shall try to tone it down still more and make still
further reservations; perhaps something will come of it.
I shall pass on to Alexei your comments on his essay (he
has long been looking forward to them). He probably forgot
to tell you that he himself passed his subject about Mikhai-
lovsky on to Ryazanov (the latter is now writing it). I
understood that you were writing a review of At the Post
of Honour, which we sent you.

All the very best.

Yours....

If you see Koltsov, give him many thanks from me for

Volnoye Slovo.109
O yes, I almost forgot. I should like to ask your advice
on the following question. This same swine Chernov quotes
F. Engels’s article “The German Peasant” in Russkoye
Bogatstvo, 1900, No. 1, where at the end Engels says that
it is necessary to “restore the Mark”. I found this article.
It turned out to be a translation of the Anhang to the Ent-
wicklung des Sozialismus von der Utopie zur Wissenschaft—
“Die Mark”; moreover in “Russkoye Bogatstvo” at the end
two paragraphs (18 lines) have been inserted which are absent
in the original. I compared all the rest of the translation
paragraph by paragraph, but the devil knows where these
two paragraphs have come from. This outrage ought to
be exposed, only—isn’t there a misunderstanding here

* “The Persecutors of the Zemstvo and the Hannibals of Libe-

ralism” (see present edition, Vol. 5).—Ed.
82 V. I. L E N I N

perhaps? Isn’t there another text of this article by Engels?

In a note to the Russian translation, the editors of Rus-
skoye Bogatstvo say:
“This article of his (Engels) appeared in the eighties
[in 1882? the preface to Entwicklung is marked September
21, 1882] in a German magazine [? Neue Zeit? or Zuricher
Sozialdemokrat? 110 Do you know?] without his signature
[?]. But in a copy of it, which Engels sent to one of his
friends [sic! Danielson? Did you hear anything about this
from Engels?] he signed it with his initials.” In addition,
it is said, the historical part of the article is identical with
the preface to “Schlesische Milliarde” and with an article
in Neue Rheinische Zeitung111 (April-March 1849).
Could you help me to get to the bottom of this? Wasn’t
there another text of the article “Die Mark” in Neue Rhei-
nische Zeitung or elsewhere? Could Engels later have thrown
out the end about “the restoration of the Mark”?
Sent from Munich to Geneva
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original
 83

23
TO P. B. AXELROD
July 26, 1901
Dear P. B.,
I have received and carefully read your letter (so has
Alexei). I was very glad that you set out your remarks in
such detail. 112 Only you are wrong in thinking that I am
too (“pretty”) “stubborn” . I have accepted all your sug-
gestions about toning down definite passages (as well as
all suggestions of G. V.), that is, I have toned it down every-
where. “A kopek on the ruble” will unite all the workers:
I have added “in the opinion of the Economists” in brackets.
Instead of “restriction of the autocracy” I have put “de-
struction”, as you suggested. On pp. 82-83 I have deleted
altogether what was incautious in the sense of our views on
utilising the liberals (i.e., incautiously expressed ideas),
as you advised. I have also inserted a note with a reference
to your pamphlet The Historical Situation, pointing out
that the question only slightly touched upon by me has
been analysed in detail by you. I have inserted a couple
of words to the effect that one can be glad of the greater
understanding of the workers’ movement shown by the
liberals (in the person of R.N.S.). I have deleted altogether
“regret” at the publication of the Witte memorandum with
such a preface. I have also deleted some sharp remarks in
the first and the second half of the article. In general,
I am not at all so stubborn about toning down specific
remarks, but as a matter of principle I cannot give up the
idea that it is our right (and our duty) to trounce R.N.S.
for his political juggling. He is precisely a political jug-
gler—reading and re-reading the preface has definitely con-
vinced me of this, and in my criticism I brought in every-
thing that the last few months have shown us (i.e., Verhand-
84 V. I. L E N I N

lungen * with “Calf”, attempts at an agreement, etc. **

I got a weight off my chest, so to speak, in settling accounts
with this individual. I regarded elucidation of the consti-
tutional nature of the Zemstvo as the crux of the whole
article. Zemstvo liberalism is, in the sphere of its influence
on society, the same thing as Economism in the sphere of
the latter’s influence on the workers. We must attack the
narrowness of both the one and the other.
Tomorrow, probably, the question of the article will
be decided here. If it goes to press now, I shall try to send
you a copy of the first proof; you may have further sugges-
tions, and we can still manage to touch it up (while the
first and second proofs are being corrected).
I send you warm greetings and wishes for a good rest
and recuperation. For this it would be best, perhaps, not
to send you anything for the time being? So as not to spoil
your holiday and treatment?

Yours,
Petrov

Write to Herrn Dr. Med. Carl Lehmann, Gabelsberger-

strasse 20 a / II, München (für Meyer inside).
Sent from Munich to Geneva
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original

* Negotiations.—Ed.
** See pp. 55-57 of this volume.—Ed.
 85

24
TO G. V. PLEKHANOV
July 30, 1901
Dear G. V.,
I received your letter from the country and the new books
(Final Report, Blondel et Vandervelde et Destrée), for which
many thanks.
I did not get Tezyakov 113 ; probably it won’t come at all,
as it was ordered from Kalmykova’s store 114 and she is
being exiled from St. Petersburg for three years and is clos-
ing down the store (the latest and quite accurate news!).
I am sending you Kuleman 115 today.
As regards the forgery in Russkoye Bogatstvo concerning
Engels, * I shall take all possible steps.
As regards reviews, we have little definite information.
All are busy with their own articles (Velika—against Ber-
dayev, Puttman with magazine notes= against Russkoye
Bogatstvo, I with my agrarian article, ** etc.). Moreover,
there is still time for reviews.
I have sent my article against R.N.S. to the press after
toning down a number of sharp passages. *** I have also
written a postscript to it, in which I draw a parallel be-
tween an article of Dragomanov’s 116 (“Knock, and it shall
be opened unto you”) and that of R.N.S., to the advantage
of the former. There, too, I am toning down a few expressions
(on Velika’s insistence). But the general tone of my stric-
tures can no longer be subject to radical revision.
* See pp. 81-82 of this volume.—Ed.
** Lenin was engaged on his article “The Agrarian Question
and the ‘Critics of Marx’” (see present edition, Vol. 5).—Ed.
*** “The Persecutors of the Zemstvo and the Hannibals of Lib-
ralism” (see present edition, Vol. 5 and p. 81 of this volume).—E d .
86 V. I. L E N I N

Letters from Russia say that our people are terribly taken
with Berdayev. There you have someone who asks to be
trounced, and not only in the specifically philosophical
sphere! True, Velika is writing an article in connection
with Berdayev’s last article in Mir Bozhy.
I was very glad to learn that you and P. B. will be seeing
each other and will start on the programme. It will be a
tremendous step forward if we can come before our people
with a draft like yours and P. B.’s. This is a matter that
is most urgent.

All the very best.

Yours,
Petrov
Sent from Munich to the Canton
of Vaux (Switzerland)
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original
 87

25
TO G. V. PLEKHANOV
October 21, 1901
Dear G. V.,
A few days ago I sent you Neue Zeit No. 1, with Engels’s
article on the programme. 117 I think you will find it of
some interest for your work, i.e., for drawing up the draft
programme. Then today we sent you proofs; when you
have read them, please send them directly to Dietz marked
“Druckfertig” * as soon as possible.
I have selected a little material for a review of home
affairs ** and in a few days’ time I shall tackle it in real
earnest (at the moment I am indisposed—a touch of the
flu after my trip 118 . Since after this work I shall have to
get busy with Iskra, and then with the pamphlet, which
I have been putting off for a long time, *** I have no time
whatever left for the programme, and you are our only
hope.
Could you recommend some Frenchman for letters from
France? (Danevich will probably refuse.)
All the very best.
Yours,
Lenin
Sent from Munich to Geneva
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original

* “Ready for the press.”—Ed.

** “Review of Home Affairs” (see present edition, Vol. 5).—E d .
*** The reference is to What Is To Be Done? (see present edition,
Vol. 5).—Ed.
88

26
TO G. V. PLEKHANOV
November 2, 1901
Dear G. V.,
We have received your letter. We are planning to print
your article in Iskra No. 10. No. 9 will come out in a few
days; the delay is due to its having swelled to eight pages.
Did you receive Nos. 1 and 3 of Neue Zeit (when you
have finished with them, please return them)? I sent them
to you because they contain articles by Engels and Kautsky
on the programme, 119 which may, perhaps, be of use to
you. When do you expect to finish the programme?
You do not write anything about the review of the col-
lected writings of Marx. 120 We take it that you will send
it all the same—it is absolutely necessary for Zarya No. 2-3.
Volume 4 will be published on November 4, containing
letters of Lassalle to Marx, but it is not worth while writ-
ing a review of it now, so as not to delay publication.
I am finishing my review of home affairs. * Alexei has
written about Lübeck. We have reviews: yours on Frank,
three by Alexei & yours on the collected writings of Marx &
perhaps Velika Dmitrievna’s on Svoboda. 121 This will be
enough.
Also, ** Zarya No. 2-3 is ready and it is only a matter
of the printing, which could be completed by the middle
of November.

All the best.

Yours....

* See p. 87 of this volume.—Ed.

** And so.—Ed.
 TO G. V. PLEKHANOV 89

P.S. I ask about the programme so insistently because

we have to know whether, immediately after Zarya No. 2-3
has come out, there will be material for No. 4 to be given
to the compositors. Dietz is pressing me about this.
If Ryazanov’s article has not yet been sent—send it
immediately, otherwise he will positively tear Alexei to
pieces. Ryazanov (and Parvus with him) has been mortally
offended by the postponement of his article and wants,
it seems, to take leave of us. “You don’t know your job
as editors!”, Parvus said to us.
How do you like that?
Written November 2, 1 9 0 1
Sent from Munich to Geneva
First published in 1 9 2 6 Printed from the original
90

27
TO THE I S K R A ORGANISATIONS IN RUSSIA
1) Yakov
2) The Moscow Committee
3) St. Petersburg & Nizhni
4) Bakunin?
5) “A Letter to the Russian Social-Democratic Press”. 122
We have just learnt that the Unionists are arranging
a conference of the leading committees to decide the ques-
tion of the conflict abroad. 123
Every effort must be made to secure the adoption of the
following measures by the largest possible number of com-
mittees and groups:
1) The conference must unfailingly be postponed at least
until the spring (until Easter or thereabouts). Reasons:
a) It is essential to have delegates both from Iskra and
from the League abroad, and this requires time and money.
A conference without delegates from Iskra and the League
is invalid and senseless. b) It is essential to wait for the
publication of the pamphlets of both sides giving the gist
of the disagreements. Until these pamphlets come out the
conference cannot have the knowledge needed for judge-
ment and so its deliberations would be hanging in the air.
Iskra No. 12 (appearing December 5, 1901) definitely prom-
ises that this pamphlet will be issued very shortly (in about
a month and a half). All the disagreements will be analysed
there in great detail. We shall show there how pernicious
the Rabocheye Dyelo trend is, and reveal all their dis-
graceful vacillation and impotence in the face of Bern-
steinism and Economism. This pamphlet is nearly ready
and is rapidly approaching completion. Further, at the
present time (mid-December, new style) reports on the
 TO THE ISKRA ORGANISATIONS IN RUSSIA 91

disagreements are being delivered abroad: one by a repre-

sentative of Rabocheye Dyelo, another by a representative
of the League. These reports too will very soon appear in
print, and to call a conference before they appear is just
a waste of money and a needless sacrifice.
2) We shall send a special representative to the confer-
ence, if it does take place. Hence it is imperative that we
should be informed immediately (1) whether the conference
has been fixed; (2) where; (3) when; and (4) the pass-word
and rendezvous for the conference. The committees and
groups must be formally requested to communicate this
information on pain of the conference being declared in-
valid and of immediate publication of the fact that there
is a desire to decide matters without having heard both
sides.
3) If the committees or groups elect to the conference
representatives with a bias in favour of Rabocheye Dyelo,
it is essential to protest against this immediately and for-
mally, and to demand representatives from both Rabocheye
Dyelo and Iskra supporters (from the Majority and the
Minority respectively).
4) In the event of the conference declaring against Iskra,
it will be necessary to withdraw from committees and groups
which do not agree to protest publicly against this—to
withdraw and at once publish the fact in Iskra and give
the reasons for it. Our people must begin right now to
make arrangements for such a step.
5) We must be informed at once of the result, and kept
informed immediately of all steps taken. Every effort should
be made to ensure that Iskra supporters everywhere reach
agreement and act in unison.
Written prior to December 1 8 , 1 9 0 1
in Munich
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original
92

28
TO INNA SMIDOVICH 124
We have received information that Akim is printing
Vperyod. 125 We refuse to believe it and request you to
ascertain whether this is not a misunderstanding. That
people who have been collecting hundreds and thousands
of rubles on behalf of Iskra, for the Iskra print-shop—
people who represent the Iskra organisation in Russia—
should go over secretly to another undertaking and that
at a critical moment for us, when shipments have come
to a stand, when the entire North and Centre (and the
South tool) have flooded us with complaints at the absence
of Iskra, and when the only hope was to have it reproduced
in Russia, that people should have done this in such an
underhand way, for Akim wrote us that he was printing
No. 10 and we were so sure of it, while Handsome did not
tell us a word about his magnificent plans—such behaviour,
which violates not only all rules of the organisation, but
also certain simpler rules, is simply unbelievable.
If this incredible news is true, we demand an immediate
meeting to deal with this unprecedented depravity and,
for our part, we earnestly request Yakov and Orsha to
scrape together whatever money they can and immediately
carry out their plan of coming here.
Written December 1 8 , 1 9 0 1
Sent from Munich to Kiev
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original
 93

QP

29
TO L. I. GOLDMAN 126
Do you consider it essential that the existence of an
Iskra print-shop in Russia be kept secret? That is to say:
are you against our widely showing the Russian copy
abroad? 127
As regards the general maladjustment of our affairs, of
which, according to the person who has recently seen you, 128
you so bitterly complain, we can be of little assistance.
The Russian members of the Iskra organisation should
form a solid core and achieve a proper distribution of Iskra
throughout Russia. That is wholly a matter for the Russian
organisation. If we achieve it, success is assured. But
without it, maladjustment is inevitable. * For the sake of
proper distribution and prestige it would be extremely
important to print Iskra in Russia, every third or fourth
issue, choosing one of more permanent interest. Perhaps
No. 13, 129 for example, should be chosen.
But once you do print, print a much larger number of
copies; we should try at least once to satiate the whole
of Russia. Do you remember how you yourself complained
of the small circulation?
Once again, best regards and congratulations on your
success!
Written January 3 , 1 9 0 2
Sent from Munich to Kishinev
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original

* Do you think Dementiev could act as distributor?

94

30
TO G. V. PLEKHANOV
February 7, 1902
Dear G. V.,
I am sending you the draft programme with Berg’s
amendments. Please write whether you will insert the amend-
ments or present a complete counterdraft. I should like
to know also which passages you have found unsat-
isfactory.
Regarding religion, in a letter of Karl Marx on the Gotha
Programme I read a sharp criticism of the demand for
Gewissensfreiheit * and a statement that Social-Democrats
ought to speak out plainly about their fight against reli-
giösem Spuk. ** 130 Do you consider such a thing possible
and in what form? In the matter of religion we are less
concerned about cautiousness than the Germans, as is the
case, too, in regard to the “republic”.
Will you please let Koltsov copy from your copy; it will
not take much time.
How is your work going (if you are writing an article
for Zarya, as we assume)? When do you think you will
finish it?
You have still not sent me Neue Zeit (Nos. 1 and 3) and
the letter on the agrarian programme! Please send them or
write why there has been this delay.
I have ordered Conrad’s Jahrbücher 131 for 1902 for you.
Wirtschaftliche Chronik for 1901 will come out in February—
it will be sent to you then. Have you subscribed to Tor-
govo-Promyshlennaya Gazeta 132 and have you already begun
to receive it?
* Freedom of conscience.—Ed.
** Religious spookery.—Ed.
 TO G. V. PLEKHANOV 95

Have you heard anything more about the Rabocheye

Dyelo people? We haven’t heard a thing.
My pamphlet is being set up. *
Vorwärts has refused to publish even a condensed reply
and the matter has gone to the Vorstand. ** It is said that
Bebel is on our side. We shall see.

All the very best.

Yours,
Frey
Sent from Munich to Geneva
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original

* What Is To Be Done? (See present edition, Vol. 5).—Ed.

** Executive Committee (of the German Social-Democratic
Party).—Ed.
96

31
TO G. V. PLEKHANOV
April 4, 1902
Dear G. V.,
I am sending you my article on the cut-off lands. * When
you have read it, please send it to P. B. together with
this letter, for if you keep to the plan which I originally
supported (viz., that this article should be, so to speak, a
general defence of our general draft), we must agree joint-
ly on any necessary corrections. If, however, you reject
this plan, then we shall have to make other arrangements.
In some places I have quoted the general part of the pro-
gramme (the statement of principle) according to my draft;
this will be altered, of course, if my draft is rejected. (I
could then make some quotations from the Erfurt Program-
me, 133 if you had no objections.)
Velika Dmitrievna made some marginal comments with-
out, however, suggesting definite changes in each particular
case. Please write and give me your opinion on these points.
On one of them, I should like to say a few words in my own
defence. Velika Dmitrievna suggests deleting pages 79-
82 ** ; I, of course, would not go out of my way to defend
them. But she has also discovered in them the programme’s
“encouragement of unfairness” in proposing not to give
preference to small leaseholders (of nationalised land) but
leasing to big and small alike on condition of fulfilment of
the agrarian laws and (N.B.) proper cultivation of the land
and livestock management.

* “The Agrarian Programme of Russian Social-Democracy” (see

present edition, Vol. 6).—Ed.
** This refers to the MS. of “The Agrarian Programme of Russian
Social-Democracy” (see present edition, Vol. 6, pp. 140-42).—Ed.
 TO G. V. PLEKHANOV 97

She argues: this will be a “crime”, for “the rich will grab
everything”, while improved cultivation will deprive of
work nine-tenths of the workers whom no agrarian laws
will help.
I think this argument is incorrect, for (1) it presumes
a very highly developed bourgeois society in which it is
a rare peasant who can manage without wage-labour;
(2) the “rich” can then obtain land only if large-scale farm-
ing is technically and economically “well organised”, but
this cannot be done all at once, hence the sudden transition
that frightens Velika Dmitrievna cannot happen; (3) the
ousting of workers by machines is, of course, the inevitable
result of large-scale production, but we are pinning our
hopes not on retarding the development of capitalist contra-
dictions, but on their full development; moreover, improved
cultivation of the soil presupposes a gigantic growth of
industry and intensified efflux of population from the land;
(4) the proposed measure will not only not help any “crim-
inals” but, on the contrary, is the sole conceivable measure
in bourgeois society for counteracting “crime”, for it directly
restricts not only exploitation of the worker, but also plunder
of the land and deterioration of livestock. It is precisely the
petty producer in bourgeois society who especially squanders
the forces not only of people, but of the land and livestock.
If you, too, are in favour of deleting pp. 79-82, please
give your advice on how to alter the note on p. 92. *
What is your opinion as to whether it is possible in
general to publish the agrarian part of the programme (and
the commentaries on it) separately from the programme as
a whole, prior to the publication of the whole programme?
I received yesterday the proofs of V. I .’s article and
sent them to Dietz. Yesterday I sent to your address the
continuation of the proofs of her article. (To speed things
up she could send the corrected proofs directly to Dietz.)
It is now three weeks since we last heard of poor Tsvetov.
He has probably gone under. It will be a great loss to us!
All the very best.
Yours,
Frey
* See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 145.—Ed.
98 V. I. L E N I N

April 5. P.S. I have just received your letter. I have

passed it on to our people. We shall answer in a few days.
Please send Berg’s draft (which you call commissional) 134
immediately to this address: Frau Kiroff, Schraudolfstrasse,
29, III, 1. bei Taurer. This is very urgent, for they have
no copy and do not understand your comments. (Personally,
I would have preferred publication of both drafts, in the
form of the “third way” proposed by everyone, but the
majority, apparently, is now of a different mind.) I shall
send you the agrarian books. Velika Dmitrievna, it seems,
is ready to soften her “detraction” of the legal Marxists.
Sent from Munich to Geneva
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original
 99

32
TO P. B. AXELROD
May 3, 1902
Dear P. B.,
The other day I sent you a “letter for K.”, * without
adding a single line from me as I was extremely busy.
I hope you will forgive me?
I should like to have a few words with you now about
the article on the cut-off lands. ** I corrected it, taking
into account all the suggestions and demands of the high
collegium. Now it is being sent to G. V. to be forwarded
on to you: don’t forget to ask him for it should he delay
it (Dietz’s printing-press is standing idle!). Berg is satis-
fied with my corrections, but he has informed me that the
strongest objections to the article came from you. If it does
not disturb your work too much—please write and tell me
the cause of your dissatisfaction. I am very interested in
this. (If you are writing an article, please don’t drop it
for my sake, as this conversation is not a “business” one,
but largely post festum.)
I find it difficult, for instance, to understand your in-
sertion “. . . the heavy oppression to which the peasantry is
subjected. . . ” (of the survivals of serfdom). Firstly, it is
superfluous, as it adds nothing to the thought. Secondly,
it is inaccurate (it is not only the peasantry that they
heavily oppress; moreover their harmfulness does not lie
only in the “oppression” of one or other social stratum).
The programme has already been sent for copying and
will appear as the leading article in Iskra No. 21. The
* Unidentified.—Ed.
** “The Agrarian Programme of Russian Social-Democracy” (see
present edition, Vol. 6).—Ed.
100 V. I. L E N I N

question whether or not I should write a criticism (per-

mitted by the high collegium) I have not yet decided,
for I want to read the programme in print over and over
again “at leisure”, and at present I have not yet fully
recovered from the stunning effect of London.135
How are L. Gr. and Boris Nikolayevich? How is the
former’s work progressing? And how is the health of the
latter? We are counting on him very shortly (most probably),
and may he, therefore, recover fully and quickly.
With warm greetings and best wishes for your health,

Yours...

P.S. Inform B. N. that in Voronezh about 40 people

have been arrested (it is said), and a letter received today
gives the names: “Karpov, Lyubimov, Korostenev, Kar-
dashev, Butkovsky, Makhnovets and Gubareva, the last
four were released without being interrogated. In Ufa
there have been eight raids and two arrests: Boikov and
Sazonov, students. ” The Voronezh people were arrested
(April 1) apparently “on orders from St. Petersburg—Kiev”
(sic!). That is the entire content of one direct letter to us.
In general, there have been arrests galore! It is almost
certain that those arrested include our Nadezha, whom
you saw and recognised both in Zurich and among us—
yes, yes, the very same! It’s a very bad business!
N.B. Get L. Gr. to send immediately the issue you
received of Pridneprovsky Krai136 containing blank spaces.
Sent from London to Zurich
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original
 101

33
TO G. M. KRZHIZHANOVSKY 137
May 6
We received the letter. Wood, apparently, has been
taken. It is essential that Claire should save himself and
therefore should go underground without delay. The meet-
ing with Sasha 138 (Wood managed to write to us about
it) led to the appointment of a committee for convening
a congress in five months’ time.
Our main task now is to prepare for it, i.e., to ensure
that our own reliable people penetrate into the largest
possible number of committees and try to undermine the
Southern Central Committee of the southern committees
(= whirligig). This “whirligig”, which is manipulated by
a Genosse (someone has even accused him of being an agent
provocateur, but that has not been verified yet), is the main
obstacle (besides St. Petersburg). Hence the immediate
task—that both Kurtz and Embryon join the committees
at once. Next, that their example in one form or another
is followed by Claire and Brodyagin. This is the main task,
for otherwise we shall inevitably be ousted; subordinate
everything else to this task, bear in mind the major sig-
nificance of the Second Congress! Adapt ... * to this end and
think about an attack on the centre, Ivanovo and others,
the Urals and the South. The formal aspect is now acquiring
special significance.
Brodyagin suspects provocation. There cannot be any
here, we are already in London. It is very likely that many
threads have been picked up from some of our arrested

*A word crossed out in the manuscript has not been deciphered.—

Ed.
102 V. I. L E N I N

people—that explains everything. Look after yourself as

you would the apple of your eye—for the sake of the “main
task”. 139 If we (i.e., you) do not cope with it—it will be
a great calamity.
Forward this letter to Brodyagin immediately and tell
him to write to us without fail and more frequently; all
his letters have arrived safely.
If it is confirmed that Wood has gone under, we must
meet Claire or Brodyagin as soon as possible or correspond
in great detail, if there are good addresses (?) for sending
you all the details about Sasha (send an address for the
bookbinding as quickly as possible).
Arrange the passport yourself, do not rely on us. Shouldn’t
Claire and Brodyagin change passports, since the former
is already known to everyone?
Who will be the delegate from Moscow? Is he absolutely
reliable? Has he a good successor? And so: again and again:
join the committees. Is Nizhni reliable?
Written May 6 , 1 9 0 2
Sent from London to Samara
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original
 103

34
TO G. V. PLEKHANOV
I have received the article with your comments. * You
have fine ideas of tact towards editorial colleagues! You
do not even shrink from choosing the most contemptuous
expressions, not to mention “voting” proposals which you
have not taken the trouble to formulate, and even “voting”
on style. I should like to know what you would say, if
I were to answer your article on the programme in a similar
manner? If you have set yourself the aim of making our
common work impossible, you can very quickly attain this
aim by the path you have chosen. As far as personal and
not business relations are concerned, you have already
definitely spoilt them or, rather, you have succeeded in
putting an end to them completely.

N. Lenin
Written May 1 4 , 1 9 0 2
Sent from London to Geneva
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original

* The reference is to “The Agrarian Programme of Russian Social-

Democracy” (see present edition, Vol. 6).—Ed.
104

35
TO G. V. PLEKHANOV
June 23, 1902
Dear G. V.,
A great weight fell from my shoulders when I received
your letter, which put an end to thoughts of “internecine
war”. The more this last seemed inevitable the greater
the gloom such thoughts aroused, since the consequences
for the Party would be most unfortunate....
I shall be very glad, when we meet, to have a talk with
you about the beginning of the “affair” in Munich, 140 not,
of course, to rehash the past, but to discover for myself
what it was that offended you at the time. That I had no
intention of offending you, you are of course aware.
V. I. has shown me also your letter about the article,
i.e., your proposal to be given an opportunity of expressing
your opinion in your programmatic article. Personally,
I am inclined to consider such a decision the best and I
think that the possibility of registering a 25 per cent differ-
ence (if it has to be registered at all) has always existed
for each of the co-editors (just as you have already men-
tioned a somewhat different formulation of the question
of nationalisation in the same article—or of the liberals
in the review in Zarya No. 2-3). I am ready now, of course,
to discuss with you once again desirable alterations in my
article * and I shall send you the proofs for this purpose.
Select anything you like. We ought to finish Zarya as
quickly as possible; as it is the negotiations are dragging
out terribly. In any case, I shall at once inform both
A. N. and Julius of your proposal.

* “The Agrarian Programme of Russian Social-Democracy” (see

present edition, Vol. 6).—Ed.
 TO G. V. PLEKHANOV 105

I have not yet received the proofs of your article and

so cannot answer your question about the passage on Marx.
The letter of a Socialist-Revolutionary, 141 in my opinion,
is hardly worth publishing; they have their own press—let
them polemise there (for that’s what it is with them—sheer
polemics). About Belgium, it would be good to publish
Rosa Luxemburg’s article, if this could be done quickly.

All the very best.

N. Lenin

P. S. In a day or two I am going to Germany to see my

mother and take a holiday. 142 My nerves are worn to shreds
and I am feeling quite ill. I hope we shall soon meet in
London?
Sent from London to Geneva
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original
106

36
TO G. D. LEITEISEN 143
July 24, 1902
Dear L.,
My sister’s address is: Mme Elizaroff. Loguivy (par
Ploubazlanec), Côtes du Nord. Anya and Mother really
do not like it here very much and they may go to some
other place—they don’t know where yet (you can address
your letter Expédition). I am going home tomorrow. I liked
it here very much on the whole and have had a good rest,
only unfortunately I was a bit premature in imagining
myself well again, forgot about dieting and now am again
having trouble with catarrh. Well, all that is of no con-
sequence.
Are you going to stay long in that country of yours? It
would be a good thing if you were to combine the pleasant
with the useful (your job) and take a good long holiday.
Drop me a line about yourself when you return.
How do you like the result of the negotiations with
L. Gr. and Yuriev? Did you reach full agreement and do
you now hope for better results?
There is good news from Russia of the committees making
a turn towards Iskra, even that of St. Petersburg (sic!). Here
is a curious little example. They sent a pamphlet to Rabo-
cheye Dyelo. There is a note there (on p. 9—we have been
told exactly!) reading: “See Lenin’s excellent book.” *
The Unionists here raised the alarm, and wrote to St. Peters-
burg: be so good as to delete it, you are hitting both your-
self and us by it. Reply: don’t hinder us from putting
matters on a new footing, but give the pamphlet to Iskra.

* What Is To Be Done? (See present edition, Vol. 5).—Ed.

 TO G. D. LEITEISEN 107

This is entre nous, of course, for the time being. But it

is characteristic!
I don’t know whether St. Petersburg will maintain its
new position.

All the very best.

Yours,
Lenin

Write to me in London.
P. S. I almost forgot. Socialiste notified me that my
subscription expired in December 1901. Is that so? Haven’t
they made a mistake? I remember your going there once
with Yurdanov’s card. Didn’t you keep some document,
or do you remember without it?
Sent from Loguivy
(Northern coast of France) Printed from the original
to Paris
108

37
TO P. G. SMIDOVICH 144
August 2, 1902
Dear Ch.,
I received your letter, and I reply, to start with, in a
couple of words: I don’t feel at all well, I am all done up.
On the point you have raised, I have not seen a single
letter. I think you are under a misapprehension. Who
could think of “unorganising” the workers’ circles, groups
and organisations instead of increasing and strengthening
them? You write that I have not indicated how a strictly
secret organisation can have contact with the mass of
workers. That is hardly the case, for (although that is
vient sans dire) you yourself quote the passage on p. 96
concerning the need “in as large a number as possible (Lenin’s
italics) and with the widest variety of functions” for “a
large number (N.B.!) [a large number!!] of other organisations”
(i.e., besides the central organisation of professional revo-
lutionaries). * But you are wrong in finding an absolute
antithesis where I have merely established a gradation and
marked the limits of the extreme links of this gradation.
For a whole chain of links occurs, beginning from the
handful making up the highly secret and close-knit core of
professional revolutionaries (the centre) and ending with
the mass “organisation without members”. I point out merely
the trend in the changing character of the links: the greater
the “mass” character of the organisation, the less definitely
organised and the less secret should it be—that is my thesis.
And you want to understand this as meaning that there
is no need for intermediaries between the mass and the
revolutionaries! Why, the whole essence lies in these inter-
mediaries! And since I point out the characteristics of the
extreme links and stress (and I do stress) the need for in-
termediate links, it is obvious that the latter will have
their place between the “organisation of revolutionaries”
* What Is To Be Done? (See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 466).—Ed.
 TO P. G. SMIDOVICH 109

and the “mass organisation”—between as regards the type

of their structure, i.e., they will be less narrow and less
secret than the centre, but more so than a “weavers’ union”,
and so forth. In a “factory circle” (needless to say, we must
aim at having a circle of intermediaries in each factory),
for example, it is essential to find a “middle” course: on the
one hand, the whole, or almost the whole, factory must
inevitably know such and such a leading worker, trust him
and obey him; on the other hand, the “circle” should arrange
things so that all its members cannot be identified, so that
the one in closest contact with the mass cannot be caught
red-handed, cannot be exposed at all. Doesn’t that follow
logically from what is said in Lenin’s book?
The ideal of a “factory circle” is quite clear: four or five
(I am speaking by way of example) revolutionary work-
ers—they must not all be known to the mass. One member,
probably, must be known, and he needs to be protected
from exposure; let it be said of him: he is one of us, a clever
chap, although he does not take part in the revolution (not
visibly). One member maintains contact with the centre.
Each of them has an alternate member. They conduct
several circles (trade-union, educational, distribution, spy-
catching, arming, etc., etc.), the degree of secrecy, natu-
rally, of a circle for catching spies, for example, or for
procuring arms, being quite different from that of one
devoted to the reading of Iskra or the reading of legal
literature, and so on and so forth. The degree of secrecy
will be inversely proportional to the number of members
of the circle and directly proportional to the remoteness
of the circle’s aims from the immediate struggle.
I do not know whether it is worth while writing specially
about this: if you think it is, return this letter to me to-
gether with yours, as material, and I shall think it over.
I hope to meet the St. Petersburg comrade here and talk
things over with him in detail.

All the very best.

Yours,
Lenin
Sent from London to Marseilles
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original
110

38
TO V. A. NOSKOV 145
August 4, 1902
Dear B. N.,
I received both your letters and was very glad to see from
them that the imaginary “misunderstandings” are really
just smoke, as I already said in writing to Cook (I wrote
that I was convinced of this).
You complain of our “agents”. I want to talk this over
with you—it is such a painful subject with me too. “Agents
have been recruited too lightly.” I know it, I know it only
too well, I never forget it, but that is just the tragedy of
our situation (believe me, tragedy is none too strong a
word!)—that we are obliged to act in this way, that we are
powerless to overcome the lack of management prevailing
in our affairs. I am well aware that your words contained
no reproach to us. But try to put yourself in our place and
adopt such an attitude as to make you say not “your agents”
but “our agents”. You could, and in my opinion should,
adopt such an attitude—and only then will all possibility
of misunderstandings have been removed once for all.
Substitute the first person for the second, keep an eye
yourself on “our” agents, help to search for, change and
replace them, and then you will speak not of our agents
being “unpleasant” (such language is bound to be misunder-
stood: it is regarded as an expression of estrangement, it is
regarded as such in general and by the members of our
editorial collegium who have not had an opportunity of
clearing up the question with you), but of the shortcomings
of our common cause. The mass of these shortcomings weighs
more and more heavily upon my mind as time goes on.
The time is now fast approaching (I feel it) when the ques-
tion will face us squarely: either Russia will appoint its
 TO V. A. NOSKOV 111

people, put forward people who will come to our aid and
set matters right, or. . . . And although I know and see that
such people are being put forward and that their number
is growing, this is taking place so slowly and with such
interruptions, and the “creaking” of the machinery is so
nerve-racking, that . . . sometimes it becomes extremely
painful.
“Agents have been recruited too lightly.” Yes, but after
all we don’t make the “human material”, we take and
have to take what we are given. We couldn’t live without
it. A man is going to Russia—“I want to work for Iskra,”
he says. He is an honest man, devoted to the cause. Well,
he goes, of course, and passes for an “agent”, although
none of us had ever handed out such a title. And what
means have we for checking “agents”, guiding them or
appointing them to other places? More often than not we
can’t even get letters, and in nine cases out of ten (I speak
from experience) all our plans in regard to the future activ-
ity of the “agent” end in smoke as soon as the frontier is
crossed, and the agent muddles along just anyhow. Believe
me, I am literally losing all faith in routes, plans, etc.,
made here, because I know beforehand that nothing will
come of it all. We “have to” make frantic efforts doing
(for lack of suitable people) other people’s jobs. In order
to appoint agents, to look after them, to answer for them,
to unite and guide them in practice—it is necessary to be
everywhere, to rush about, to see all of them on the job,
at work. This requires a team of practical organisers and
leaders, but we haven’t got any; at least, very, very few
to speak of. . . . That’s the whole trouble. Looking at our
practical mismanagement is often so infuriating that it
robs one of the capacity for work; the only consolation
is that it must be a vital cause if it is growing—and ob-
viously it is—despite all this chaos. That means when the
ferment is over we shall have good wine.
Now do you understand why the mere remark by an
Iskrist: “those agents of ‘yours’ are rather lightweight”
can almost drive us to distraction? Try taking the place
of these “lightweights” yourselves instead, we feel like
saying. We keep repeating and even writing in our booklets
that the whole trouble is that “there are plenty of people
112 V. I. L E N I N

and there are no people”, yet we have this lack of people

thrust under our nose. There is only one way out, only
one solution that is most imperatively necessary, urgent
in the most literal, unexaggerated sense of the word—for
time will not wait and our enemies are growing too, includ-
ing Osvobozhdeniye 146 and the Socialist-Revolutionaries and
all the various new Social-Democratic groups, beginning
with the lightheads of Zhizn and ending with the Borbist 147
intriguers. The solution is for the Iskrists in Russia to get
together at last, find the people and take the management
of “Iskra” into their own hands, for truly it is said: our land
is great and abundant, but disorder reigns in it. People
must be found, for there are people, but they must be guarded
more carefully than the apple of one’s eye, not merely
in the direct sense of guarding from the police, but guarded
for this urgent matter, without allowing them to be divert-
ed by other, generally useful but untimely tasks. When,
owing to a complete lack of people, we are compelled to
seize on the most “lightweight”, it is not surprising that
we cannot stand by calmly watching others postponing our
work “for later on”.
If all the present, available supporters of Iskra were
at once, without delaying, to take up the management
of Iskra, its independent equipment with the means for
sending across the frontier, its distribution, and supply
of material, etc., we would have already an actual Central
Committee, a C.C. disposing de facto of “agents” (for the
C.C. and not the editorial board should dispose of the
agents) and managing all practical matters.
It is being said: if there are no people, where is the C.C.
to get them? But we do find the people, even if only light-
weights. One heavyweight among ten lightweights does
not take the lead, but the experience will not have been
wasted. People learn in the course of the work: some drop
out, others replace them, and once things have been set
going it is ten times easier for the others to take up this
work which has been running smoothly. If we were to set
up a C.C. today (not formally), tomorrow it would be formal
and would already be drawing capable people from every
local organisation ten times more energetically than now.
And it is only this “drawing from the local organisations”
 TO V. A. NOSKOV 113

that can create a state of affairs under which these local

organisations would be properly served.
That is why I am so jealous, so devilishly jealous about
Semyon Semyonich 148 and why the glance (the mere glance)
at an “outsider” worries me. I can’t adopt any other at-
titude, for unless the Iskrists say: this is my business,
unless they say it out loud, unless they come to grips with
the job, tackle it tooth and nail, unless they begin to up-
braid the others for lack of tenacity [you once said to me:
upbraid the Iskrists! And I replied: it is not I but you should
do so, for only one who takes part practically in the work
itself and who knows it thoroughly has the right to do so]—
unless the Iskrists do this, it means that they want to
leave us “only with lightweights”, and that would be the
beginning of the end.
It is time to conclude. I am extremely desirous that you
and Cook should have as concrete an idea as possible of our
position, understand it and say not you, but we. In any
case, it is essential that Cook should write to us frequently,
and directly, and keep us in closer touch with Semyon
Semyonich and the latter with us.
As to your visit here, if you still have to be in Zurich,
that is a different matter. Why are you feeling bad? Is your
health quite all right? Should you not take a little rest?
I am still unwell, so it is no use even thinking of a jour-
ney.
Write me your opinion of Zernova and Sanin. I have
heard something about the latter from various persons
and got the impression that he is no worker, that he is
much too “ wild ” . * Is it true that Zernova is a bad person,
that is, not merely in the sense of being fond of “adventure ”
(that, in itself, is not so bad) but as being unreliable?
All the very best.
Yours,
Lenin
Sent from London to Zurich
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original

* This word is in English in the original.—Ed.

114

39
TO E. Y. LEVIN 149
Dear comrades,
We were extremely glad to receive your letter informing
us of the views and plans of the remaining editors of Yuzhny
Rabochy. 150 We whole-heartedly welcome your proposal
for the closest contact and co-operation between Yuzhny
Rabochy and Iskra. The most vigorous steps should imme-
diately be taken to consolidate these close relations and
pass to united activities resulting from the unity of our
views. In the first place, we shall avail ourselves for this
purpose of your proposal to negotiate with Chernyshev. 151
Let us have his address. Is he going to be abroad (as we
have heard) and will he not visit us? * Secondly, let us know
also who your official representative is. Give us at once a
direct address for letters to you from abroad and from Rus-
sia, as well as a rendezvous address to you. We have already
taken steps for members of the Iskra organisation in Russia
to meet you and confer about everything in detail. Not
to waste time, we ask you, too, to write to us about matters
in greater detail. What are the immediate practical plans
of the editorial board of Yuzhny Rabochy? Is it in contact
with the southern committees and does it have formal re-
lations with them? From your statement that you intend
to conduct affairs as they were conducted prior to the forma-
tion of the League of Southern Committees and Organisa-
tions 152 we infer that both the composition and trend of the
present editorial board of Yuzhny Rabochy differ from the
composition and trend which existed in the spring, at the
* From abroad, write to Dietz in two envelopes, asking him to for-
ward immediately to the editorial board of Iskra.
 TO E. Y. LEVIN 115

time of the conference. What exactly is the difference be-

tween these trends, and what is the position adopted here
by the southern committees, i.e., which of them support the
trend of the League of Southern Committees and Organisa-
tions and which of them are in favour of your trend? What is
your opinion of the extent of this divergence, does it pre-
vent Party unity, and what measures are desirable for speedy
achievement of solidarity? In what relation do the six
provincial groups you have written about stand to the south-
ern committees (and to the two trends which you have
mentioned)? We should very much like you to help us to
clear up fully all these questions, for that would be of great
assistance in bringing closer together your friends and the
members of the Iskra organisation in Russia working in the
south.
Written August 2 2 , 1 9 0 2
Sent from London to Kharkov
First published in 1 9 2 4 Printed from the original
116

40
TO V. P. KRASNUKHA AND YELENA STASOVA 153
A personal letter to Vanya and Varvara Ivanovna. Please
hand it immediately to them alone.

The news of Bouncer’s “victory” has astounded us. 154

Was the departure of Kasyan and Hairpin really sufficient
to deprive the Iskrists of the ability to act? Bouncer’s
protest could lead only to your proposing to him to put it to
the vote and at once declaring by a majority, firstly, that
on the substance of the question he is in an insignificant
minority; and, secondly, that his complaint of violation of
the Rules is ridiculous and petty-fogging (for, according
to the Rules, the opinion should be asked of all who were
present in St. Petersburg and the matter not deferred pend-
ing an inquiry of those who were absent).
If Bouncer raised (dared to raise) the question of disso-
ciation, it was imperative at once to adopt a majority
decision for his expulsion from the Union.
Obviously, Bouncer is brazenly heading “for war” and
the Iskrists will be eternally disgraced if they do not reply
to this by the most resolute and desperate war. Do not be
afraid of any threats on the part of Bouncer, you have
nothing to fear from publicity, treat the matter immedi-
ately as a war issue, as we have written above, and adopt
the decisions proposed above as speedily as possible. Even
if Bouncer carries still others along with him (even if only
half or less than half of you are left) you should all the same
go the whole hog and demand Bouncer’s expulsion uncon-
ditionally, without being the least afraid of a “split” in
the Union.
 TO V. P. KRASNUKHA AND YELENA STASOVA 117

You should also put an ultimatum to the workers too:

either a split in the Union and war, or a decisive condem-
nation of Bouncer by the workers and his expulsion.
We, for our part, are writing at once to 2a3b. We are
putting off the publication of the St. Petersburg statement
in Iskra. 155
We repeat: the question has now become a point of honour
with the Iskra people of St. Petersburg.... Of course, every-
thing you do now must be done at a general meeting, to
which Bouncer must be invited and minutes of the decisions
taken. Send us the minutes at once.
Written September 2 4 , 1 9 0 2
Sent from London to St. Petersburg
First published in 1 9 2 4 Printed from the original
118

41
TO P. A. KRASIKOV 156
Dear friend,
I cannot find my notes on our meeting here. 157 In any
case they are not needed. The meeting was of a consultative
nature and you two 158 of course, remember what happened
better than I do. I cannot reconstruct officially what took
place, and I could not do so even if I had the jottings made
exclusively for myself, sometimes not in words but by
signs. If there is anything important that needs to be settled,
write a definite proposal, send in an official inquiry to us
(to the editorial board) and we shall answer at once. But
if there is no occasion for it yet—well, we have reached
full agreement on general tactics.
I was very, very glad to learn that you have rapidly gone
forward in the matter of the O.C. 159 and set it up with six
members. I am surprised only that you have co-opted
others before the formal constitution, before the invitation
of the Bund? Just the opposite was planned, wasn’t it?
Incidentally, this is not so important if you are sure that
it will cause no inconvenience.
Be stricter with the Bund! Be stricter, too, in writing
to the Bund and Rabocheye Dyelo abroad, reducing their
function to such a minimum that in any case it cannot
be of importance. You can entrust technical arrangements
of the Congress to special delegates from you or to your
special agents; don’t hand over this matter to anyone and
don’t forget that the people abroad are weak in secrecy
techniques.
Outline the congress ordre du jour only in general terms.
Send us an enquiry asking to be informed of our (editorial)
ordre du jour, who are our reporters and how many delegates
 TO P. A. KRASIKOV 119

there may be from us (from the editorial board). Speed

things up with the Congress as much as you can.
Try to provide mandates for those who have fled from
Russia; that will economise expenses.
Be sure to inform us exactly of each and every official
step taken by the Organising Committee. And one thing
more: Rabocheye Dyelo is dying and it would be very valuable
if you (on behalf of the Organising Committee) were to send
them an exhortation, in serious but not abusive terms, on
the importance of uniting, on the value of conciliation, and
so forth.
And so, make haste! In case of need, we shall raise a little
money.
Written November 1 1 , 1 9 0 2
Sent from London to
St. Petersburg
First published in part in 1 9 2 0 Printed from the original
First published in f u l l in 1 9 2 8
120

42
TO E. Y. LEVIN
Lenin writing. We are very glad to note the successes
and energy of the O.C. It is most important to exert every
effort immediately to carry matters to a conclusion and
as quickly as possible. Try to replace speedily the member
from St. Petersburg (Ignat would be good) and write to us
in detail about the attitude adopted towards the Organising
Committee in various places (committees). Will Ignat see
Fyokla 160 soon? We need to know precisely and speedily.
We have drawn up the list of questions approximately
as follows (in the order for their discussion): 1) attitude
towards Boris 161? (If only a federation, then we should
part at once and sit separately. We need to prepare every-
one for this.) 2) The programme. 3) The Party Organ (the
newspaper. A new one or one of those already existing.
Insist on the importance of this preliminary question).
4) Organisation of the Party (basic principle: two central
institutions, unsubordinated to each other. a) The Central
Organ—ideological leadership. Abroad? b) The Central
Committee—in Russia. All practical direction. Regular
and frequent meetings between them and certain reciprocal
membership rights or sometimes reciprocal co-optation. It
is extremely important to prepare the ground in advance
for securing the adoption of this basic principle and for
making it fully clear to everyone. Next, the greatest possible
centralisation. Autonomy of the local committees in local
affairs—with the Central Committee having the right of
veto in exceptional cases. District organisations only with
the consent and endorsement of the Central Committee).
5) Various questions of tactics: terror, trade unions, legal-
isation of the workers’ movement, strikes, demonstrations,
 TO E. Y. LEVIN 121

uprising, agrarian policy and work among the peasantry

and in the army, agitation in general; leaflets and pamphlets
and so on and so forth; here no special order has been adhered
to. 6) Attitude to other parties (Osvobozhdeniye, Socialist-
Revolutionaries, Poles, Letts, etc.). 7) Delegates’ reports
(it is very important that there should be reports from every
committee, and as full as possible (they should be prepared
immediately and for safety’s sake copies should be given
to the Organising Committee to be sent to us). Try always
to characterise the local Socialist-Revolutionaries and give
an estimate of their strength and connections in the reports).
8) Groups and organisations abroad (Rabocheye Dyelo, Bor-
ba, Zhizn, Svoboda. 162 A committee or the Central Commit-
tee to be charged with working out a plan for their unifi-
cation). 9) May Day. 10) The 1903 Congress in Amster-
dam. 163 11) Internal organisational questions: finance, the
type of organisation of the committees, the C.C. to take
charge of shipment and distribution of literature, etc. Some
of these, probably, will have to be discussed in committees.
I repeat, this is merely a preliminary draft and only the
order of items 1-5 has been discussed here jointly. In this
connection, among the members of the editorial board I
was in favour of item 3 being put in one of the first places
(i.e., in fact, third), but another member (Pakhomy) was
for putting it after item 5. I consider it important to settle
item 3 at the outset so as at once to give battle to all oppo-
nents on a fundamental and broad issue and to ascertain
the entire picture of the Congress (alternatively: to separate
on an important issue).
Find out whether you will have reporters and on what
questions (ad 5—in detail).
What pamphlet does Ignat want published? Is it not
the letter to Yeryoma * ?
Be sure to obtain from each committee (and group) an
official and written reply as to whether they recognise the
Organising Committee. It is essential to have this at once.
I advise that the announcement about the Organising
Committee should be issued in Russia as well (i.e., not

* The reference is to Lenin’s “A Letter to a Comrade on Our Orga-

nisational Tasks” (see present edition, Vol. 6).—Ed.
122 V. I. L E N I N

only printed in Iskra); issue it even if only in hectographed

form.
We shall send the general editorial draft of the questions
and the list of our reporters when we have made contact
about this with all the members of the editorial board who
are living in various countries at present.
Appoint immediately members of the Organising Com-
mittee in the chief centres (Kiev, Moscow, St. Petersburg),
and give secret addresses for rendezvous with them so that
we can be sure that all those whom we send are under the
full disposal of the Organising Committee. This is very,
very important.
Finally, one thing more: Ignat’s meeting with Fyokla
must be arranged to take place after 1) he has seen all and
everyone he possibly can; 2) you have received from every-
one official recognition of the Organising Committee;
3) you have officially informed “Rabocheye Dyelo” as well
that they will have a plenipotentiary member of the Orga-
nising Committee. Only under these conditions can the meet-
ing of Ignat and Fyokla lead to further important practical
steps. Ignat should therefore make haste with these prelim-
inary measures and not forget that he should come to
Fyokla’s equipped with formally acknowledged and the
widest (N.B.!) plenary powers.
Written not earlier than
December 1 1 , 1 9 0 2
Sent from London to Kharkov
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original
 123

43
TO G. V. PLEKHANOV
December 14, 1902
Dear G. V.,
There has been no news from you for quite a time and
a lot of business and questions have accumulated.
First of all, about articles for Iskra. For No. 30 (No. 29
will come out tomorrow or the day after) we have Julius’s
article “Autumnal Summing-up”. One more article is
essential. How about you? Please let us know whether you
are writing anything and when you are thinking of sending
it, and also about a feuilleton; it would be very good to
have in No. 30 the feuilleton you proposed against Tarasov’s
“little page”. 164 I shall await your reply.
Next, about a pamphlet against the Socialist-Revolu-
tionaries. L. Gr. told me and wrote to you that it would be
best if you undertook it, for you could give, in addition to
“dogmatic” criticism, the historical parallel with the sev-
enties. I fully agree with L. Gr. that such a parallel is
very, very important; but there is no use, of course, in my
even thinking about it. And in general I should be very
glad if you would undertake this pamphlet. I have little
heart for it myself; besides, in addition to current business,
I am now faced with the task of preparing for lectures in
Paris (Julius tells me that they want to invite me there
for three or four lectures on the agrarian question). And so,
absolutely everything points to the pamphlet being your
job—it is most definitely needed against the Socialist-Rev-
olutionaries, who must be picked to pieces in the most
detailed and thoroughgoing manner. They are awfully harm-
ful to us and our cause. Do write and tell us your decision.
124 V. I. L E N I N

L. Gr.’s answer to Revolutsionnaya Rossiya 165 was pub-

lished in No. 29: you will receive it towards the end of
the week—and you have already seen the proofs.
I learnt today that you will be at the international con-
ference in Brussels (probably at the end of December or
beginning of January 166 ) and will read a lecture there. I
hope you will not fail to drop in on us. We are right next
door and the fare will be quite cheap during the holidays.
And here, firstly, your lecture is very badly needed, as
there are many workers here who are infected with anarchism
(I discovered this when I delivered my lecture on the So-
cialist-Revolutionaries, which did not interest our people
here 167 ). You would certainly be able to influence them.
Furthermore, and this is the chief thing, we have a heap
of important subjects to discuss, especially as regards Rus-
sian affairs: the Organising Committee, after long prepara-
tion, has at last been formed there and it can play a tre-
mendous role. It is of the highest importance that we should
jointly reply to a whole series of questions which it has al-
ready addressed to us (questions concerning measures for
uniting the Party, the agenda, Tagesordnung, at the general
congress, what reports there will be from us, etc.—extreme-
ly important questions in general, and now of particular
significance). Write, please, as to when exactly the con-
ference in Brussels will be held, how long it will last and
whether you will be able to come here. Further, it may,
perhaps, not be out of place if at this conference you al-
ready make use in one way or another of the fact that the
Organising Committee has been set up. Write soon and we
shall get in touch with Russia: we may succeed even in
getting some sort of statement or letter from them addressed
to you, if needed.
Do you see the Zhiznites 168? How is the “rapprochement”
with them progressing and what are the chances? And what
about the Rabocheye Dyelo people? You know, I believe
it would be a good thing if they too took part in your “Marx-
ist circle” and if we began (informally) to come closer to
them. It is not worth while these days quarrelling with them,
and there is no reason to, as a matter of fact: by replacing
Rabocheye Dyelo by Krasnoye Znamya169 they have in effect
adopted our plan for “division of literary functions”, and
 TO G. V. PLEKHANOV 125

(apart from the silly “clairvoyant”) there is nothing harm-

ful in Martynov’s pamphlet Workers and Revolution.

All the very best.

Yours,
Lenin

As for the Bulgarian, * I am to blame. I’m sorry. I did

not write because there were no assignments to give, and it
did not occur to me that you would worry.
Sent from London to Geneva
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original

* Unidentified.—Ed.
126

44
TO V. I. LAVROV AND YELENA STASOVA 170
December 27
We have received Vlas’s letter. We shall give you what
help we can. We have long been aware of your plight and
have been thinking of assistance.
But you must immediately and without fail write us
an accurate account of the split in St. Petersburg. Answer
the following points: l) Was the Organisation Committee
(the summer one) elected by the League of Struggle 171 alone
(= committee of intellectuals?) or by the Workers’ Organi-
sation 172 as well? 2) When exactly was it elected? 3) Is
there a precise record of its powers (i.e., what it was charged
with doing)? 4) Wherein lay the irregularity of its elec-
tion, according to Bouncer and Co.? 5) Were there delegates
from the Workers’ Organisation (two?) in the Organisation
Committee and by whom were they elected? 6) From what
has Bouncer been chucked out—from the Organisation Com-
mittee or the Intellectuals’ Committee or the Workers’
Organisation? 7) What Workers’ Organisation is it that
now writes its declarations? A new one? A reorganised one?
when? how? 8) Why have you not sent us the September
leaflet of the Committee of the Workers’ Organisation?
9) Why have you not issued even a handwritten leaflet
against them?—or sent us a counter-declaration? Not one
of their moves should be left unanswered. 10) What is this
C.C. like now? Is there still an Organisation Committee?
Are there workers on your side? Why haven’t they formed
a counter-organisation? Why don’t your workers protest
against Bouncer workers and their committee?
 TO V. I. LAVROV AND YELENA STASOVA 127

Send us immediately new, absolutely unused places of

rendezvous for visitors. Do not give these (our) rendezvous
to anyone else. Seek out beforehand a flat to shelter one
person. Take special care to cover up traces of his contacts
with the old members (Heron and others), who are probably
being shadowed.
Written December 2 7 , 1 9 0 2
Sent from London
to St. Petersburg
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original
128

45
TO F. V. LENGNIK 173
December 27
We have received the letter about the coup d’état * and
are replying at once. We are astounded that Zarin could
allow such a scandal! There you have the fruits of his mis-
take in not joining the Committee!—a step we were insist-
ing on long ago. We shall not publish anything about the
statement for the time being, for we have received neither
the statement nor the letter against it. Commence hostili-
ties by all means, make Zarin join, drew up a minute of
the break (or the number of votes pro and contra), and issue
a local leaflet on the causes of the split (or divergence).
There is no sense in publishing the statement without such
official documents about each of your steps. Be sure to put
on record each step of the Rabocheye Dyelo supporters and
of yours against them, and do not yield one iota. They
must be shown up as being against the Organising Commit-
tee, whilst you are for it. It is on the basis of recognition
(or non-recognition) of the Organising Committee that de-
cisive battle should promptly be given everywhere; convey
this most insistently to Zarin and his immediate Genossen.
And so, let Zarin display redoubled energy and fight for
Kiev—that is his prime duty.
The literature is in Russia and should soon be in your
hands. You must send not less than two poods to our people
in St. Petersburg, without fail.
Written December 2 7 , 1 9 0 2
Sent from London to Kiev
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original

* This refers to the capture of the Kiev Committee by the Eco-

nomists, supporters of Rabocheye Dyelo.—Ed.
 129

QP

46
TO I. V. BABUSHKIN 174
For Novitskaya from Lenin
Dear friend,
As regards the “examination”, 175 I must say that it is
impossible to propose an examination programme from
here. Let all the propagandists write about the programme
on which they are lecturing or wish to lecture, and I shall
answer in detail. You ask for more questions to be put to
you. Very well, only mind you answer them all: 1) What
are the present Rules of the St. Petersburg Committee?
2) Is there “discussion”? 3) What is its position in relation
to the Central Committee and the Workers’ Organisation?
4) The attitude of the C.C. to the district organisation and
to the workers’ groups? 5) Why did the Iskrist workers
tacitly permit Bouncer workers to call themselves a “Work-
ers’ Organisation Committee”? 6) Have measures been
taken to keep track of every step of the St. Petersburg
Zubatov organisation 176 ? 7) Are regular lectures read (or
talks arranged) in the workers’ circles on the subject of
organisation, on the significance of an “organisation of
revolutionaries”? 8) Is propaganda widely conducted among
the workers to the effect that it is they who should pass to
an illegal position as frequently and extensively as possi-
ble? 9) Have measures been taken to ensure ten times as
many letters from St. Petersburg, the flow of which has
been held up for a disgracefully long time? 10) Is the idea
being inculcated among all workers that it is they who ought
to organise a printing-press for leaflets and the proper
distribution of the latter?
130 V. I. L E N I N

There are ten questions for you. I send you warm greetings
and await your reply. Mind you disappear at the first sign
that you are being spied on.
Written January 6 , 1 9 0 3
Sent from London
to St. Petersburg
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original
 131

47
TO YELENA STASOVA
We have received (from somewhere abroad) a new Boun-
cer document, dated October 1902, a programme and prin-
ciples of organisation—muddled and pernicious. We are
devilishly vexed and offended at your failure to send us
immediately and directly (in two copies to different addresses
all the St. Petersburg productions. It is simply outra-
geous that up to now we have not had the first leaflet of
the Bouncer people (the July “protest” against the recogni-
tion of Iskra) and only learnt about it from Otkliki 177 !
Surely it is not difficult to send leaflets when all letters
arrive quite all right! More outrageous still is the fact that
you hold up your replies so long. Ignat has told us that his
leaflet replying to the Bouncer drivel was written a long
time ago, but that you held it up and substituted another
one, longer, feebler and more watered-down, only in the
end to publish none at all! If it couldn’t be published,
surely it could have been sent here in a letter!
For Christ’s sake, explain what is the matter; is it due
to sheer bungling oversight on the part of someone in the
Committee (or of the whole Committee?) or to deliberate
opposition and intrigue within the Committee?
We cannot rid ourselves of the impression inevitably
created by all this: namely, that the Bouncers are steadily
ousting you, deceiving you and before long will kick you
out altogether.
We would strongly advise electing Bogdan in place of
the missing member of the Organising Committee from
132 V. I. L E N I N

St. Petersburg 178 ; he fully deserves it. And in general,

apparently, things will never advance an inch without
professional revolutionaries.
Written January 1 5 , 1 9 0 3
Sent from London
to St. Petersburg
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original
 133

48
TO THE KHARKOV COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
January 15
(From Lenin.) Dear comrades, many thanks for your
detailed letter on the state of affairs; such letters are rarely
written to us although we are in very great need of them and
ten times as many are essential if we really want to establish
a living connection between the editorial board abroad and
the local Party workers, and make Iskra a full reflection
of our working-class movement, both as a whole and as
regards particular features of it. We therefore beg you to
continue on the same lines, and at least sometimes to give
us straight pictures of talks with workers (what do they talk
about in the circles? What are their complaints? perplexities?
requirements? the subjects of the talks? and so on and so
forth).
The plan of your organisation, apparently, is suitable
for a rational organisation of revolutionaries, insofar as
it is possible to say “rational” when there is such a lack of
people, and insofar as we can judge of the plan from a brief
account of it.
Give us more details about the independents. Further
questions: Are there no workers of the “Ivanovo-Vozne-
sensk” school and tradition left in Kharkov? Are there any
persons who once directly belonged to this Economist and
“anti-intellectualist” company or only their successors? Why
don’t you write anything about the “leaflet of workers’
mutual aid societies”, and why don’t you send it to us?
We here have seen only a handwritten copy of No. 2 of this
leaflet. What sort of group is issuing it? Are they out-and-
out Economists or merely green youths? Is it a purely work-
ing-class organisation or is it under the influence of Econo-
mist intellectuals?
134 V. I. L E N I N

Are any traces left of the Kharkovsky Proletary 179 group?

Is Iskra read in the workers’ circles? With explanations
of the articles? Which articles are more eagerly read and
what kind of explanations are required?
Is propaganda of secrecy methods and transition to an
illegal position conducted among the workers on a large
scale?
Try to make more use of the St. Petersburg Zubatov or-
ganisation and go on sending workers’ letters.

Yours,
Lenin
Written January 1 5 , 1 9 0 3
Sent from London
First published in 1 9 2 4 Printed from the original
 135

49
TO YELENA STASOVA
January 16, 1903
We have just received No. 16 of Rabochaya Mysl 180 (from.
Geneva) and No. 2 and 3 of Rabochaya Mysl Listki from St.
Petersburg. It is now as clear as daylight that the Bouncers
are fooling you and leading you by the nose when they as-
sure you of their agreement with Zarya and Iskra. Come
out with a militant protest immediately (if you are not able
to publish it, send it here at once, in any case a copy),
wage war vigorously and carry it widely into the midst
of the workers. Any delay and any conciliation with the
Bouncers would now be not only arch-stupidity but abso-
lutely disgraceful. And so long as you have Bogdan, you
can’t complain of being shorthanded (help has been sent).
Reply at once what steps you are taking.
Sent from London to
St. Petersburg
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original
136

50
TO I. V. BABUSHKIN
January 16
We have received from Geneva Rabochaya Mysl No. 16
(evidently published and even written by Svoboda, i.e.,
by Nadezhdin) already labelled as the organ of the St.
Petersburg Committee. It has a letter of the Bouncers mak-
ing a correction, a trivial correction, strictly speaking
not a correction at all but a compliment to Svoboda. If
the Bouncers assure you of their solidarity with Zarya and
Iskra, that is obvious deception, the sheer humbug of peo-
ple who are playing for time in order to gain strength. We
earnestly and insistently advise you therefore to issue im-
mediately (and if you cannot issue it, send it here) a leaflet
protesting in the name of the Committee and in general
to refute all conciliatory manoeuvres and approaches, and
to launch a vigorous war, a ruthless war, against the Boun-
cers, with an exposure of their defection from Social-Democ-
racy to the “Revolutionary-Socialist” Svoboda. We ap-
prove the energetic behaviour of Novitskaya and once again
ask you to continue in the same militant spirit, without
allowing the slightest vacillations. War on the Bouncers and
to hell with all conciliators, people of “elusive views” and
shilly-shallyers! Better a small fish than a big beetle. Bet-
ter two or three energetic and wholly devoted people than
a dozen dawdlers. Write as often as possible and, without
delay, give us access to your workers (and a characterisation
of them) so that in case of arrests we shall not be stranded.
Written January 1 6 , 1 9 0 3
Sent from London
to St. Petersburg
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original
 137

51
TO G. M. KRZHIZHANOVSKY
January 27
Old Man writing. I have read your angry letter of Jan-
uary 3 and am replying at once. Regarding correspondence,
dogs, 181 etc., the secretary 182 will reply below: I can no
longer make out who is to blame but we absolutely must be
in constant touch, not less frequently than twice a month,
but so far this has not been the case and we have heard
nothing about you for long periods at a time. Don’t forget
that when we have no letters, we can’t do anything, we
do not know whether people are alive or not; we are com-
pelled, simply compelled, to consider them almost non-exist-
ent. You did not answer my question about Brutus’s trans-
ference; apparently, there is little hope of any good ar-
rangement until this transference takes place. Now to busi-
ness. In criticising us, you overestimate our strength and
influence; we reached agreement here about the Organis-
ing Committee, we insisted on its meeting, on your being
invited, and we wrote to you. We could do nothing more
than that, absolutely nothing, and we do not answer for
anything. The trouble is that Brutus was not in the Organ-
ising Committee, and all subsequent action was taken
without him (as also without us) We have not accepted an
unknown member (he is of the dawdler type, unintelligent;
I knew him personally in Pskov, tied down by family
and place, backward, no good at all, Pankrat had al-
ready been criticised because of him), we have not trans-
ferred the bureau, we have given absolutely no “power”
to Pankrat. But when it turned out that Pankrat was the
sole (N.B., N.B.) mobile person of the Organising Commit-
tee, the result could not but be power as well. You write:
there are people, but we do not have them, do not know
them, do not see them. We have worked ourselves up to
neurasthenia over the total lack of persons for the Organising
Committee, which requires mobile, flying, free and illegal
people. Pankrat alone went over to illegality, travelled,
138 V. I. L E N I N

began to fly, began to know everything—and assumed the

rank of corporal as a matter of course. We did not interfere,
naturally, because we neither could interfere nor wanted
to interfere; there was no other! Try to understand this.
Pankrat is indolent and careless, but he is clever, sensible,
knows the job, knows how to fight and is a man you can get
on with. Now he is stranded [in Paris] indefinitely, and we
are going for him baldheaded, driving him to Russia, as
otherwise the Organising Committee is nothing but a cipher.
“She” (Akim’s brother) will go shortly, we shall try to get
“her” into the O.C.; “she”, I believe, is energetic. Pen does
not want to go away. There are no passports, and no copies.
If Brutus moves to a nearby, lively place, we shall help
him to get the bureau back, 183 and everything will be
straightened out, perhaps. Otherwise everything will proceed
(if it does proceed) by the will of Allah, the will of Pankrat,
and “her” will, and we are powerless in the matter.
The literature has been sent off. Over 40 poods have been
shipped. We are publishing the statement of the Organising
Committee in No. 32, which will come out the day after
tomorrow.
Uncle, too, is still standing aside (like Brutus) and has
not even gone anywhere; if only he and Brutus would settle
in Poltava at least, they would take over the bureau.
I am very annoyed with Zarin; his letters convey nothing,
he is inert, knows nothing about Kiev, and has allowed a
split to take place under his very nose. To keep aloof from
local affairs to such an extent is simply outrageous! Is it
our fault that, of the two “equal members” of the Organising
Committee, Zarin “sits and says nothing”, while Pankrat
at least is stirring a little? I think (I don’t know for
certain) that Zarin is a person with little initiative and one
who is tied down by legality and place. And now such peo-
ple, alas, remain aloof, and through no fault or will of ours.
Written January 2 7 , 1 9 0 3
Sent from London to Samara
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original
 139

52
TO THE UNION OF RUSSIAN SOCIAL - DEMOCRATS
ABROAD 184
To the Union of Russian Social-Democrats
In reply to the letter of the Union of Russian Social-Dem-
ocrats to the League of Russian Revolutionary Social-
Democracy, received by us on February 4, 1903, we hasten
to inform the Union of Russian Social-Democrats that we
entirely share its opinion as to the need to form a foreign
section of the Organising Committee in Russia. It is true
that we cannot at all agree with the opinion of the Union
of the R.S.D. that the Organising Committee “wrongly
or inaccurately ascribes its origin to private initiative”,
for the O.C. refers directly to the decision of the conference
(the O.C. was in fact set up in fulfilment of such a decision).
Moreover, the O.C. was formed by organisations which took
part in the conference. The fact that the O.C. has not straight
away and without inquiring the opinion of the remaining
Party organisations declared itself an official Party body
is, in our view, evidence of the Organising Committee’s
correct understanding of its tasks, and of its tact and cau-
tion, which are so important in a serious Party matter.
It should be said at once, though, that we do not attach
any great importance to our above-mentioned disagree-
ment with the Union of the R.S.D.; on the contrary, we have
every hope that this disagreement will be easily dispelled
with the development of the Organising Committee’s
activity.
Further, we would consider it inexpedient, even not
quite lawful on our part, “to proceed immediately to consti-
tute a foreign section of the O.C.”, unless there was a direct
invitation from the O.C. in Russia. We have been informed
140 V. I. L E N I N

that the O.C. has already written to the Bund in Russia

and to the Union of the R.S.D. Abroad. We do not have
the text of either letter. In any case, it follows from the
above that the O.C. in Russia is already taking steps in this
direction. It would hardly be wise on our part to begin to
act without waiting for the result of these steps of the
Organising Committee.
We consider it our duty to bring the letter of the Union
of the R.S.D. immediately to the notice of the O.C. in
Russia and at the same time we shall communicate to the
O.C. our opinion of the desirability of the O.C. in Russia
immediately setting up its foreign section. We would sug-
gest waiting for a reply from the O.C. in Russia. If, how-
ever, the comrades of the Bund Committee Abroad and of
the Union of the R.S.D. consider that, before receiving
this reply, it would be useful to arrange a private meeting
of representatives of the Bund Committee Abroad, the
Union of the R.S.D., and the League of Russian Revolu-
tionary Social-Democracy, we would not, of course, refuse
to take part.

The League of Russian Revolutionary Social-Democracy

Written February 4 or 5, 1 9 0 3
Sent from London to Paris
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original
 141

53
TO Y. O. MARTOV 185
February 5, 1903
I am sending you a copy of the Union’s letter and the
draft of our reply. * The reply was sent to Plekhanov who
was to await your letter from Paris. Arrange a meeting
with P. Andr. and Boris immediately and answer Plekha-
nov as quickly as possible whether you are satisfied with
the reply or whether changes are required. It would be
desirable, of course, not to delay the reply to the Unionists,
but if changes are voted it will entail a pretty long delay;
perhaps unimportant changes can be disregarded. But,
of course, if there is disagreement on the substance of the
question, it will be necessary to hold up the reply (I am
writing to Plekhanov about this) and have everyone vote.
In my opinion (with which V. I. and L. Gr. agree) the
most important thing here is that 1) the foreign section
of the O.C. 186 should be precisely a section of the Organ-
ising Committee in Russia. The Unionists’ idea, I believe,
is to have two sections with equal rights: one in Russia, the
other abroad. By no means can we accept or allow such an
interpretation. The O.C. in Russia must act cautiously
(in this respect its announcement is admirably drawn up),
but in all matters and in all approaches made to it, must
behave with the utmost formality and rigour, that is to say,
in such a way that it, the O.C. in Russia, controls every-
thing and no one in the Party can do anything of a general
Party character or in the way of general obligations, unless
authorised to do so by the Organising Committee in Russia.

* See pp. 139-40 of this volume.—Ed.

142 V. I. L E N I N

Yet the Unionists, by their letter, recognise (or almost

three-quarters recognise) the O.C. and the more they rec-
ognise it, the more formally and firmly must the Organ-
ising Committee behave. It is of the highest importance
to adopt the right tone from the very beginning and to
take such a stand that the Party position is made quite
clear: either recognition of the present O.C. and subordi-
nation to it, or war. Tertium non datur. * Even now there
is every chance of obtaining general recognition, without
offending or irritating anyone, but without giving way in the
slightest degree.
2) The O.C. should reduce the functions of its foreign
section to a minimum. The foreign section only “deals
with” affairs abroad (in the sense of preparing for unity)
and assists the Russian section. On every other question
that goes the least beyond those limits, the foreign section
of the O.C. must request the opinion and decision of the Organ-
ising Committee in Russia. I strongly urge, therefore, that
the O.C. in Russia should as soon as possible write a letter
to the Union, the League and the Bund proposing that they
should form a section of their own for exercising such-and-
such functions. It is essential that the O.C. in Russia should
indicate the “limits of authority” to its foreign section,
and I propose below an outline of these functions with three
and only three strictly limited items. I earnestly request
you to discuss this draft as quickly as possible with P. A.
and Boris and confirm it (alternatively, put changes to
the vote). (We shall send all these data to Yuri 187 as well,
asking him to await the arrival of P. A. and Boris, who
should do everything to hasten their arrival.)
(Of course, P. A. could write a letter to the League, the
Union and the Bund Committee Abroad from here, but I
think this is in the highest degree undesirable, for people
will suspect a put-up job and a fiction. Better to wait a
week or two, and have the letter sent without fail from
Russia.)
I also believe we must think of electing a member of
ours to the O.C. (the foreign section) and vote on it in
advance, for owing to the members being in different places

* There is no third way.—Ed.

 TO Y. O. MARTOV 143

this can take much time and it will be unpleasant if things

have to wait on this account. For my part, I vote for L. Gr.
I positively do not have time to write to Plekhanov
as well. You will simply forward to him at once both this
letter and the reply to the Union, and meanwhile I will
drop him a line.

All the best.

Lenin
Sent from London to Paris
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original
144

54
TO THE NIZHNI - NOVGOROD COMMITTEE
OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
To Nizhni
As regards the appeal, I (Lenin) find your decision reas-
onable 188 —I have not had time yet (nor a chance) to con-
sult my associates. * The courage of the Nizhni-Novgorod
workers, who asked that their personal well-being should
not be taken into account, ought to be mentioned in Iskra;
it would be desirable for you to write a letter about this
to the editors.
We received via Berlin the “Letter to the Iskra Editorial
Board from the Nizhni-Novgorod Committee”, a long let-
ter, about terrorism, with a defence (partial and condi-
tional) of terrorism; the end is missing (apparently). Write
immediately:
1) Did the Nizhni-Novgorod Committee send this letter
officially?
2) Repeat the end of it (the letter has seven paragraphs
and ends with the words: “They clear the atmosphere, which
is often too heavy, they teach the government to handle
the revolutionaries more carefully”).
3) Let us know whether you allow stylistic corrections
(in some places the style is very bad, due perhaps to incor-
rect, hasty and unclear copying).
We shall probably publish the letter together with our
reply.
We earnestly and insistently beg you to inform us in
your letters without delay of every official step taken by
the Committee (dispatch of a document for travelling war-

*I may yet be able to return to this question.

 TO THE NIZHNI-NOVGOROD COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 145

rants. . . , list of leaflets, answer to another committee or

to a group abroad, and so on and so forth). Otherwise there
are bound to be misunderstandings, * mistakes and bureau-
cratic delays. Iskrists should pull together and inform Iskra
speedily and comprehensively.

All the very best.

Written prior to February 2 3 , 1 9 0 3
Sent from London
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original

* For example, we have heard a lot of tittle-tattle and abuse

about the Committee’s leaflet against a demonstration on the day of
the trial. 189 The leaflet itself we received not long ago by chance
from Berlin, and with delay. Good heavens! This is simply outrageous!
Surely it wasn’t difficult for the Committee to write to us about the
leaflet and send us a copy of it as soon as it came out. For heaven’s sake,
take all the necessary steps to correct these shortcomings.
146

55
TO THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE WITH THE TEXT
OF NADEZHDA KRUPSKAYA’S LETTER
I have received the letter of the O.C. I suggest answering
like this:
“In our opinion, the question of the ‘ordre du jour’ stands
as follows. This question of the agenda will be definitely
settled by the Congress itself, and only by the Congress.
Consequently, it is quite useless to dispute about the right
to vote on this point. Further, the bulk of the committees
have already recognised the ‘exclusive initiative’ of the
O.C. in convening the Congress. Hence it follows that the
preliminary preparation for the Congress, including pre-
liminary preparation (or propaganda) of the ordre du jour,
is exclusively a matter for the Organising Committee. It is,
therefore, altogether superfluous to propose that anyone
should vote as well on a ‘preliminary’ ordre du jour; it
cannot have any decisive significance. Furthermore, it will
merely cause both delay and dissatisfaction, for there will
be people who will be offended (committees that were not
consulted), and people who will inevitably be dissatisfied
and complaining. Consequently, from the standpoint of
both formal loyalty and tact no formal decision should be
taken about collecting the votes of the committees or of
anyone at all. It would only undermine the authority of the
Organising Committee if it renounces the exclusive initia-
tive entrusted to it.
“If it is very inconvenient now to alter an adopted (and
formally unexceptionable) decision, there may be, per-
haps, the following way out: turn the voting (of the commit-
tees) into a consultation with them, that is to say, adopt
a decision that as far as possible the O.C. will try to make
use of meetings and talks for consultation.
 TO THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE 147

“Finally, we advise making haste with the Congress.

The sooner you convene it, the better. And set to work im-
mediately and more actively preparing the committees,
nominating delegates, winning over Nikolayev and Odessa.
The important thing is to make perfectly sure of a safe
majority of firm Iskrists.”
Nevzorov disgraced himself yesterday, and Charles Rap-
poport and Krichevsky gave him a dressing down. There
were no Iskrists. 190
I shall be leaving probably on Sunday. The trains arrive
not at 6 but at 3.45 and 10.45. With one of them, probably.

Yours....
Written March 5 or 6 , 1 9 0 3
Sent from Paris to Kharkov
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original
148

56
TO THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE
Letter to the O.C.
We have just received the rules of the Congress. It appears
that we did not understand you and replied about the ordre
du jour when you were asking about the rules of the Con-
gress. We hasten to say that on the whole we are very satis-
fied with your draft, which is carefully and sensibly drawn
up. Clause 19, which has evoked dispute, seems reasonable
to us; to exclude certain organisations from the Congress
(and, in the final analysis, the rules are precisely regulations
for the exclusion of some and the granting of rights to others)
is in fact inconvenient and impossible without the agree-
ment of the majority of the committees. Our only advice
would be to fix a formally binding period as short as possible
(for example, not more than a week) in the course of which
the committees and organisations are obliged to draw up
and send in their amendments to the draft rules. This is
essential in order to avoid delay, which is most of all to
be feared. (It is probably through fear of delay that Ignat,
too, protested. We understand his fears, but if you are able
to complete the interrogation quickly, the matter can be
put right.)
For our part, we shall write to the Iskra organisations
about our advice that your draft should be accepted im-
mediately and completely. We earnestly request you to
make use of every facility to ensure that the dispatch and
communication of the draft (on the basis of § 19), the “session”
of the arbitration courts, and determination of the compo-
sition of the deputies will be completed within a month
at the latest.
 TO THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE 149

In this connection we advise you informally to recom-

mend all qualified organisations to appoint as far as possible
one (or two) delegates from among comrades living abroad
who are known for their past work—in order to avoid extra
expenses and difficulties involved in sending delegates
abroad.
We formally propose 1) to supplement your draft only
by a note to § 19: “Organisations which have not presented
their comments within a week from the date of receipt
of the draft will be regarded as having accepted the draft
rules of the Congress”; 2) to make provision for alternate
delegates in the event of delegates being arrested before
the Congress.
Written between March 6 and 9 , 1 9 0 3
Sent from Paris to Kharkov
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original
150

57
TO G. V. PLEKHANOV
March 15, 1903
Dear G. V.,
I have received your letter. You are writing “The Ides of
March”, that is excellent. The dead - line is March 25, 1903—
the article must be here. We expect it without fail.
Maslov’s book is being sent to me in a few days from
Paris (I shall ask them to make haste) and I shall send it
on to you at once. 191 It contains interesting data on the
harm of the village commune, which I quoted in Paris. 192
I had already ordered David’s book and am now reading
it. Terribly watery, poor and trite. I am trying to finish
it quickly so as to send it on to you. Have you seen Kaut-
sky’s articles on this “neo-Proudhonist”193?
I have now set to work on a popular pamphlet for the peas-
ants on our agrarian programme. * I should very much
like to demonstrate our idea of the class struggle in the
countryside on the basis of concrete data on the four sec-
tions of the village population (landowners, peasant bour-
geoisie, middle peasantry, and semi-proletarians together
with proletarians). What do you think of such a plan?
From Paris I came away with the conviction that only
such a pamphlet could dispel the perplexities about the
cut-off lands, etc.
About the Manifesto of February 26 I have written an
article which will appear in No. 34. ** I have categorically
insisted that it should be the leading article in view of the
tremendous importance of the Manifesto. It seems, how-
* To the Rural Poor (see present edition, Vol. 6).—Ed.
** “The Autocracy Is Wavering” (see present edition, Vol. 6).—
Ed.
 TO G. V. PLEKHANOV 151

ever, that V. I. is wavering (!) and together with Y. O. is

deciding the other way round: first about Marx.
In my opinion, this is even preposterous.

All the very best.

Yours,
Lenin
Sent from London to Geneva
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original
152

58
TO THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE
We advise that steps be taken immediately to have the
O.C. together with the Polish Social-Democrats issue a
formal declaration (as detailed and precise as possible) on
their full solidarity with the Russian S.D.L.P. and their
desire to join the Party. On the basis of such a formally
published statement the O.C. could invite the Polish
Social-Democrats to the Congress. Then, surely, no one
will protest. 194
Next (privately), we earnestly request you everywhere
and among everyone to prepare the ground for a struggle
against the Bund at the Congress. Without a stubborn strug-
gle the Bund will not surrender its position. And we can
never accept its position. Only firm determination on our
part to go through to the end, to the expulsion of the Bund
from the Party, will undoubtedly compel it to give way.
Make haste with the list; it is very important and must
be done quickly, without waiting for a reply from the com-
mittees. By the way, were the committees given a short
time within which to reply? Are you keeping a list of the
delegates already appointed? (Send it to us as an additional
precaution.)
Written March 3 1 , 1 9 0 3
Sent from London to Kharkov
First published in full in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original
 153

59
TO G. M. KRZHIZHANOVSKY
(The Old Man.)
There is little I can tell you this time. The main thing
now, in my opinion, is to make every effort to expedite the
Congress and ensure a majority of intelligent (and “our”)
delegates. Almost all our hope is on Brutus. As far as pos-
sible, he should himself keep an eye on everything, espe-
cially the delegates, and try to get the maximum number
of our people appointed. The system of two votes from each
committee is very favourable for this. Next, the question
of the Bund is very important. We have stopped the polemic
with it over the O.C., but not, of course, the polemic
over principles. That is out of the question. We must make
everyone understand, simply “ram it into every head”,
that it is necessary to prepare for war against the Bund
if we want peace with it. War at the Congress, war even to
the extent of a split—whatever the cost. Only then will
the Bund be sure to surrender. We absolutely cannot accept,
and never will accept, the stupid idea of federation. At the
very most—autonomy according to the old Rules of 1898
with a delegate appointed by the C.C. taking part in the
C.C. of the Bund. We must prepare our people, we must
explain the stupidity and demonstrate the absurdity of the
attack on Ekaterinoslav, 195 and so on. Please write speedily
and let us know what the feeling is in this respect, how your
propaganda is going and whether there is any hope of the
majority taking the right stand. We should like to issue
a pamphlet to the Jewish workers on the necessity of a close
union and the stupidity of federation and “national” policy.
Written April 3 , 1 9 0 3
Sent from London to Samara
First published in full in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original
154

60
TO THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE
April 6, 1903
In transmitting to the O.C. the inquiry of the foreign
section of the O.C., 196 we for our part earnestly advise you
not to widen the functions of the foreign section in any
way and not to allow it to extend its bounds by a single
inch, as it is making every effort to do. In the interests of
the work, the functions of the foreign section of the O.C.
should in no way go beyond preparing the secret part of the
Congress, collecting money and, at most, discussion of the
conditions for uniting the Social-Democratic organisations
abroad in the form of a preliminary preparation of this
question. Regarding point 1 a), we are strongly against giving
the address of the O.C.’s foreign section to the committees.
The functions of the foreign section being what they are,
this is quite pointless. It is not without its dangers in the
sense of causing delay and confusion. As regards publicity,
it should be frankly stated that everything will be pub-
lished in Iskra (the formal basis for this is its recognition by
the majority of the committees). Other organisations should
be formally recommended to reprint all the statements of
the O.C. from Iskra. As regards contact between the O.C.
and its foreign section, we advise the following arrangement:
the O.C. will communicate with Deutsch through the usual
channels (Deutsch is the secretary of the O.C.’s foreign
section, which also includes Alexander and Lokhov). And
you will communicate with Deutsch through us, as before.
This is quite natural; the foreign section of the O.C. elected
a secretary and you have endorsed his election.
 TO THE ORGANISING COMMITTEE 155

To the second question we advise that you reply by

agreeing, and to the third by an explanation that the agenda
will be presented and is already being prepared.
Sent from London to Kharkov
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original
156

61
TO YEKATERINA ALEXANDROVA 197
Private, from Lenin
I have road your long letter, for which many thanks.
Better late than never. You ask me not to be very cross.
As a matter of fact, I was hardly cross at all, and was more
inclined to smile at the recollection of my last conversation
at the door of the “den” 198 with a certain Jacques, who
considered at that time (at that time!) that we did too little
bossing. That things take a long time adjusting themselves
within the O.C., that there is still a huge amount of disor-
der and anarchy, I was quite aware and have not expected
anything else. The only cure for that is persistent treat-
ment (time and experience) and a single potent remedy (a
general Party congress). I wrote long ago and I repeat it:
hurry up, for heaven’s sake, with this remedy as much as
you can, otherwise there is a risk of your experience being
lost altogether.
I am not going to write about the questions of 1) Yuri, 199
2) the Bureau, and 3) Ignat’s dispute with Bundist. In
part, they have become obsolete; in part, they require to
be settled on the spot, and as regards this last part my ad-
vice at best would be to no purpose (despite the opinion of
my friend Jacques). This part you (all of you) have to decide
for yourselves, “have to” not in the sense of sollen * but
of müssen. **
I will say something about the Bund, the P.P.S. 200
and “heresy”.
Formally, I think, our attitude to the Bund should be
studiously correct (no hitting straight in the teeth), but

* Should.—Ed.
** Must.—Ed.
 TO YEKATERINA ALEXANDROVA 157

at the same time icily cold, buttoned up to the neck, and

on legitimate ground we should press hard against the
Bund relentlessly and all the time, going right to the end
without being afraid. Let them get out, if they want to,
but we should not give them the slightest occasion, the
shadow of an excuse, for a break. We must, of course,
observe the formalities prior to the Congress, but there is no
point in showing our cards. You write: Bundist knows we
are working for Iskra but keeps silent, although we have no
right to do so in the name of the O.C. In my opinion, this
should not be done from the O.C. but from each member
personally, referring not to the O.C., but to the committees
which have recognised Iskra. The result is the same and
even much stronger (there are no “agents”), and the formal
aspect is irreproachable. Preparing the committees against
the Bund is one of the most important tasks of the present
moment, and it, too, is fully possible without any violation
of form.
Similarly, it was wrong to speak to the P.P.S. about the
“convictions of members of the Organising Committee”.
It should have been said of the O.C.: we are preparing the
congress, and the congress will decide; and on the question
of “convictions” one should not remain silent but refer,
not to the O.C., but to Iskra and still more to the commit-
tees that have recognised Iskra. Furthermore, we should
obtain from the P.P.S. a formal if only short document
(a letter), and not say to them “we are anti-nationalists”
(why frighten people needlessly?), but gently persuade them
that our programme (recognition of the right of national
self-determination) is adequate for them too, drawing from
them definite counter-declarations and a formal approach
to the O.C. and the Congress. Our trump card against the
P.P.S. is that we recognise national self-determination in
principle, but within reasonable limits determined by the
unity of the proletarian class struggle.
Before I forget: I really do not know the representatives
of the Russian organisation of Iskra in the O.C. Nor do I
know why I should know this, and why there should be
“representatives”. The Organising Committee has long ago
co-opted all sorts of good people, but they were not “repre-
sentatives”, were they? Or is this untrue?
158 V. I. L E N I N

It is important, I think, to make use of the distinction

between the Russian organisation of Iskra and the O.C.
precisely for the sake of formal irreproachability.
Now about “heresy”. Either I misunderstand you, or
this is a great mistake. In view of the extreme brevity of
your letter on this (highly important) point, I can only
take your words à la lettre. Four delegates “organise” both
the C.C. and the Central Organ! Frankly, this is simply
ridiculous, for you ought to know that the only people
competent (i.e., having the knowledge and necessary
experience) to “organise” the Central Organ are the members
of the editorial board & individuals from outside for consul-
tation, while the only people competent to organise the C.C.
are experienced practical workers & individuals for consul-
tation (if you know of such persons). Or do you, perhaps,
know of a “foursome” who have experience and knowledge
of all these things? If you do, then name them—seriously.
I am not joking, for this letter of mine is a personal one and
it is important for me to be clear about your idea.
You are out for a single centre of power and a “strong
hand”, if I am not mistaken. It would be a good thing and
you are absolutely right that that is what we need. But
no one can achieve it in such a forthright way as you are
thinking of. For nine-tenths of current affairs, two central
bodies are absolutely essential; they would immediately
arise of themselves, even if we did not want this. For form’s
sake, however, we should try to achieve 1) a formal way of
uniting these two central bodies (for example, a committee
with delegates from both of them), 2) a reduction in the
number of members of the two central bodies, or the selection
of an executive committee within each central body, and—
most important—3) a strict, formal distribution of functions
among individual members of the central bodies, so that
their whole membership should know precisely which mem-
ber is charged with managing what, which member (in each
centre) has the right to decide (and even to speak) in each
sphere of problems, and in what way matters can be trans-
ferred to a plenary meeting of one or both of the central
bodies.
I am confident that you will considerably moderate your
demands and will agree that this is the maximum immedi-
 TO YEKATERINA ALEXANDROVA 159

ately desirable. Even that is very, very difficult and I

do not see any people who are fully suitable, informed, and
experienced enough for such a distribution of functions.
There is a great deal, a vast amount of mismanagement
both among you and us (you, members of the O.C., should
not think only of yourselves, you “organise” the whole
Party), and we must think out not pia desideria, but prac-
tical, firm, “first steps”.
I have expressed my views to you frankly and I should
be very glad of a further exchange of letters with you.
Really and truly, you ought to write more often and in
more detail on such questions. I have nothing against this
letter being communicated to the whole O.C., I should
even welcome it, but I leave the decision to you. You did
well to mention to whom your letter was addressed.
All the best. Moderate your demands and hurry, hurry,
hurry with the “potent remedy”. Best regards.

Yours,
Lenin
Written later than May 2 2 , 1 9 0 3
Sent from Geneva to Kiev
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original
160

62
TO ALEXANDRA KALMYKOVA 201
September 7, 1903
I have just received your letter and hasten to reply.
Yes, I see that you are already well informed and that the
sum of the information that makes you so is tinctured—
as well it would be—a definite colour. I understand also
that what has happened is bound to worry you.
But it is one thing to know and another to understand,
as you justly write, and I am deeply convinced that it is
impossible to understand what has happened from the stand-
point of “the effect of a nervous breakdown”. A nervous
breakdown could only give rise to sharp animosity, fury
and a reckless attitude to results, but the results them-
selves are utterly inescapable and their advent has long
been merely a question of time.
“Riffraff” and “praetorians”—you say. That is not the
case. The political alignment was im Grossen und Ganzen
as follows: five Bundists, three Rabocheye Dyelo-ists, four
Yuzhny Rabochy-ists, six from the “Marsh” or indecisives,
nine Iskrists of the soft line (or Zickzackkurs) and twenty-four
Iskrists of the firm line; these are voting members, and, of
course, approximate. There have been cases when everything
was mixed up differently, but à vol d’oiseau this, on the whole,
was how the groups worked out. The biggest shuffle (over
equality of languages), when many Iskrists vacillated, left
us with not less than 23 (out of a total of 33 Iskrists) and even
among these 23 the “Martovites” were in a minority. And
do you know the result of the vote at the meeting of the 16?
Sixteen members of the Iskra organisation, and not “riffraff”
nor “praetorians”? Do you know that here, too, Martov was
in the minority both on the question of the person who had
been the apple of discord and on the question of lists?
 TO ALEXANDRA KALMYKOVA 161

The minority of Iskrists of the soft or zigzag line defeated

the majority (on the question of the Rules, and more than
once) by a coalition of the Bund & the Marsh & the Yuzhny
Rabochy-ists. And when the Bund and Rabocheye Dyelo
withdrew, the majority of the Iskrists had their own back.
Voilà tout. And not a single person has any doubt that, if
the Bund had not withdrawn, Martov would have beaten
us over the central bodies. And to make such a finale a reason
for resentment, offence, a split in the Party! It is madness.
The story goes that the “praetorians” ousted people because
of a slanderous accusation of opportunism, that they cast
slurs on and removed active people, etc. That is mere idle
talk, the fruit of an imaginary grievance, rien de plus. No
one, absolutely no one had “slurs” cast upon him or was
removed, prevented from taking part in the work. Some
one or other was merely removed from the central body—is
that a matter for offence? Should the Party be torn apart
for that? Should a theory of hypercentralism be constructed
on that account? Should there be talk of rule by a rod of
iron, etc., on that account? Never for a moment have I
doubted or been capable of doubting that a trio of editors
is the sole genuinely business-like trio, which does not break
up anything, but adapts the old “family” collegium to the
role of someone in an official capacity. It is precisely the
family character of the Six that has been tormenting us all
these three years, as you know only too well, and from the
moment Iskra became the Party and the Party became
Iskra, we had to, were obliged to, break with the Six and
its family character. It was for this reason that already
prior to the Congress I declared that I was going to demand
freedom of election of the editorial board—or the trio—
which is the sole basis also for sensible co-optation.
The break with the “family character” was absolutely
essential and I am confident the Six would have peacefully
accepted this trio but for the accompanying squabbles
over §1 and over the C.C. It is only these squabbles that
in their eyes painted the trio in this “horrible”, absolutely
false hue. There is nothing “horrible” in it at all, and it
was essential to impose a restraint on the Zickzackkurs, and
the majority of the Iskrists (both at the Congress and within
the Iskra organisation) understood this perfectly well.
162 V. I. L E N I N

No, I repeat, the finale is not an “unforeseen calamity”,

it is not a “division of the whole”. That is untrue. It is
untrue that one can curse the day of “promotion”—or all
our old work would remain for ever a torment of Tantalus.
And in the Party, on its formal basis, with subordination
of everything to the Rules * (over which we quarrelled des-
perately not without reason, quarrelled over every trifle
with Martov, who beat us on this point), in such a Party the
old family editorial board (not once in three years—this
is a fact—did it meet with the full number of six members)
was impossible, the more so because the non-Iskrists
entered the Party in a bunch by right, on formal grounds.
And this called for a firm and consistent line, and not a zig-
zag policy. There is no returning to the old, and only a
disordered imagination can picture Martov being led to the
slaughter instead of to joint work with comrades, of whom
each has his shade of the political line. Actually, I would
add, this trio, throughout these three years, in 99 cases out
of a hundred, had always been the decisive, politically de-
cisive (and not literary) central body.
Now, after Martov beat the majority of the Iskrists by
alliance with the Bund and made every preparation for
beating them by this alliance on the question of the central
bodies as well, I find “their” complaints about riffraff and
praetorians, their laments about the “crystal” of Iskra’s
editorial board ludicrous. He beat them by an alliance,
I say, and not by a deal; I would not think of accusing them
of a deal with the Marsh and the Bund, nothing of the sort.
When “they” talk about “defamatory rumours” (of being
allies of the Bundists) being spread against them, “they”
are repeating their usual mistake of confusing the personal
and the political. A deal would be personally ugly. The
alliance did not depend on their will, their alliance was
caused by their mistake; it was not they who went with the
Bund & the Marsh, but the Bund & the Marsh & Yuzhny Ra-
bochy, etc., who followed them, having grasped at once
which of the Iskrists had to be supported from the anti-
Iskrist standpoint. The Bund & the Marsh, etc., only

* That is why “arrangements among ourselves” are impossible

now, absolutely impossible, both judicially and morally.
 TO ALEXANDRA KALMYKOVA 163

revealed politically Martov’s organisational and tactical

mistake.
For one who knows all the facts of the Congress and
especially the distribution of Iskrist votes (both at the Con-
gress and in the underground organisation of Iskra) there
cannot be any doubt that there is no going back. The Iskrists
have parted company, but Iskra could not exist apart from
the Iskrists. And, I repeat, among the Iskrists Martov was
definitely in a minority, and a split in the Party (towards
which Martov is fatally heading, more and more each day)
will be a revolt of the minority, a minority that is in the
wrong both juridically and still more in all essentials.
We “cast slurs” neither on Martov nor on anyone else
for their mistake, but call all of them to the work.
As regards the “material means” of which you speak,
we are hard up just now, it goes without saying, and the
Californian 202 sources have gone up in smoke. But, if it
came to that, we could endure even extreme need, so long
as all the work of many years is not allowed to be wrecked
through dissatisfaction with the composition of the central
bodies (for objectively “their” dissatisfaction amounts only
to this).
“Must the bucket too be shared?” 203 you ask. I could
hardly answer this question, for I make no claim to impar-
tiality in “sharing”, and you do not need an answer that
is not impartial. I am convinced that there are no “fraction-
al parts”, but there is a senseless attempt to break to pieces,
smash and scatter the whole (to build a new hearth, as
you put it) owing to defeat on a single question where the
defeated Iskrists were utterly wrong.

All the best.

Sent from Geneva to Dresden
First published in 1 9 2 7 Printed from a copy
written out by N. K. Krupskaya
164

63
TO A. N. POTRESOV
To Alex. Nikolayevich
September 13, 1903
I tried to have a talk with Y. O. recently, when the
atmosphere of the impending split; was already in full evi-
dence, and I want to try to have a talk with you too, in the
hope that you, like Y. O., would not be averse to making
an attempt at explanation. If this hope is unfounded, you
will, of course, let me know, but meanwhile I shall do
what I consider necessary.
The refusal of Martov to serve on the editorial board,
his refusal and that of other Party writers to collaborate,
the refusal of a number of persons to work for the Central
Committee, and the propaganda of a boycott or passive
resistance are bound to lead, even if against the wishes
of Martov and his friends, to a split in the Party. Even
if Martov adheres to a loyal stand (which he took up so
resolutely at the Congress), others will not, and the out-
come I have mentioned will be inevitable. (Not for noth-
ing, by the way, does Auntie, too, write about “building
a new hearth”.)
And so I ask myself: over what, in point of fact, would
we be parting company as enemies for life? I go over all
the events and impressions of the Congress, 204 I realise
that I often behaved and acted in a state of frightful irrita-
tion, “frenziedly”; I am quite willing to admit this fault
of mine to anyone, if that can be called a fault which was
a natural product of the atmosphere, the reactions, the in-
terjections, the struggle, etc. But examining now, quite
unfrenziedly, the results attained, the outcome achieved
by frenzied struggle, I can detect nothing, absolutely noth-
 TO A. N. POTRESOV 165

ing in these results that is injurious to the Party, and abso-

lutely nothing that is an affront or insult to the Minority.
Of course, the very fact of finding oneself in the minority
could not but be vexatious, but I categorically protest against
the idea that we “cast slurs” on anybody, that we wanted
to insult or humiliate anybody. Nothing of the kind. And
one should not allow political differences to lead to an in-
terpretation of events based on accusing the other side of
unscrupulousness, chicanery, intrigue and other pleasantries
we are hearing mentioned more and more often in this at-
mosphere of an impending split. This should not be allowed,
for it is, to say the least, the nec plus ultra of irrationality.
Martov and I have had a political (and organisational)
difference, as we had dozens of times before. Defeated
over § 1 of the Rules, I could not but strive with all my
might for revanche in what remained to me (and to the
Congress). I could not but strive, on the one hand, for a
strictly Iskrist Central Committee, and, on the other, for
a trio on the editorial board that would remove the very
cause of our old, hopeless quarrels, that would unite per-
sons of whom each has his own political line, of whom
each makes decisions and will always make decisions “with-
out regard for persons” and in keeping with his own ex-
treme conviction.
I said (during our conversation with you and Y. O. about
the trio before the Congress) that I regarded the inclusion
in the Six of an absentee member 205 as most harmful of
all for the work; I also took exception at the time, very
strong exception, to Zasulich’s highly personal attitude
(although Y. O. has forgotten it); I said quite definitely
(when you named the most probable elected trio) that I
too considered it the most probable and that even if it
remained alone, without going in for any co-optation (al-
though at the time we mentioned one of the possible co-
optations), I saw nothing bad in that. Yuli Osipovich
has forgotten this last statement of mine too, but I remem-
ber it very well. But it is, of course, useless to argue about
this. That is not important; what is important is that with
such a trio not one of those painful, long-drawn-out, hope-
less quarrels with which we began the work of Iskra in 1900
and which were often repeated, making it impossible for
166 V. I. L E N I N

us to work for months on end—not a single one of such quar-

rels would be possible. That is why I consider this trio
the only business-like arrangement, the only one capable
of being an official institution, instead of a body based on
indulgence and slackness, the only one to be a real centre,
each member of which, I repeat, would always state and
defend his Party viewpoint, not one grain more, and ir-
respective of all personal motives, all considerations con-
cerning grievances, resignations, and so on.
This trio, after what had occurred at the Congress, un-
doubtedly meant legitimising a political and organisational
line in one respect directed against Martov. Undoubtedly.
Cause a rupture on that account? Break up the Party be-
cause of it? Did not Martov and Plekhanov oppose me over
the question of demonstrations? And did not Martov and
I oppose Plekhanov over the question of the programme? Is
not one side of every trio always up against the other two?
If the majority of the Iskrists, both in the Iskra organisa-
tion and at the Congress, found this particular shade of
Martov’s line organisationally and politically mistaken,
is it not really senseless to attempt to attribute this to
“intrigue”, “incitement”, and so forth? Would it not be
senseless to try to talk away this fact by abusing the Major-
ity and calling them “riffraff”?
I repeat that, like the majority of the Iskrists at the
Congress, I am profoundly convinced that the line Martov
adopted was wrong, and that he had to be corrected. To
take offence at this correction, to regard it as an insult,
etc., is unreasonable. We have not cast, and are not casting,
any “slurs” on anyone, nor are we excluding anyone from
work. And to cause a split because someone has been exclud-
ed from a central body seems to me a piece of inconceivable
folly.
Lenin
Sent from Geneva to Montreux
(Switzerland)
First published in a shortened Printed from the original
version in 1 9 0 4 in the pamphlet:
V. I. Lenin, One Step Forward,
Two Steps Back, and in full in 1 9 2 7
 167

64
TO G. M. KRZHIZHANOVSKY
Thanks to Smith for his long letter. Let him write to
Yegor, making a last appeal to reason. Let Zarin go and
see Yegor immediately, after obtaining authority (full
authority) to decide matters in Yegor’s countries. Arrange
all this with strict precision. You must act formally and,
as regards the Yegors, 206 you must prepare for a decisive
war, and see to it at all costs that any attempt of theirs
to get into the committees meets with a prompt and
vigorous rebuff. You must be on your guard about this and
prepare all the committees. All the Yegors are carrying
out and extending the boycott; they are devilishly embit-
tered, they have dreamed up a heap of imaginary grievances
and insults, they imagine that they are rescuing the Party
from tyrants, they are shouting about this left and right,
they are stirring people up. Their dissension has already
deprived us (I don’t know for how long, possibly even forever)
of two of our largest sources of money. Please make the most
desperate efforts to obtain money—that is the chief thing.
And so, don’t let Smith look on Yegor in the old way.
Friendship is at an end here. Down with all softness! Pre-
pare for the most vigorous resistance, send Zarin at once,
nominate candidates (in the event of Smith’s death * ), and
in the same event prepare Smith, too, for a trip “to Yegor”,**
appoint members to the Council, 207 put everything on a
very formal footing and exert yourself to the utmost. We
shall cope with the matter of literature. We are putting
strong hopes on Vadim.
Written between September 1 0
and 1 4 , 1 9 0 3
Sent from Geneva to Kiev
First published in 1 9 2 7 Printed from the original

* Meaning here arrest.—Ed.

** Meaning to leave the country.—Ed.
168

65
TO ALEXANDRA KALMYKOVA
September 30
You write: “I have lived too long in the world not to
know that in such cases truth is not on one side alone, but
on both sides.” I fully admit it. The trouble is that the
other “side” does not realise the new situation, the new
basis, and demands what used to be easily arrived at (if
only after months of quarrelling), but is now unachievable.
The basis has become different, that is a fait accompli;
but they are still guided chiefly by the offensive turn this
or that thing took at the Congress, by the frenzied way
Lenin behaved, etc. I did act frenziedly, there is no denying
it, and I frankly admitted as much in a letter to Old Be-
liever. * But the thing is that the results achieved by “fren-
zied” struggle are not frenzied at all, yet the other side
in its fight against frenzy goes on fighting against the
results themselves, against the inevitable and necessary
results. But you have long been aware of the direction in
which things were going. You know how you expressed
your firm conviction of an obstacle due to certain “old
men”, and you, of course, will not doubt that the ill-fated
“trio” is not a dirty trick, not a Jacobin coup, but a straight-
forward, natural and the best, really and truly the best,
way out from three years of “wrangling”. The trio is a
triangular construction and there is no room whatever for
wrangling in it. You know what the sensitivity and “per-
sonal” (instead of political) attitude of Martov & Old Be-
liever & Zasulich led to when, for example, they all but

* See pp. 164-66 of this volume.—Ed.

 TO ALEXANDRA KALMYKOVA 169

“condemned” a man politically for an incident of a purely

personal character. At that time, without a moment’s hesi-
tation, you sided with the “flayers and monsters”. Yet
this is quite a typical case. Now, too, the root is the same,
the same mixing of the personal and the political, the same
suspicion that we want to cast a slur on people personally,
although we only set them aside (or shift them) politically.
And when you remind me: blame must also fall on you, I
reply: I would not think of denying the personal aspect,
but that is no reason for demanding a political correction.
The hopelessness, the complete hopelessness, of the situa-
tion lies precisely in the fact that a political correction is
being demanded on account of the sum total of personal
grievances, of personal dissatisfactions with the compo-
sition of the central bodies. Tout ce que vous voulez, mais
pas de ça * ! And if political divergence (as some desire)
should be considered the cause, is it not ridiculous to de-
mand for the sake of “peace” the co-optation of a larger
number, or at least an equal number, of political opponents?
It is ridiculous nec plus ultra!
The little example quoted by me above out of a large
number of cases of wrangling is typical not only in sub-
stance but also in the form of the outcome. Do you know
how we won the upper hand at that time? We were in the
minority, but we won by sheer persistence, by threatening
to bring everything into the open. They think they can do
the same now. The trouble is that now is not then. Now
the formal basis is unremovable. If it were not for this
formal basis—why shouldn’t there be six, once people
have been roused to fury? We’ve stood three years of it,
we can stand another three; we decided not by votes, but
by persistence, so let us decide by persistence now too.
But the thing is—it can’t be done now. Yet people dog-
gedly refuse to see or understand this change. And this
is what makes the situation so hopeless. Now the dilemma
is inexorable: either the divergence is over the question
of persons, in which case it is ridiculous to make a political
scandal and throw up work on account of it. Or the diver-

* Anything but that!—Ed.

170 V. I. L E N I N

gence is political—and then it is still more ridiculous to

“correct” this by imposing definite persons of a different,
shall we say, nuance.
They are taking (seem to be taking) the second course.
In that case, join the trio, Martov, and prove before the
Party the mistakes of the two in your collegium; unless
you participate in the collegium you cannot obtain data
for exposing these mistakes and putting the Party on its
guard against them. Otherwise your accusations are empty
Parteiklatsch * over some future contingency.
If you take the first course, then don’t stretch your re-
sentment to the extent of throwing up the work, and the
work will speedily cause “frenzy” to be forgotten. There
is no more hopeless blind alley than that of throwing up
one’s work.
Written September 3 0 , 1 9 0 3
Sent from Geneva to Dresden
First published in 1 9 2 7 Printed from a copy written
out by N. K. Krupskaya

* Party tittle-tattle.—Ed.
 171

66
TO THE ODESSA COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
To the Odessa Committee
October 1, 1903
Dear comrades,
We too sincerely regret that a difference of opinion has
arisen between the Odessa Committee and Iskra on the
subject of factory stewards. 208 Our delay in replying to
the letter of the Odessa Committee was due mainly to the
fact that the editors were absent at the time. Generally
speaking, the obstacle in this case (strange as it may seem)
was the Second Congress of the Party.
As regards the essence of the matter, incidentally, a
resolution was adopted at the Congress recommending par-
ticipation in the election of factory stewards.
[Quote the text: resolution No. 8.]
This resolution was passed by a huge majority, and we
think that matters can be put right, although it will take
time. The Odessa Committee should immediately dissem-
inate (without publishing) the text of this resolution
among all organised workers and explain it to them. Later,
when the resolution is published, it would be desirable for
a leaflet to be issued over the signature of the Odessa Com-
mittee setting out the Party view on the question and call-
ing on the workers to follow the tactics approved by the
whole Party.
As regards the substance of the matter, we find that
constant agitation in connection with the election of stewards
would have a much greater educational and organis-
ing significance than agitation carried out once only—in
connection with refusal to elect. And your own reports
about patriarchal methods confirm this, pointing to the
172 V. I. L E N I N

need for a constant struggle against espionage laws and

methods of spying.
We fully concur with your desire for a more frequent
exchange of opinions so as to avoid differences of opinion
and contradictory statements in agitation. Write more
often, not only for the press, and see to it that addresses
(for letters to you) are effective regularly.
We shall try to write a leaflet on the connection be-
tween the economic and the political struggle, if only other
work does not interfere.
We are publishing the manifesto of Rabochaya Volya 209
in full, as you desired.

Lenin
Sent from Geneva
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original
 173

67
TO Y. O. MARTOV
To Comrade Martov from the Editors of the Central Organ
of the R.S.D.L.P.
Comrade,
The editorial board of the Central Organ Considers it
its duty officially to express its regret at your refusal to
participate in Iskra and Zarya (at present Zarya No. 5
is being prepared for the press). In spite of the numerous
invitations to co-operate which we made immediately after
the Second Party Congress, before Iskra No. 46, and which
we repeated several times after that, we have not received
a single literary item from you.
What is more, even the publication of the second edition
of your pamphlet The Red Flag has been held up for many
weeks owing to non-delivery of the end of the manuscript.
The editorial board of the Central Organ states that it
considers that your refusal to co-operate has not been caused
by any action on its part.
No element of personal irritation, of course, should be
allowed to hinder work in the Central Organ of the Party.
If, however, your withdrawal is due to any divergence
between your views and ours, we would consider a detailed
exposition of such differences extremely useful in the interests
of the Party. Moreover, we would consider it highly desir-
able that the nature and extent of these differences should
be made clear to the whole Party as soon as possible through
the pages of the publications edited by us.
Finally, for the sake of the cause, we once again bring
to your notice that at the present time we are ready to
co-opt you as a member of the editorial board of the Central
174 V. I. L E N I N

Organ so as to give you every opportunity to officially

state and defend all your views in the highest Party insti-
tution.

Geneva, October 6, 1903 210

Lenin. Plekhanov
Sent to Geneva
First published in full Printed from a copy written
in 1 9 2 7 out by N. K. Krupskaya
 175

68
TO G. D. LEITEISEN
October 10, 1903
Dear Leiteisen,
I received your letter and, in accordance with your re-
quest, I am replying at once. Whether there will be a con-
gress and when, I do not know. I have heard that a major-
ity of the three members of the League’s board of manage-
ment here pronounced against a congress and that it
was decided to invite the opinion of the two absent members:
you and Vecheslov; thus a settlement of the question has
been postponed.
As far as I am concerned, I am personally against a con-
gress. You think that the League ought to express itself
and that a split in it is inevitable in any case; that two
active militant sections would be better than a united
inactive League. The point is, however, that a split in the
League is not only inevitable, but is already an almost
accomplished fact; two active militant sections have already
been formed and until a split in the Party occurs these
militant sections will inevitably remain in the united League.
On the other hand, the Party Congress has completely
upset the whole organisational basis of the League: its
old Rules, which are well known to you, will, of course,
in effect cease to exist after the Party Congress. The League
must be renovated and it will, of course, be rebuilt on new
lines by the Central Committee of the Party, which is
charged with organising the Party committees and, in gen-
eral, all Party institutions.
Consequently, one may say, it is left for the congress
to come together in order to part company. To part company
176 V. I. L E N I N

in two senses: in the sense of the mutual recrimination

between us and the Martovites, and in the sense of the
liquidation of the old League. Is it worth while coming
together for this purpose? You will not cure the “split”
(or, rather, the sulky withdrawal) in this way, but only
still further embitter the two sides. What is the use of
that? What is the use of a pageant of speeches when it is
already almost certain that about thirty-five of the total
forty members of the League have already taken up their
positions?
Is the idea—to stage a “dress rehearsal”? i.e., to see ap-
proximately how we shall fight if it comes to a split in the
Party? I cannot deny this significance of a congress, but
such a game is not worth the candle.
The alignment of the remaining five (or about five) mem-
bers of the League can be ascertained in a much easier way.
The League’s work abroad will in any case proceed on
new lines worked out by the Party’s Central Committee. A
League Congress now will generate more heat than light,
i.e., it will contribute nothing to the work abroad.
I was very glad to learn that you are coming here and
that we shall meet. Let me know in good time because
I am still intending to go away on holiday for three or
four days. I am swamped with work.

All the very best.

Yours,
Lenin
Sent from Geneva to Beaumont
(France)
First published in part in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original
Published in full in 1 9 2 9
 177

69
TO G. M. KRZHIZHANOVSKY
To Claire
Dear friend,
I was very pleased to receive your latest news about
the plan to take the skin off * Deer—it is high time! On
the other hand, it is evident from letters that Deer and
Vadim do not have a correct idea of the situation, and that
there is no mutual understanding between us. This is very
regrettable (even if Vadim’s last letter giving advice in
the form of an ultimatum is not to be taken seriously—
Stake himself will reply to this, for, I repeat, I find it dif-
ficult to take such a thing seriously). Co-optation of De-
mon, Falcon, etc., is an erroneous step, in my opinion,
for these people lack experience and self-dependence. The
division of functions, too, is very dangerous, for it threat-
ens to produce fragmentation. Meanwhile the committees
continue to be neglected: in Kiev people are behaving fool-
ishly and, strange to relate, neither Andreyevsky, nor Dya-
din, nor Lebedev, have gone into the committees to fight.
Kharkov, Ekaterinoslav, Don, and Gornozavodsky, too,
are in the hands of the mutineers. ** Positions must be
occupied everywhere by our people at all costs. We must
get at least one of our people, one who is wholly ours, on
every committee without fail. The Caucasus is beginning
to be stirred up 211 —there, too, they need our people’s
help. More important than a division of functions is for
seats in each committee to be occupied by our agents, and
then for all efforts to be devoted to transport and delivery.

* Meaning to place him in an illegal position.—Ed.

** Meaning the Mensheviks.—Ed.
178 V. I. L E N I N

When all is said and done, the most important thing,

and our whole strength, lies in transport. We should not
be content with one route alone, but have two or three,
so as to put a stop to the continual interruptions.
It is extremely important to issue the announcement 212
as soon as possible, to issue it in Russia and distribute
it everywhere. For heaven’s sake, hurry up with this and
write to us about it quickly and precisely. Brutus should
be formally elected to the Council and his vote formally
transferred to Stake. This is a matter that brooks no delay.
In my view, it is extremely important that Deer should
be sent here if only for a couple of weeks, or even a week.
This would be very, very useful, giving a view of every-
thing à vol d’oiseau, enabling him to see the source of ferment
and to achieve full mutual understanding. Surely, no one
can grudge a mere 200 rubles and two or three weeks for
the sake of this! Surely a legal foreign passport could be
found for Deer! Think this over carefully. I strongly recom-
mend this step, which is especially convenient in connec-
tion with Deer’s plans. Truly, without having reached
full agreement it is difficult to keep in step. And Deer’s
talk of “moral influence on the Old Man” shows (please
don’t take offence!) the utmost lack of mutual under-
standing. Why doesn’t Deer write anything about this?
The plan of co-opting Martov is simply ridiculous; it
shows such a lack of understanding that there are cer-
tain to be instances when you will get into a mess, and
with a scandal at that. No really, I can’t even speak
seriously about your co-opting Martov; if you have been
thinking of it seriously, then we speak different tongues!
We have all (including Stake) laughed until we cried over
this “plan”!!
Lenin
Written October 2 0 , 1 9 0 3
Sent from Geneva to Kiev
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original
 179

70
TO THE CAUCASIAN UNION COMMITTEE
OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
To the Caucasus
Dear comrades,
We have had news of your affairs both from Ruben in
person and from Rashid-Bek by letter. We can only wel-
come your decision to remove Isari 213 temporarily, until
the matter is examined by the Central Committee. The sum
total of information concerning his behaviour at the Con-
gress certainly points against him. The Congress showed
his utter instability; after some waverings, Isari, never-
theless, at the decisive moment voted with the Majority and
helped to secure adoption of the present composition of
the editorial board of the Central Organ and of the Central
Committee. But afterwards Isari suddenly went over to the
other side, and is now fighting against the decisions of the
Majority by methods that are hardly loyal! It’s simply
disgusting! Such a leader is not worthy of political trust.
In any case, he should be treated with caution, to say the
least, and should not be given any responsible posts—such
is our deep conviction, both mine (Lenin’s) and Plekha-
nov’s.
Let the Caucasian comrades hold firmly to the course
they have adopted. Let them turn a deaf ear to the slander
against the Majority. The full minutes of the Congress will
soon see the light of day and then things will be clear to
all. Let them carry on their good teamwork with comradely
faith in the Central Committee, and we are sure that the
present “dissension” in the Party will be rapidly dispelled.
We are giving much thought now to the idea of organis-
ing here the publication of Georgian and Armenian litera-
180 V. I. L E N I N

ture. Competent comrades have taken this in hand, and

we hope to raise the money. We need both literary and
financial help.
We send greetings to the Caucasian comrades and ardent
wishes for success in their work.
Lenin. Plekhanov
Written October 2 0 , 1 9 0 3
Sent from Geneva
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original
 181

71
TO THE DON COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
Comrades,
We have received your letter with the resolution. 214
We earnestly request you to write to us on the following:
1) Have you heard reports from both the Minority and
the Majority (one of your delegates, as you probably know,
was on the side of the Majority), or only from the Minority?
2) What do you mean by the word “departure”? Departure
—where to? Do you mean by this that someone has been
removed from work, or has removed himself, for some
reason or other, and for what reasons precisely? 3) What is it
you call “abnormal conditions at elections”? 4) Who exact-
ly, in your opinion, should be co-opted on to the Central
Committee? and 5) who exactly on to the editorial board
of the Central Organ?
Written in October 1 9 0 3
Sent from Geneva
First published in 1 9 0 4 in the book: Printed from the text of the book
L. Martov, The Struggle Against the
“State of Siege” Within the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party,
Geneva
182

72
TO THE MINING AND METALLURGICAL
WORKERS’ UNION
Comrades,
We have received your resolution 215 and ask you to
reply to the following questions. Please discuss them at
a general meeting of all the members of the Committee
(or send them to all the members, if they are not together)
as an enquiry from the editorial board of the Party’s Central
Organ.
1) Has the Committee heard a report from the represen-
tative of the Majority at the Party Congress?
2) Does the Committee consider it normal to pass a re-
solution appraising the activities and decisions of the Con-
gress before the minutes have been issued, and even before the
Committee has enquired of the Central Committee or mem-
bers of the Majority about matters which are not clear to it?
3) How could these disagreements on organisational ques-
tions destroy everything previously done by Iskra and the
Organising Committee? How did the destruction manifest
itself? What exactly was destroyed? We are not at all clear
on this, and if you want to safeguard the Central Organ
from any kind of error, it is your duty to explain to us
what you regard as our error. Set the matter out in full
detail and we shall carefully discuss your opinion.
4) What exactly are the “sharp disagreements on organi-
sational questions”? We do not know. (We asked Martov
and the former members of Iskra’s editorial board to ex-
pound these disagreements in the pages of the publications
edited by us, but so far our request has not been complied
with. *

* See pp. 173-74 of this volume.—Ed.

 TO THE MINING AND METALLURGICAL WORKERS’ UNION 183

5) In what do you see the atmosphere of political intrigue

and distrust? On the part of whom? Be more explicit. (If
we distrusted Martov we would not have invited him to
work in Iskra.)
6) If there really are “sharp disagreements on organisa-
tional questions” between us and the former editors, how
can the two of us co-opt the four of them? That surely would
mean making their tendency the dominant one? But the
Congress pronounced in our favour, didn’t it? What you
want, therefore, is that the decision of the Congress should
be revised on the basis of a private agreement.
7) Do you consider it normal that by threats of a split,
boycott, etc., people should want to make Party officials
(editors of the Central Organ, and the Central Committee)
do something that these central bodies do not consider
useful in the interests of the Party?
8) Do you consider it normal and permissible that Party
members who have been left in a minority should abstain
from work in the Central Organ, from supporting the Cen-
tral Committee and obeying it, from helping the Party
financially, and so forth?
Written in October 1 9 0 3
Sent from Geneva
First published in 1 9 0 4 in the book: Printed from the text of the book
L. Martov, The Struggle Against the
“State of Siege” Within the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party,
Geneva
184

73
TO G. V. PLEKHANOV
November 1, 1903
Dear Georgi Valentinovich,
I am quite unable to calm down on account of the ques-
tions that are worrying us. This delay, this postponement
of a decision, is simply dreadful, a torture....
No, really, I can quite understand your motives and
considerations in favour of a concession to the Martovites.
But I am deeply convinced that a concession at the present
time is the most desperate step, leading to a storm and a
shindy far more certainly than would war against the Mar-
tovites. This is no paradox. I not only did not persuade
Kurtz to leave but, on the contrary, tried to persuade him
to stay, but he (and Ru) flatly refuses now to work with
the Martovite editorial board. What’s going to happen?
In Russia, dozens of delegates have been travelling all
over; even from Nizhni-Novgorod they write that much
has been done by the C.C., transport has been arranged,
agents have been appointed, the announcement is being
published, Sokolovsky in the west, Berg in the centre, and
Zemlyachka and lots of others, have all settled down to
work. And now comes the refusal of Kurtz. It means a long
break (in the session and meeting of the whole C.C., now,
it seems, already considerably enlarged). Afterwards, either
a struggle of the C.C. against the Martovite editorial board
or the resignation of the whole C.C. Then you & two Marto-
vites in the Council must co-opt a new C.C., and this without
election by the Congress, with total disapproval on the
part of the great bulk in Russia, and bewilderment, dis-
content and refusal on the part of these agents who have
already gone out. Why, this will utterly discredit the Con-
 TO G. V. PLEKHANOV 185

gress and sow complete discord and cause a scandal in

Russia a hundred thousand times more terrible and dan-
gerous than a scurrilous foreign pamphlet.
We are fed up with discord! That is what they write
and scream about in letters from Russia. And to give way
to the Martovites now would mean legitimising discord
in Russia, for in Russia there has not yet been even a trace
of disobedience and revolt. No statements of yours or mine
will now restrain the delegates of the Majority at the Party
Congress. These delegates will create a frightful rumpus.
For the sake of unity, for the sake of the stability of
the Party—do not take this responsibility upon yourself,
do not withdraw and do not give everything away to the
Martovites.
Yours,
N. Lenin
Written in Geneva (local mail)
First published in 1 9 2 6 Printed from the original
186

74
TO G. M. KRZHIZHANOVSKY
Dear friend,
You cannot imagine what is going on here—it’s simply
disgusting—and I beg you to do everything possible and
impossible to come here together with Boris, after obtaining
the votes of the others. You know that I am now fairly
experienced in Party matters, and I categorically declare
that any postponement, the slightest delay or vacillation,
will spell ruin to the Party. You will probably be told about
everything in detail. The gist of it is that Plekhanov has
suddenly changed front, after the rows at the League Con-
gress, 216 and has thereby cruelly and shamefully let down
me, Kurtz and all of us. Now he has gone, without us, to
haggle with the Martovites who, seeing that he was fright-
ened of a split, double and quadruple their demands. They
demand not only the Six, but also the entry of their people
into the C.C. (they do not say as yet how many and whom)
and of two of them into the Council, and a disavowal of
the activities of the C.C. in the League (activities carried
out with the full agreement of Plekhanov). Plekhanov was
pitifully scared of a split and a struggle! The situation is
desperate, our enemies are rejoicing and have grown in-
solent, all our people are furious. Plekhanov is threatening
to throw the whole thing up immediately and is capable
of doing so. I repeat, your coming is essential at all costs.
Written November 4 , 1 9 0 3
Sent from Geneva to Kiev
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original
 187

75
TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
Their conditions are: 1) co-optation of four on to the
editorial board; 2) co-optation? on to the C.C.; 3) recog-
nition of the lawfulness of the League; 4) two votes in the
Council. I would propose that the C.C. put the following
conditions to them: 1) co-optation of three on to the editor-
ial board; 2) status quo ante bellum in the League; 3) one
vote in the Council. Next I would propose endorsing at
once (but for the time being without communicating it to
the contending side) the following ultimatum: 1) co-opta-
tion of four on to the editorial board; 2) co-optation of
two on to the C.C. at the discretion of the C.C.; 3) status
quo ante bellum in the League; 4) one vote in the Council.
If the ultimatum is not accepted—war to the bitter end.
An additional condition: 5) cessation of all gossip, wrangl-
ing and talk concerning the strife at the Second Party Con-
gress and after it.
For my part, I may add that I am resigning from the
editorial board and can remain only in the Central Commit-
tee. I shall go the whole hog and publish a booklet about the
struggle of the hysterical scandalmongers or discarded min-
isters. *
Written November 4 , 1 9 0 3
Sent from Geneva to Russia
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original

* Lenin’s One Step Forward, Two Steps Back was published in

May 1904 (see present edition, Vol. 7).—Ed.
188

76
TO V. A. NOSKOV AND G. M. KRZHIZHANOVSKY
November 5
1) Yesterday Lalayants set out to visit you.
2) I already wrote yesterday about the row here and
that Plekhanov has taken fright and entered into negotia-
tions with them. * They put forward the conditions: 1) res-
toration of the old editorial board, 2) co-optation of several
persons on to the Central Committee, 3) two votes in the
Council, 4) recognition of the League Congress as lawful.
In other words, they agree to peace only on condition of
complete surrender of the position, disavowal of Wolf and
rendering the present Central Committee “harmless”. My
personal opinion is that any concessions on the part of the
C.C. would be degrading and would completely discredit
the present Central Committee. It is necessary that Deer
and Nil come here as soon as possible, everything is at
stake—and if the C.C. is not prepared for a determined
struggle, a fight to the bitter end, it would be best to give
up everything to them at once. To permit such demorali-
sation, to enter into such deals, means to ruin everything.
I repeat, that is my personal opinion. In any case, come
here at once so that we may jointly decide what to do.
Written November 5, 1 9 0 3
Sent from Geneva to Kiev
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from a copy written out
by N. K. Krupskaya

* See p. 186 of this volume.—Ed.

 189

77
TO G. V. PLEKHANOV
November 6, 1903
Georgi Valentinovich,
I have given much thought to your statement of yester-
day that you will reserve for yourself “full freedom of ac-
tion” if I do not agree to advise Konyagin to resign from
the Party Council. I am quite unable to agree to this. Nor
do I consider it possible to remain any longer in the unof-
ficial position of de facto editor in spite of my resignation,
since you say that full freedom of action as understood by
you does not exclude your handing over the editorial board
to the Martovites. I am compelled, therefore, to hand over
to you all the official contacts of the editorial board of
the Central Organ and all documents, which I am sending
you under special cover. If any explanations are required
in regard to the documents, I shall, of course, willingly
give them. Some of the material has been given to con-
tributors (Lebedev, Schwarz, Ruben), who will have to
be told of everything being transferred to you.

N. Lenin

P. S. Please do not interpret the turnover of the editorial

board in the sense of the notorious boycott. That would
contradict what I said plainly in my statement to you
of November 1 of this year. 217 I shall now, of course, bring
my resignation from the editorial board to the knowledge
of the comrades.
P. P. S. I am sending (tomorrow morning by messenger)
three packets—aa, bb, cc—according to the importance
of the material.
190 V. I. L E N I N

Issue No. 52 was to have been put out on November 16

with the announcement of the Central Committee. 218 For
this the printing should begin on Monday; it will be all
right even beginning it on Tuesday.
Written in Geneva (local mail)
First published in 1 9 2 6 Printed from the original
 191

78
TO G. M. KRZHIZHANOVSKY
November 8, 1903. To Smith
Dear friend,
Once more I earnestly beg you to come here, you in par-
ticular, and another one or two persons from the Central
Committee. This is absolutely and immediately necessary.
Plekhanov has betrayed us, there is terrible bitterness in
our camp; all are indignant that, because of the rows in
the League, Plekhanov has allowed the decisions of the
Party Congress to be revised. I have definitely resigned
from the editorial board. Iskra may come to a stop. The
crisis is complete and terrible. Bear in mind that I am not
fighting now for the editorial board of the Central Organ,
I am quite reconciled to Plekhanov setting up a five-man
board without me. But I am fighting for the C.C. which
the Martovites, who have grown insolent after Plekhanov’s
cowardly betrayal, also want to seize; they are demanding
the co-optation on to it of their own people without even
saying how many! The fight for the editorial board of the
Central Organ has been irretrievably lost owing to Ple-
khanov’s treachery. The sole chance of peace lies in trying
to give them the editorial board of the C.O. while holding
on to the C.C. ourselves.
This is not at all easy (even this may be too late already),
but we must try. We need Smith here, and best of all two
more Russians from the C.C., the most imposing (no ladies)
(e.g., Boris and Doctor). Plekhanov threatens to resign
if the C.C. does not yield. For heaven’s sake, don’t believe
in his threats; we must use more pressure on him, scare
him. Russia must stand up firmly for the C.C. and content
itself with handing over the editorial board of the C.O.
192 V. I. L E N I N

New people from the C.C. are needed here, otherwise there
is absolutely no one to conduct negotiations with the Mar-
tovites. Smith is triply needed. I repeat the Martovites’
“conditions”: 1) negotiations on behalf of the editorial
board of the C.O., and the C.C., 2) six on the editorial
board of the C.O., 3) ? on the C.C. Cessation of co-optation
on to the C.C., 4) two seats in the Council, 5) disavowal
of the C.C. as regards the League, recognition of the lat-
ter’s Congress as lawful. These are indeed peace terms put
by victors to the vanquished!
Sent from Geneva to Kiev
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original
 193

79
TO M. N. LYADOV 219
November 10, 1903 *
Dear Lidin,
I should like to give you our “political news”.
To begin with, here is a chronology of recent events.
Wednesday (October 27 or 28?) was the third day of the
League Congress. Martov yelled hysterically about “the
blood of the old editorial board” (Plekhanov’s expression)
being upon us, and that on the part of Lenin there was
something in the nature of intrigue at the Congress, etc.
I calmly challenged him in writing (by a statement to the
bureau of the Congress ** ) to make his accusations against
me openly before the whole Party; I would undertake to
publish everything. Otherwise, I said, it was mere Skan-
dalsucht. *** Martov, of course, “nobly withdrew”, demand-
ing (as he still does) a court of arbitration; I continued to
demand that he should have the courage to make his accu-
sations openly, otherwise I would ignore it all as pitiful
tittle-tattle.
Plekhanov refused to speak in view of Martov’s discredit-
able behaviour. Some dozen of our people submitted a state-
ment to the Congress bureau, branding Martov’s “discre-
ditable behaviour” in reducing the dispute to the level of
squabbling, suspicions, etc. I would remark in parenthesis
that my two hours’ speech about “Comrade Martov’s histor-

* The letter bears Lenin’s note: “unmailed”.—Ed.

** “Statement Concerning Martov’s Report” (see present edition,
Vol. 7).—Ed.
*** Mania for provoking a row.—Ed.
194 V. I. L E N I N

ical turn” * at the Party Congress towards Versumpfung **

did not evoke even from the Martovites a single protest
about the issue being reduced to the level of squabbling.
Friday. We decided to introduce eleven new members
into the League. In the evening at a private meeting with
these “grenadiers” (as we jokingly called them), Plekhanov
rehearsed all the steps by which we should utterly rout
the Martovites. A stage scene. Thunderous applause.
Saturday. The C.C. read its statement about not endors-
ing the League’s Rules and about the meeting being un-
lawful (a statement previously discussed with Plekhanov
in all details, word by word). All our people walked out
amid the Martovites’ cries of “gendarmes” and so forth.
Saturday evening. Plekhanov “surrendered”. He did not
want a split. He demanded the opening of peace negotia-
tions.
Sunday (November 1). I tendered my resignation in
writing to Plekhanov (not wishing to be a party to such
depravity as the revision of the Party Congress under the
influence of a row abroad; to say nothing of the fact that
from the purely strategical aspect a more stupid moment
for concessions could not have been chosen).***
November 3. Old Believer gave Plekhanov, who began
the negotiations, a written statement of the conditions
of peace with the opposition: 1) Negotiations to be con-
ducted by the editorial board of the C.O. and by the C.C.
2) Restoration of the old editorial board of Iskra. 3) Co-
optation on to the C.C., the number to be decided during
the negotiations. Cessation of co-optation on to the C.C. from
the moment negotiations begin. 4) Two seats (sic!) on the
Party Council and 5) recognition of the lawfulness of the
League Congress.
Plekhanov was not put out. He demanded that the C.C.
give way (!). The C.C. refused and wrote to Russia. Ple-
khanov declared that he would resign if the C.C. did not
give way. I turned over to Plekhanov (November 6) all
editorial matters, convinced that Plekhanov was capable
* “Report on the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.” (see
present edition, Vol. 7, pp. 73-83).—Ed.
** Sinking into the Marsh.—Ed.
*** See present edition, Vol. 7, p. 91.—Ed.
 TO M. N. LYADOV 195

of surrendering to the Martovites not merely the newspaper

but the entire C.C. for nothing. *
The state of affairs: Iskra would hardly come out on
time. The Martovites were rejoicing over their “victory”.
All our people (except the two Axelrod maids, 220 who
are faithful to Plekhanov even in his Treulosigkeit ** ) dis-
sociated themselves from Plekhanov and at a meeting (No-
vember 6 or 7) told him some home truths (on the subject
of the “second Isari”).
A pretty picture, is it not? I shall not join the editorial
board, but I shall write. Our people want to defend the
C.C., insofar as that is possible, and to continue an inten-
sified agitation against the Martovites—the right plan, in
my opinion.
Let Plekhanov leave us; the Party Council will then
turn over Iskra to a committee and convene an Extraordi-
nary Party Congress. Do you mean to say the League Abroad
will be allowed by a majority of three or four votes to revise
the Party Congress? Do you mean to say it is proper, after
carrying the fight to the lengths of the greatest publicity
and almost a rupture, to sound the retreat and accept peace
terms dictated by the Martovites?
I should like to know your opinion.
I think that to act à la Plekhanov means subverting
the Party Congress and betraying its majority. I think
that we must agitate with all our strength here and in Rus-
sia for subordination to the Party Congress and not to the
League Congress.
A boycott of Iskra (even a Martovite Iskra) is, of course,
stupid. Moreover it would be a boycott not of a Martovite
but, possibly, of a Plekhanovite Iskra, for Zasulich and
Axelrod will soon give Plekhanov three votes in the Five.
And that’s called an editorial board! As an illustration
to your witty remark about the saintly relics of Sarovsky,
I will quote the following statistical item: in the 45 issues
of Iskra under six editors, there were 39 articles and feuil-
letons written by Martov, 32 by me, 24 by Plekhanov, 8 by
Old Believer, 6 by Zasulich, and 4 by P. B. Axelrod. This

* See pp. 189-90 of this volume.—Ed.

** Treachery.—Ed.
196 V. I. L E N I N

in the course of three years! Not a single issue was made

up (in the sense of technical editorial work) by anyone
other than Martov or myself. And now—as a reward for
the row, as a reward for Old Believer cutting off an impor-
tant source of finance—they are to be taken on to the edito-
rial board! They fought over “differences of principle”,
which, in Old Believer’s letter of November 3 to Plekhanov
were so expressively converted into figuring out how many
seats they needed. And we have to legitimise this fight
for seats, to make a deal with this party of discarded gener-
als or ministers (grève générale des généraux, * as Plekha-
nov said) or with the party of hysterical brawlers! What’s
the use of Party congresses if things are done by nepotism
abroad, by hysteria and brawling?
Further about the notorious “trio”, which the hysterical
Martov sees as the pivot of my “intriguing”. You prob-
ably remember from as far back as the time of the Congress
my programme for the Congress and my commentary on
this programme. I should very much like all Party mem-
bers to know this document, and so once again I quote it for
you precisely. “Item 23 (Tagesordnung ** ). Election of the
Central Committee and the editorial board of the Central
Organ of the Party.
My commentary: “The Congress shall elect three persons
to the editorial board of the Central Organ and three to
the Central Committee. These six persons in conjunction
shall, if necessary, co-opt by a two-thirds majority vote
additional members to the editorial board of the C.O. and
to the C.C., and report to this effect to the Congress. After
the report has been endorsed by the Congress, subsequent
co-optation shall be effected by the editorial board of the
C.O. and by the C.C. separately.”
Is it not clear that this means renewal of the editorial
board, a thing which cannot be done without the consent
of the C.C. (four out of six are necessary for co-optation),
while the question of enlarging the original trio or leaving
it as it was is left open (co-optation “if necessary”)? I showed
this draft to everyone (including Plekhanov, of course)

* A general strike of generals.—Ed.

** Agenda.—Ed.
 TO M. N. LYADOV 197

prior to the Congress. Of course, renewal was necessary

owing to dissatisfaction with the Six (and especially with
Plekhanov, who in fact had the votes of P. B. Axelrod,
who almost never took part, and of the pliable V. I. Za-
sulich), and, of course, in a private conversation with Mar-
tov, I sharply expressed this dissatisfaction, “scolded” all
three—Plekhanov (especially) and Axelrod and Zasulich—
for their caprices, and proposed even enlarging the Six
to Seven, etc. Is it not hysteria to give a twist now to these
private conversations and raise a howl that “the trio was
aimed against Plekhanov” and that I had laid a “trap”
for Martov, and so forth? Of course, when we agreed with
Martov, the trio would be against Plekhanov, and when
Plekhanov agreed with Martov (on the subject of demon-
strations, for example) then the trio would be against me,
and so on. The hysterical howling merely covers up a piti-
ful incapacity to understand that the editorial board must
have real, and not fictitious, editors, that it must be a
business-like and not a philistine collegium, and that each
of its members should have his own opinion on each question
(which was never the case with the unelected trio).
Martov approved my plan of two trios, but when it turned
out to be against him in one question, he went into a fit
of hysteria and began to howl about intrigue! It was not
for nothing that in the corridors of the League Congress
Plekhanov called him a “pitiful person”!
Yes . . . the dirty squabble abroad—that is what over-
ruled the decision of the majority of Russian Party work-
ers. Plekhanov’s betrayal, too, was partly due to fear of
a row abroad, and partly to a feeling (perhaps) that in the
Five he was sure to have three votes....
A fight for the C.C., for a new congress to be held soon
(in the summer)—that is what is left to us.

Get hold of my notebook. * It was sent by Poletayev

(Bauman) to Vecheslov alone and personally. Shergov could
have taken it only by trickery, only by a breach of trust.

* The reference is to the “Report on the Second Congress of the

R.S.D.L.P.” (see present edition, Vol. 7).—Ed.
198 V. I. L E N I N

Read it to anyone you like, but don’t let anyone have it,
and return it to me.
You must oust Vecheslov from all positions. Take a letter
for yourself from the C.C., tell the Parteivorstand * that
you are the agent of the C.C., and take all German con-
tacts wholly into your hands.
I owe you an apology about your pamphlet. I have only
managed to read it through once. It needs revising, but
I have not had time to map out the revision.

Yours,
Lenin
Written in Geneva
First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original

* The Executive Committee (of the German Social-Democratic

Party).—Ed.
 199

80
TO G. V. PLEKHANOV
November 18, 1903
Georgi Valentinovich,
I am sorry that I am a day late with my article * ; I was,
not well yesterday and in general the work is going ter-
ribly hard these last few days.
The article turned out longer than I thought and had
to be divided into two parts; in the second part I shall
make a detailed analysis of Novobrantsev and draw con-
clusions.
I consider that my article should have a signature and
so I am taking a pseudonym, otherwise, pending the an-
nouncement, it will probably be inconvenient for you.
Will you please also insert my statement ** appended
herewith in the issue of Iskra containing the announcement
about the Congress. Of course, in the event of complete
peace being established in the Party (which I am hoping
for) and if you were to and it necessary, I could, among
other peace terms, discuss also the non-publication of this
statement.
Yours sincerely,
N. Lenin
Written in Geneva (local mail)
First published in full in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original

* The reference is to “The Narodnik-like Bourgeois and Dis-

traught Narodism” (see present edition, Vol. 7).—Ed.
** “To the Editorial Board of the Central Organ of the R.S.D.L.P.”
(see present edition, Vol. 7).—Ed.
200

81
TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
Dear friends,
The new political situation was fully clarified after the
publication of Iskra No. 53. It is clear that the Five in the
Central Organ are out to hound both Lenin (even going so
far as slander about his having expelled the Yuzhny Rabochy
people from the Party and vile hints about Schweitzer 221 )
and the C.C., and the Majority as a whole. Plekhanov says
bluntly that the Five on the C.O. are not afraid of any
Central Committee. The C.C. is being attacked both here
and in Russia (letter from St. Petersburg about Martyn’s
journey). The issue squarely faces us. If time is lost and
we fail to give the watchword for the struggle, complete
defeat is inevitable owing, firstly, to the desperate strug-
gle of the Iskra Five and, secondly, to the arrests of our
people in Russia. The only salvation is—a congress. Its
watchword: the fight against disrupters. Only by this watch-
word can we catch out the Martovites, win over the broad
masses and save the situation. In my opinion, the only
possible plan is this: for the time being not a word about
the congress, complete secrecy. All, absolutely all, forces
to be sent into the committees and on tours. A fight to be
waged for peace, for putting a stop to disruption, for sub-
ordination to the Central Committee. Every effort to be
made to strengthen the committees with our people. Every
effort to be made to catch out the Martovites and Yuzhny-
Rabochy people in disruption, pin them down by documents
and resolutions against the disrupters; resolutions of the
committees should pour into the Central Organ. Further,
our people should be got into the wavering committees.
Winning over the committees with the watchword: against
 TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 201

disruption—this is the most important task. The congress

must be held not later than January, therefore set to work
energetically; we, too, shall put all forces into operation.
The object of the congress is to strengthen the C.C. and the
Council, and perhaps the C.O. as well, either by a trio (in
the event of our being able to tear Plekhanov away, which
is not very likely), or by a Six, which I would join in the
event of a peace that is honourable for us. At the worst:
their C.O., our C.C. and Council.
I repeat: either complete defeat (the C.O. will hound
us) or immediate preparation for a congress. It must be pre-
pared secretly at first during a maximum of one month,
after which during three weeks the demands of half the com-
mittees to be collected and the congress convened. Again and
yet again—this is the only salvation.
Written December 1 0 , 1 9 0 3
Sent from Geneva to Russia
First published in 1 9 2 9 Printed from the original
202

82
TO THE I S K R A EDITORIAL BOARD 222
To the Editorial Board of the Central Organ
December 12, 1903
I, as representative of the C.C., received today from
Comrade Martov an inquiry as to whether a report on the
negotiations of the C.C. with the Geneva opposition could
be published or not. 223 I believe it could, and I earnestly
request the comrades on the editorial board of the C.O.
to consider once again the question of peace and good will
in the Party.
It is not too late yet to secure such a peace, it is not too
late yet to keep from our people and our enemies the details
of the split and the speeches about dishonourable conduct
and falsified lists, speeches which will probably be utilised
even by Moskovskiye Vedomosti. 224 I can guarantee that
the Majority will readily agree to consign all this dirt to
oblivion, provided peace and good will in the Party are
secured.
Everything now depends on the editorial board of the
C.O., which includes representatives of the former oppo-
sition that rejected the C.C.’s peace proposal of November
25, 1903. 225 I ask you, comrades, to take into consideration
that since then the C.C. has already made two further
voluntary concessions, by advising Comrade Ru to hand
in his resignation and by trying to settle the League affair
“amicably”.
Meanwhile the boycott of the C.C., the agitation against
it and the disruption of practical work in Russia continue.
People write to us from Russia that the opposition are
making a “hell” there. We have the most definite infor-
mation that the agents of the Minority are systematically
 TO THE ISKRA EDITORIAL BOARD 203

continuing their disruptive work, making a round of the

committees. People in St. Petersburg write about Martyn’s
visit there with the same aim. Things have reached a point
when the opposition are making their own transport arrange-
ments and, through Dan, are offering the C.C. to share
them on a fifty-fifty basis!
I consider it my duty to the Party to ask the editorial
board of the C.O. for the last time that it persuade the
opposition to subscribe to peace and good will on the basis
of a sincere recognition of the two central bodies by both
sides and cessation of the intestine war which renders any
joint work impossible.
Written in Geneva (local mail)
First published in 1 9 2 9 Printed from the original
204

83
TO G. M. KRZHIZHANOVSKY
Dear friend,
It is essential that we clear up in all details a question
on which we apparently differ, and I beg you to forward
this letter of mine for discussion by all members of the
C.C. (or its Executive Committee 226 ). The difference is
this: 1) you think that peace with the Martovites is pos-
sible (Boris even congratulates us on peace! It is both comic
and tragic!); 2) you think that an immediate congress is
an acknowledgement of our impotence. I am convinced
that on both points you are cruelly mistaken. 1) The Mar-
tovites are heading for war. At the meeting in Geneva,
Martov bluntly shouted: “We are a force.” They vilify us
in their newspaper and basely sidetrack the issue, covering
up their trickery by yelling about bureaucracy on your
part. On every hand Martov continues to clamour about
the C.C. being absolutely ineffective. In short, it is naïve
and quite impermissible to doubt that the Martovites are
out to seize the C.C. as well by the same methods of trick-
ery, boycott and brawling. A fight with them on this level
is beyond our strength, for the C.O. is a powerful weapon
and our defeat is inevitable, especially in view of the ar-
rests. By letting the time slip by you are heading for the
certain and complete defeat of the entire Majority, you
are silently swallowing the insults which the C.C. is suffer-
ing abroad (at the hands of the League) and asking for more.
2) A congress will demonstrate our strength, will prove
that not merely in words but in fact we shall not permit
a clique of brawlers abroad to boss the whole movement.
It is now that a congress is needed, when the watchword
is: the fight against disruption. Only this watchword jus-
 TO G. M. KRZHIZHANOVSKY 205

tifies a congress, and justifies it completely in the eyes of

Russia as a whole. By losing this opportunity, you lose this
watchword and prove your impotent, passive subordination
to the Martovites. To dream of strengthening our positions
by positive work in face of the attacks on the part of the
C.O. and the Martovites’ boycott and agitation is simply
ludicrous. It means slowly perishing in an inglorious strug-
gle against the intriguers, who will say afterwards (and
are already saying): see how ineffective this Central Com-
mittee is! I repeat, don’t harbour any illusions. Either
you dictate peace to the Martovites at a congress, or they
will kick you out ingloriously or replace you at the first
setback caused by arrests. The congress now has an aim,
namely: to put an end to the intolerable disruption, to
sweep away the League, which flaunts every and any C.C.,
to take the Council firmly into its hands and put the Central
Organ in order. How to put it in order? At worst by leaving
even the Five (or by restoring the Six); but this worst event
is improbable if we get a big majority. Then we shall either
rout the Martovites completely (Plekhanov is beginning
to talk of a new Vademecum, seeing that there is no peace,
and is threatening to attack both contending sides. That’s
just what we want!), or we shall say frankly that we have
no guiding C.O. and we shall convert it into an organ for
discussion, with freedom for signed articles of the Majority
and the Minority (or even better: relegate the polemic with
the Martovites to pamphlets, and in Iskra fight only against
the government and the enemies of Social-Democracy).
And so, abandon the naïve hope of working peacefully
in such an impossible atmosphere. Send all the main forces
out on tours, let Deer travel, secure immediately the ab-
solute support of your own committees, then launch an
attack on those of the others, and—a congress, a congress.
not later than January!
P.S. If Martov asks Deer concerning publication 227 —
let Deer without fail transfer his vote to Stake; without
fail, otherwise there will be an arch-scandal! When Martov
and Dan speak to Stake at rendezvous they treat him with
intolerable insolence!
P.P.S. Today, 18th, another dirty trick of the Marto-
vites: their refusal to publish in No. 54 my letter on why
206 V. I. L E N I N

I resigned from the editorial board, * on the pretext that

Hans was against publication of documents (they have
become inveterate liars! Hans was against it provided there
was peace!). The refusal is accompanied by a heap of dis-
gusting statements, such as that the C.C. has been trying
to lay hands on the C.O., that negotiations have gone on
for restoring confidence in the C.C., and so on. The tactic
is clear: hypocritically to disguise the opposition of the
Dans, Martyns, etc., to the C.C. and on the sly to {ling
mud at the C.C. in the newspaper. On no account shall
I leave the vile No. 53 unanswered. Wire immediately:
1) do you agree to the publication of my letter outside Iskra?
203 shares; 2) do you agree to devote all efforts immediately
to the congress? 204 shares. If the answer to both questions
is “yes”, then wire: 407 shares. If it is “no” to both, then
45 shares.
The day after tomorrow I shall send you my letter of
resignation from the editorial board. If you do not agree
to an immediate congress and intend to suffer Martov’s
insults without saying anything, then I shall probably
have to resign from the Central Committee as well.
Written December 1 8, 1 9 0 3
Sent from Geneva to Kiev
First published in 1 9 2 9 Printed from the original

* See present edition, Vol. 7.—Ed.

 207

84
TO N. Y. VILONOV 228
Dear comrade,
I was very glad to have your letter because here abroad
we have too little opportunity of hearing the frank and
independent voices of those engaged in local activities.
For a Social-Democratic writer living abroad it is extreme-
ly important to have a frequent exchange of opinions with
advanced workers who are active in Russia, and your ac-
count of the impact our dissensions have upon the com-
mittees interested me very much. I shall, perhaps, even
publish your letter if the occasion offers. 229
It is impossible to answer your questions in a single
letter, since a detailed account of the Majority and the
Minority would take up a whole book. I have now published
in leaflet form my “Letter to the Editors of Iskra (Why
I Resigned From the Iskra Editorial Board),” * where I
give a brief account of the reasons why we parted company
and try to show how the matter is misrepresented in Iskra
No. 53 (beginning with No. 53, the editorial board consists
of four representatives of the Minority in addition to Ple-
khanov). I hope that this letter (a small printed sheet of
eight pages) will soon be in your hands, because it has
already been taken to Russia and it will probably not be
difficult to distribute it.
I repeat: in this letter the matter is set out very briefly.
It cannot at present be set out in greater detail until the
minutes of the Party Congress and of the League Congress
have been issued (it is announced in Iskra No. 53 that the
minutes of both these congresses will be published in full

* See present edition, Vol. 7.—Ed.

208 V. I. L E N I N

very soon. I have information that the minutes of the Party

Congress will be issued as a book of over three hundred
pages; nearly 300 pages are now ready and the book will
probably come out in a week or two at the latest). Most
probably a pamphlet * will have to be written when these
two sets of minutes are published.
My personal view of the matter is that the split is pri-
marily and mainly due to dissatisfaction with the com-
position of the central bodies (the Central Organ and the
Central Committee). The Minority wanted to keep the old
six-man board of the C.O., but the Congress selected three
of the six, apparently finding them better suited for polit-
ical leadership. The Minority was similarly defeated over
the composition of the Central Committee, that is to say,
the Congress did not elect those whom the Minority wanted.
In consequence of this the dissatisfied Minority began
exaggerating minor differences of opinion, boycotting the
central bodies, mustering its supporters and even preparing
to split the Party (very persistent and, probably, trust-
worthy rumours are current here that they have already
decided to found, and have begun to set up, their own
newspaper to be called Kramola. ** No wonder the feuille-
ton in Iskra No. 53 has been set up in a type which does
not exist at all in the Party print-shop!).
Plekhanov decided to co-opt them on to the editorial
board to avoid a split, and wrote the article “What Should
Not Be Done” in Iskra No. 52. After No. 51, I resigned from
the editorial board, for I considered this modification of
the congress under the influence of the rows taking place
abroad to be incorrect. But personally, of course, I did
not want to prevent peace if peace were possible, and
therefore (since now I do not consider it possible for me to
work in the Six) I withdrew from the editorial board, with-
out, however, refusing to contribute.
The Minority (or opposition) wants to force its people
into the Central Committee too. For the sake of peace, the
C.C. agreed to take two of them, but the Minority is still
not satisfied and continues to spread vile rumours about
* Lenin has in view his pamphlet One Step Forward, Two Steps
Back which appeared in May 1904 (see present edition, Vol. 7).—E d .
** Meaning “ Sedition ” .—Ed.
 TO N. Y. VILONOV 209

the C.C. being ineffectual. In my opinion, that is the most

outrageous violation of discipline and Party duty. More-
over, it is sheer slander, for the C.C. was elected by the
Congress from persons for whom the majority of the Iskra
organisation had expressed support. And the Iskra organi-
sation, of course, knew better than anyone else who was
fitted for this important role. A Central Committee of
three persons 230 was elected at the Congress—all three
long-standing members of the Iskra organisation; two of
them were members of the Organising Committee; the
third had been invited to serve on the O.C. but did not do
so because he was personally unwilling, yet for a long
time he worked for the O.C. on general Party matters.
It follows that the most reliable and experienced persons
were elected to the C.C. and I consider it a shabby trick
to shout about their “ineffectiveness”, when it is the Minor-
ity itself that hinders the C.C. from working. All the charges
against the C.C. (about formalism, bureaucracy, and so
forth) are nothing but malicious inventions devoid of any
foundation.
It goes without saying that I fully share your opinion
as to the unseemliness of an outcry against centralism and
against the congress on the part of people who previously
spoke in a different tone and who are dissatisfied because
on one particular issue the congress did not do what they
wanted. Instead of admitting their mistake, these people
are now disrupting the Party! I believe, the comrades in
Russia should vigorously oppose all disruption and insist
that the congress decisions be implemented and prevent
the squabble about who should be on the C.O. and the C.C.
from hindering the work. The squabbles abroad among
the writers and all the other generals (whom you too harsh-
ly and bluntly call intriguers) will cease to be dangerous
to the Party only when the leaders of committees in Russia
become more independent and capable of firmly demanding
the fulfilment of what their delegates decide at the Party
congress.
Concerning the relations between the Central Organ and
the Central Committee, you are quite right that neither
the one nor the other should be given the upper hand once
for all. The congress itself, I think, should make a separate
210 V. I. L E N I N

decision on each occasion. At present, too, according to

the Rules, the Party Council stands above both the C.O.
and the C.C. And the Council has two members from the
C.O. and two from the C.C., the fifth member having been
elected by the congress. Hence the congress itself has decid-
ed who should be given the upper hand on this occasion.
Stories about us wanting the C.O. abroad to overrule the
C.C. in Russia are sheer gossip in which there is not a word
of truth. When Plekhanov and I were on the editorial
board we had even in the Council three Social-Democrats
from Russia and only two from abroad. Now, under the
Martovites, the reverse is the case! Now judge for yourself
what their talk is worth!
I send you warm greetings and earnestly request you to
let me know whether you received this letter, whether
you have read my letter to the editorial board and Nos. 52,
53 of Iskra, and how in general things are now in the Com-
mittee.

With comradely greetings,

Lenin
Written between December 1 7
and December 2 2 , 1 9 0 3
Sent from Geneva to Ekaterinoslav
First published in 1 9 2 9 Printed from the original
 211

85
TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
December 22, 1903
To the Central Committee from Lenin, member of the
C.C.
I have read the C.C.’s announcement circulated to the
committees, 231 and can only shrug my shoulders. A more
ridiculous misunderstanding I cannot imagine. Hans has
been cruelly punished by this for his credulity and impres-
sionability. Let him explain to me, in the name of all
that’s holy, where he gets the temerity to speak in such
an unctuous tone about peace when the opposition (Martov
included) has formally rejected peace in the reply to the
Central Committee’s ultimatum? Is it not childishness,
after this formal rejection of peace, to believe the chatter
of Martov who, firstly, does not remember today what he
said yesterday and, secondly, cannot answer for the whole
opposition? Is it not naïve to speak and write about peace
when the opposition is on the war-path again, is clamour-
ing at meetings in Geneva that it is a force, and is begin-
ning a mean persecution in Iskra No. 53? And to tell a down-
right lie to the committees!—for example, that the conflict
with the League is “completely at an end”? To keep silent
about the first Council (with Ru)?
Finally, this silly advice that I should go away from here!
I could understand if it has been given by members of the
family or relatives, but for such piffle to be written by the
Central Committee! Yes, it is now that the literary war
begins. No. 53 and my letter, published in leaflet form, *
will demonstrate that for you.

* The reference is to the letter “Why I Resigned From the Iskra

Editorial Board” (see present edition, Vol. 7).—Ed.
212 V. I. L E N I N

that for the moment I cannot think how you are to be

extricated from a ludicrous situation, unless it is by declar-
ing that the contents of Iskra No. 53, and especially the
article “Our Congress”, have destroyed all your faith in
the possibility of peace. Personally, I see no other way
out.
Reply to the committees (and to Martov himself) that
the disgracefully false article “Our Congress” has provoked
a polemic in the press, but that you (the C.C.) will try
to carry out positive work. Plekhanov was against the article
“Our Congress” and against Martov delivering a public
lecture.
Sent from Geneva to Russia
First published in 1 9 2 9 Printed from the original
 213

86
TO THE EDITORS OF I S K R A 232
To the Editorial Board of the Central Organ
Comrades,
In connection with the resolution adopted on Decem-
ber 22 by the editorial board of the Central Organ, the
representative of the C.C. abroad considers it necessary
to point out to the editors the extreme unseemliness of
this resolution, which can only be put down to excessive
irritation. 233
If Lenin, acting not as a C.C. member but as a former
editor, expounded something which you thought incorrect,
you can thresh this out in the press.
Comrade Hans did not conclude on behalf of the C.C.
any agreement about non-publication of the negotiations
and he could not do so without our knowledge. The edito-
rial board cannot fail to be aware of this. Probably Comrade
Hans made a suggestion about non-publication of the
negotiations in the event of a formal peace being concluded.
Not evasively, but quite categorically, the C.C. repre-
sentative abroad twice informed the editorial board of the
C.O. that he permitted Lenin’s letter to be published. *
If the editorial board had not been moved by a spirit
of excessive irritation, it would easily have seen how ex-
tremely out of place were its remarks about the number
of C.C. members living abroad. To this and other unseemly
attacks of the editorial board (like the ludicrous charge of
some kind of alleged “secret” printing), the C.C. represen-

* The reference is to the letter “Why I Resigned From the Iskra

Editorial Board” (see present edition, Vol. 7).—Ed.
214 V. I. L E N I N

tative abroad replies merely by a call to remember Party

duty and put a stop to acts capable of making literary
polemics the occasion for a split.

The Central Committee Representative Abroad

Written December 2 4 - 2 7 , 1 9 0 3
in Geneva (local mail)
First published in 1 9 2 9 Printed from the original
 215

87
TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
December 30, 1903
We have received your letter of December 10 (old style).
We are surprised and angered by your silence on burning
issues and your unpunctuality in correspondence. It is
really impossible for matters to be conducted in this fashion!
Get another secretary if Bear and Doe are unable to write
every week. Just think, so far nothing substantial has
been received from Deer! So far (after 20 days) there has
been no reply to our letter of December 10 (new style). *
At all costs this scandalous state of affairs must be put an
end to!
Further, we categorically insist on the need to know
where we stand in the struggle against the Martovites,
on the need to reach agreement among ourselves and to
adopt an absolutely definite line.
Why haven’t you sent Boris over here, as Hans here
wanted? If Boris were here, he would not be writing us
ridiculous speeches about peace. Why hasn’t Hans fulfilled
his promise to write to the Old Man an exact account of
Boris’s mood? If you can’t send Boris, send Mitrofan or
Beast in order to clear up the matter.
I repeat over and over again: Hans’s main mistake lies
in having trusted to his latest impression. No. 53 ought
to have sobered him. The Martovites have taken possession
of the C.O. for the purpose of war, and now war is being
waged all along the line: attacks in Iskra, brawling at
public lectures (recently in Paris Martov read a lecture
about the split to an audience of 100 and engaged in a

* See pp. 200-01 of this volume.—Ed.

216 V. I. L E N I N

fight against Lebedev), the most shameless agitation against

the Central Committee. It would be unpardonable short-
sightedness to think that this could not spread to Russia.
Things here have reached a stage when the C.O. has broken
off relations with the C.C. (the C.O. resolution of Decem-
ber 22, sent to you), and when the C.O. has published
a false statement (Iskra No. 55) alleging an agreement
about non-publication of the negotiations).
It is high time you gave serious thought to the political
situation as a whole, took a broader view, got away from
the petty, everyday concern with pence and passports,
and, without burying your head in the sand, got clear on
where you are going and for the sake of what you are dilly-
dallying.
There are two tendencies among us in the C.C., if I am
not mistaken (or, perhaps, three? What are they?). In my
opinion they are: 1) to procrastinate, without convening
a congress and turning a deaf ear, as far as possible, to
attacks and grossest insults, and to strengthen the position
in Russia; 2) to raise a storm of resolutions against the
C.O., to devote all efforts to winning over the shaky com-
mittees and to prepare a congress in two, or at most three,
months’ time. And so, I ask: what does your strengthening
of the positions consist in? Only in your losing time, while
the adversary is mustering his forces here (and the groups
abroad matter a lot!), and in your putting off a decision
until you suffer defeat. Defeat is inevitable and will be
fairly rapid—it would be sheer childishness to ignore that.
What will you leave us after the defeat? Among the
Martovites—fresh and increased forces. Among us—broken
ranks. For them—a strengthened Central Organ. For us—a
bunch of persons badly handling the transportation of a
Central Organ that abuses them. That is a sure path to
defeat, a shameful and stupid postponement of inevitable
defeat. You are merely closing your eyes to this, taking
advantage of the fact that the war abroad is slow in reach-
ing you. Your tactics literally amount to saying: after us
(after the present composition of the C.C.), the deluge
(a deluge for the Majority).
I think that even if defeat is inevitable, we must make
our exit straightforwardly, honestly and openly, and that
 TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 217

is possible only at a congress. But defeat is by no means

inevitable, for the Five are not solid, Plekhanov is not
with them, but in favour of peace, and a congress could
show up both Plekhanov and them, with their supposed
differences of opinion. The only serious objection to a
congress is that it will necessarily legitimise a split. To
this I reply: 1) even that is better than the present posi-
tion, for then we can make our exit honestly instead of
prolonging the disgraceful position of being spat upon;
2) the Martovites have missed the moment for a split, and
their withdrawal from the Third Congress is improbable,
for the present struggle and full publicity remove the possi-
bility of a split; 3) a deal with them, if that were possible,
is best of all done at the congress.
Discuss this matter seriously and send your reply at
long last, giving the opinion of each (absolutely each)
member of the Central Committee.
Don’t bother me about leaflets; I am not a machine and
in the present scandalous situation I can’t work.
Sent from Geneva to Russia
First published in 1 9 2 9 Printed from the original
218

QP

88
TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
P. S. 234 January 2, 1904. I have just received the proofs
of Axelrod’s article in Iskra No. 55 235 (No. 55 will be out
in a couple of days). It is much more disgusting even than
Martov’s article (“Our Congress”) in No. 53. We have
here “ambitious fantasies” “inspired by the legends about
Schweitzer’s dictatorship”; we have here again accusa-
tions about “the all-controlling centre” “disposing at its
personal (sic!) discretion” of “Party members who are
converted (!) into cogs and wheels”. “The establishment
of a vast multitude of government departments, divisions,
offices and workshops of all kinds.” The conversion of
revolutionaries (really and truly, sic!) “into head clerks,
scribes, sergeants, non-commissioned officers, privates,
warders, foremen” (sic!). The C.C., it says (according to
the Majority’s idea), “must be merely the collective agent
of this authority (the authority of the Iskra editorial board),
and be under its strict tutelage and vigilant control”.
Such, it says, is “the organisational utopia of a theocratic
nature” (sic!). “The triumph of bureaucratic centralism
in the Party organisation—that is the result” ... (really
and truly, sic!). In connection with this article I again
and again ask all C.C. members: is it really possible to
leave this without a protest or fight? Don’t you feel that by
tolerating this silently you are turning yourselves into
nothing more nor less than gossip-mongers (gossip about
Schweitzer and his pawns) and spreaders of slander (about
bureaucrats, i.e., yourselves and the Majority as a whole)?
And do you consider it possible to conduct “positive work”
under such “ideological leadership”? Or do you know of
any other means of honest struggle apart from a con-
gress?
 TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 219

((The Martovites, apparently, have Kiev, Kharkov

Gornozavodsky, Rostov and the Crimea. This makes ten
votes & the League & the editorial board of the C.O. & two
in the Council= 16 votes out of 49. If all efforts are at
once directed towards Nikolayev, Siberia and the Cauca-
sus, it is fully possible to leave them with one-third.))
Sent from Geneva to Russia
First published in 1 9 2 9 Printed from the original
220

89
TO G. M. KRZHIZHANOVSKY
January 4, 1904
Old Man writing. I have just received Deer’s letter with
a reply to mine of December 10 * and I am answering im-
mediately. You don’t have to ask me for a criticism of
Deer’s views! I will say straight out that I am furious
with Deer’s timidity and naïveté.
1) To write to the C.O. from the C.C. in Russia is the
height of tactlessness. Everything must go through the
C.C.’s representative abroad, and no other way. I assure
you, this is essential if you want to avoid a terrific row.
The C.O. must be told once and for all that there is the
C.C.’s plenipotentiary representative abroad and that’s
flat.
2) It is not true that there was some sort of agreement
about the League minutes. You said plainly that you were
leaving the question of publishing or shortening them to
us. (As a matter of fact there was no “agreement” for you
to make on this. Not even for the entire C.C.). You are
hopelessly muddled up on this, and if you were to write
a single incautious word, it will all appear in the press
with an immense hullabaloo.
3) If in your letter to the C.O. about No. 53 you did not
use a single word of protest against the obscenities about
Schweitzer, bureaucratic formalism, etc., then I am bound
to say that we have ceased to understand each-other. In
that case I shall say no more and come out as a private
writer against these obscenities. In print, I shall call these
gentlemen hysterical tricksters.

* See pp. 200-01 of this volume.—Ed.

 TO G. M. KRZHIZHANOVSKY 221

4) While the C.C. is muttering about positive work,

Yeryoma and Martyn are stealing Nikolayev from it. This
is a downright disgrace and another warning to you, the
hundredth, if not thousandth. Either we win over the
committees and convene a congress, or ignominiously
retire from the scene under the hail of obscene attacks
by the C.O., which denies me access to Iskra.
5) To speak of a conference of the committees and of
an “ultimatum” (after they have ridiculed our ultimatum!)
is simply ridiculous. Why, the Martovites will simply
burst out laughing in reply to this “threat”! What do they
care about ultimatums when they brazenly hold back
money, attack the C.C. and openly say: “We await the
first break-down.”
Can Deer have forgotten already that Martov is a pawn
in the hands of cunning persons? And after this to still
talk about the attitude of Martov and George towards
Deer and Nil! It is offensive to read this naïveté. In the
first place, both Martov and George don’t care a hang about
all your Deer and Nils. Secondly, George is pushed right
into the background by the Martovites and he says plainly
that they don’t listen to him (which is clearly evident from
Iskra). Thirdly, I repeat for the hundredth time that Martov
is a cipher. Why didn’t that good soul Hans make friends
here with Trotsky, Dan and Natalya Ivanovna? What a
pity the dear fellow missed such a chance (the last chance)
to make a “sincere”, “happy peace”. . . . Would it not be
wiser to write letters directly to these “masters” than to
weep on the neck of that rag doll, Martov? Just try and
write, it will sober you up! And until you have written
to them and personally received a spit in the face from
them, don’t bother us (or them) about “peace”. We here
can clearly see who is doing the chattering and who the
bossing among the Martovites.
6) I gave my arguments in favour of a congress already
last time. For heaven’s sake, don’t pussyfoot to yourself;
postponing the congress would only be a proof of our im-
potence. And if you continue harping on peace, it will
not only be Nikolayev that the enemies will take from you.
It’s either war or peace. If peace—then it means that
you are giving way to the Martovites, who are waging a
222 V. I. L E N I N

vigorous and clever war. In that case you will suffer in

silence while mud is being flung at you in the C.O. (= the
ideological leadership of the Party!). In that case we have
nothing to talk about. I have already said in the press
everything there was to be said, and will go on saying
everything in the full sense of the word.
It is clear to me that the hounding we feared if I were
to take Iskra on my own, has started all the same, only
now my mouth is stopped. And it is childishness to rely
on Andreyevsky’s talk about the influence of Lenin’s name.
If it’s war, I would ask you in that case to explain to
me by what means, other than a congress, a real and honest
war can be carried on.
I repeat that a congress now is not pointless, for Plekha-
nov is no longer with the Martovites. Publication (which
I shall secure at all costs) 236 will finally separate him from
them. And he is already at loggerheads with them.
The Martovites will not even mention the Six at the Third
Congress. A split would be better than what we have at
present, when they have dirtied Iskra with tittle-tattle.
But they will hardly seek a split at the Third Congress,
and we shall be able to hand over Iskra to a neutral com-
mittee, taking it away from both sides.
7) Against the League, I shall do my utmost to achieve
a decisive war.
8) If Nil is still for peace, let him come and talk a couple
of times with Dan. That will be enough, I’m sure!
9) We need money. There is enough for two months,
and after that not a farthing. Don’t forget we are now
“keeping” a bunch of scoundrels, who spit on us in the C.O.
That is called “positive work”. Ich gratuliere! *
Sent from Geneva to Kiev
First published in 1 9 2 9 Printed from the original

* My congratulations!—Ed.
 223

90
TO THE I S K R A EDITORIAL BOARD 237
As the representative of the C.C., I consider it necessary
to point out to the editors that there are absolutely no
grounds for raising the question of lawfulness, etc., on the
basis of heated speeches at lectures or on the basis of literary
polemics. The Central Committee as such has never had,
and does not have, the slightest doubt of the lawfulness
of the editorial board co-opted, as Iskra No. 53 quite justly
stated, in complete accord with Clause 12 of the Party
Rules. The Central Committee would be ready to state
that publicly as well, if necessary. If the editorial board
sees these polemics as attacks upon itself, it has every op-
portunity of replying. It is hardly reasonable to resent what
the editorial board regards as sharply worded statements in
the polemic, when no mention is made anywhere of boycott
or any other disloyal (from the viewpoint of the C.C.) form
of activity. We would remind the editorial board that the
C.C. has repeatedly expressed its full readiness to publish,
and made a direct proposal to publish, immediately both
Dan’s letter and Martov’s “Once Again in the Minority”,
without being at all put out by the very sharp attacks to
be found in these documents. In the view of the C.C., it
is essential to give all Party members the widest possible
freedom to criticise the central bodies and to attack them;
the C.C. sees nothing terrible in such attacks, provided
they are not accompanied by a boycott, by standing aloof
from positive work or by cutting off financial resources.
The Central Committee states even now that it would
publish criticism against itself, seeing in a free exchange... *
Written January 8 , 1 9 0 4
in Geneva (local mail)
First published in 1 9 2 9 Printed from the original

* The sentence was completed by F. V. Lengnik as follows: “of

opinions a guarantee against possible mistakes of the part of the
central bodies”.—Ed.
224

91
TO G. V. PLEKHANOV, CHAIRMAN OF THE PARTY
COUNCIL 238
Comrade,
We would propose getting together for a meeting of
the Council on Monday, January 25, at 4 p. m., in the
Landolt restaurant. If you appoint a different place and
time, please let us know not later than Sunday, for one
of us lives far away from Geneva.
As regards secretarial duties, we think it should be pos-
sible to restrict ourselves to the services of Comrade
Martov, who was already appointed secretary of the Coun-
cil at its first meeting.
We would emphatically protest against Comrade Blumen-
feld as secretary for, in the first place, he does not observe
the rules of secrecy (he informed Druyan of Lenin’s mem-
bership of the Central Committee); secondly, he is too
expansive, so that there is no guarantee of calm and business-
like qualities, and there is even the danger of a row
and of having the door locked. Thirdly, we may have to
discuss him personally on the Council, as purchaser of
Party literature.
If you consider a special person necessary as secretary,
we propose for this Comrade Bychkov, who is one of the
old members of the Iskra organisation and a prominent
Party activist (a member of the Organising Committee);
moreover he is the most impartial and capable of recording
everything calmly.
Council members....

P. S. I shall have to come to Geneva specially for the

Council meeting, and the mail takes rather a long time
reaching Mornex. I would ask you therefore to send me a
 TO G. V. PLEKHANOV 225

letter not later than Sunday (during the day), if the meet-
ing is fixed for Monday, otherwise the notice will not reach
me in time.
Alternatively, I would ask you to postpone the meeting
until Wednesday.
My address is: Mornex....
Written January 2 3 , 1 9 0 4
in Geneva (local mail)
First published in 1 9 2 9 Printed from the original
226

92
TO G. V. PLEKHANOV, CHAIRMAN OF THE PARTY
COUNCIL

Comrade,
We are unfortunately compelled to enter our emphatic
protest against the editorial board’s proposal of Comrade
Gurvich as secretary.
Firstly, there were a number of conflicts with him in
the C.C.
Secondly, he has expressed in writing (we can send you
a copy) such an attitude to the Council, the highest Party
institution, that his participation in the Council meeting
is quite impossible.
Thirdly—and chiefly—we shall probably have to raise
in the Council the question of Comrade Gurvich personally,
as a representative of the League’s board of management,
who, in our opinion, has shown a wrong attitude to the
Central Committee. It is inconvenient to have as secretary
a person whose activities are being questioned.
We draw attention also to the fact that, appreciating
the importance of the Council as an instrument for unity
and agreement (and not for disunity and discord) we im-
mediately proposed as secretary someone who has taken no
part in the dissensions and against whom there has been no
protest by the other side.
We are sure that the other side, too, the editorial board
of the Central Organ, could easily propose a candidate
who has not taken part in the dissensions and who could
not be the subject of discussion on the Council.
Yours sincerely, L.
Written January 2 7 , 1 9 0 4
in Geneva (local mail)
First published in 1 9 2 9 Printed from the original
 227

93
TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
For the C.C. (to be handed to N. N. *)
The meetings (three sittings) of the Party Council ended
yesterday. These meetings brought into sharp focus the
whole political situation within the Party. Plekhanov
sided with the Martovites, outvoting us on every question
of any importance. Our resolution condemning boycott,
etc. (boycott by either side), was not put to the vote; a line
was merely drawn in principle between impermissible and
permissible forms of struggle. On the other hand, a resolu-
tion of Plekhanov’s was adopted saying it was desirable
that the C.C. co-opt an appropriate (sic!) number from the
Minority. After this we withdrew our resolution and sub-
mitted a protest against this policy of place-hunting on
the part of the Council. Three Council members (Martov,
Axelrod and Plekhanov) replied that it was “beneath
their dignity” to examine this protest. We stated that the
only honest way out was a congress. The Council rejected
it. The three members passed resolutions legitimising (!)
the editorial board’s sending out its representatives separate-
ly from the C.C., and instructing the C.C. to give the
editorial board literature in the amount required for distri-
bution (!). That means giving it them for their own trans-
portation and delivery, for they now send out one “agent”
after another, who refuse to execute commissions for the
Central Committee. In addition, they also have transport
ready (they proposed sharing the cost of carriage fifty-fifty).
Iskra (No. 57) has an article by Plekhanov calling our
C.C. eccentric (there being no Minority on it) and inviting
it to co-opt the Minority. How many is unknown; according
to private information, not less than three out of a very

* N. N.—unidentified.—Ed.
228 V. I. L E N I N

short list (of 5-6, apparently), perhaps with a demand also

for the resignation of someone from the Central Committee.
One must be blind not to see now what is afoot. The
Council will bring pressure to bear on the C.C. in every
possible way, demanding complete surrender to the Marto-
vites. Either—an immediate congress, the immediate col-
lection of resolutions on a congress from 11-12 committees,
and the immediate concentration of all efforts on agitating
for a congress. Or—the resignation of the whole C.C., for
no C.C. member will consent to the ignominious and ludic-
rous role of accepting people who foist themselves on the
C.C., people who will not rest content until they have
taken everything into their hands, and who will drag every
trifle before the Council so as to get their own way.
Kurtz and I insistently demand that the C.C. be convened
immediately at all costs to decide the matter, taking
into account, of course, our votes as well. We repeat em-
phatically and for the hundredth time: either a congress
at once, or resignation. We invite our dissentients to come
here, so as to judge the situation on the spot. Let them try
in practice to get along with the Martovites and not write
us hollow phrases about the value of peace!
We have no money. The C.O. is overloading us with
expenses, obviously pushing us towards bankruptcy, and
obviously counting on a financial crash in order to take
extraordinary measures which would reduce the C.C. to
a cipher.
We need two or three thousand rubles immediately at
all costs. Without fail and immediately, otherwise we shall
face complete ruin within a month!
We repeat: think it over carefully, send delegates here
and take a straightforward view of the matter. Our last
word is: either a congress or the resignation of the whole
Central Committee. Reply at once as to whether you give
us your votes. If not, let us know what is to be done if
Kurtz and I resign, let us know without fail.
Written January 3 1 , 1 9 0 4
Sent from Geneva to Russia
First published in 1 9 2 9 Printed from the original
 229

94
TO G. M. KRZHIZHANOVSKY

To Hans from Old Man

Dear friend.
I have seen Beast and only learnt about your affairs
from him. In my opinion, you must make Deer go away at
once and change his skin. It is stupid and ridiculous of him
to await the blow. The only way out is to go underground
and travel about. It only seems to him that such a step is
difficult and hard to take. Deer should try it and he will
quickly find that his new position will become a normal
one for him. (I utterly fail to understand or share Konya-
ga’s arguments against it.)
Next, about the whole political situation. Things are in
a terrible tangle. Plekhanov has gone over to the Martov-
ites and is overpowering us in the Council. The Council
has expressed a desire that the C.C. should have additional
members (this is published in Iskra No. 58). The Council
has given the editorial board the right to send out agents
and receive literature for distribution.
The Martovites evidently have their own war fund
and are only waiting for a suitable moment for a coup
d’état (such a moment as a financial crash—we are without
money—or a break-down in Russia, etc.). I have no doubt
about this and Kurtz and I are demanding that C.C. mem-
bers who do doubt it should, come here to convince them-
selves, for it is ridiculous and undignified to have people
pulling different ways.
I believe we should now 1) kick up a row in the commit-
tees against the C.O. by means of the most militant
resolutions; 2) carry on a polemic against the C.O. in leaflets
of the committees; 3) adopt resolutions on a congress in
230 V. I. L E N I N

the committees and publish them locally; 4) set Schwarz,

Vakar and others to work on leaflets for the Central Com-
mittee.
Hans should be warned that he will definitely be used
to give false evidence against me, that is certain. If Hans
does not want this to happen, let him immediately send
a written categorical statement: 1) that there was no agree-
ment about non-publication of the negotiations; 2) that
in the Council on November 29, 1903, Hans did not promise
to co-opt on to the C.C.; 3) that Hans understood that
the Martovites would take over the C.C. for the purpose
of peace and that they balked his expectations by launch-
ing war, beginning with No. 53. We shall publish this
statement only if they provoke us.
Written between February 2 and 7,
1904
Sent from Geneva to Kiev
First published in 1 9 2 9 Printed from the original
 231

95
TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE P.P.S.
Comrades,
Please send us more detailed information as to what
kind of conference you are planning, which organisations
will be represented, and when and where it will be held.
Further, be so good as to inform us what would be your
attitude to the participation of Polish-Democrats in the
conference.
On receipt of all supplementary information from you,
we shall submit your proposal, in accordance with our
Party Rules, to the Party Council.

With comradely greetings,

On behalf of the C.C....
Written February 7, 1 9 0 4
Sent from Geneva
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original
232

96
TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
Old Man writing. I have read the letters of Zemlyachka
and Konyagin. Where he got the idea that I have now
realised the uselessness of a congress, God only knows.
On the contrary, I insist as before that this is the only
honest way out, that only short-sighted people and cowards
can dodge this conclusion. I insist as before that Boris,
Mitrofan and Horse should be sent here without fail, for
people need to see the situation (especially that which arose
after the Council meetings) for themselves, and not waste
their time preaching to the winds from afar, hiding their
heads under their wings and taking advantage of the fact
that the C.C. is a long way off and it would take a year and
a day to reach it.
There is nothing more absurd than the opinion that
working for a congress, agitating in the committees, and
getting them to pass well-thought-out and forceful (and
not sloppy) resolutions precludes “positive” work or con-
tradicts it. Such an opinion merely betrays an inability
to understand the political situation which has now arisen
in the Party.
The Party is virtually torn apart, the Rules have been
turned into scraps of paper and the organisation is spat
upon—only complaisant Gothamites can still fail to see
this. To anyone who has grasped this, it should be clear
that the Martovites’ attack must be met with an equal
attack (and not with fatuous vapourings about peace, etc.).
And for an attack, all forces must be set in motion. All
technical facilities, transport and receiving arrangements
should be handled exclusively by auxiliary personnel,
assistants and agents. It is supremely unwise to use C.C.
 TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 233

members for this. The C.C. members must occupy all the
committees, mobilise the Majority, tour Russia, unite
their people, launch an onslaught (in reply to the Martov-
ites’ attacks), an onslaught on the C.O., an onslaught
by means of resolutions 1) demanding a congress; 2) challeng-
ing the editors of the C.O. to say whether they will submit
to the congress on the question of the composition of the
editorial board; 3) branding the new Iskra without “phi-
listine delicacy”, as was done recently by Astrakhan,
Tver and the Urals. These resolutions should be published
in Russia, as we have said a hundred times already.
I believe that we really do have in the C.C. bureaucrats
and formalists, instead of revolutionaries. The Martovites
spit in their faces and they wipe it off and lecture me:
“it is useless to fight!” . . . Only bureaucrats can fail to
see now that the C.C. is not a C.C. and its efforts to be one
are ludicrous. Either the C.C. becomes an organisation of
war against the C.O., war in deeds and not in words, of war
waged in the committees, or the C.C. is a useless rag, which
deserves to be thrown away.
For heaven’s sake, can’t you see that centralism has
been irretrievably shattered by the Martovites! Forget all
idiotic formalities, take possession of the committees, teach
them to fight for the Party against the circle spirit abroad,
write leaflets for them (this will not hinder agitation for
a congress, but assist it!), use auxiliary forces for technical
jobs. Take the lead in the war against the C.O. or renounce
altogether ludicrous pretensions to “leadership” ... by wip-
ing off the spittle.
Claire’s behaviour is shameful, but Konyaga’s encourage-
ment of him is still worse. Nothing makes me so angry
now as our “so-called” C.C. Addio.
Old Man
Written in February 1 9 0 4
Sent from Geneva to Russia
First published in 1 9 2 9 Printed from the original
234

97
TO THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF I S K R A

The C.C. informs the editorial board of the C.O. that it

regards the instruction that letters intended for the C.C.
are to be handed to the C.O. as an illegitimate and unscru-
pulous confiscation and a violation of trust.
The C.C. states also that it has already fully taken the
measure of Comrade Blumenfeld, who has now been en-
trusted with the sorting out of letters, on account of his
unreliability in matters of secrecy and his proneness to
make rows.
The C.C. will therefore bring to the knowledge of all
Party members such confiscation and its inevitably harm-
ful consequences for our work.

The C.C.
Written February 2 6 , 1 9 0 4
in Geneva (local mail)
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original
 235

98
TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
Comrades,
Having received notification of your collective decision
of the C.C. majority against a congress and the desirability
of putting an end to “squabbling”, and having discussed
this notification among the three of us (Kurtz, Beast and
Lenin), we unanimously adopted the following decision:
1) Kurtz and Lenin will temporarily resign membership
of the Council (while remaining members of the C.C.)
until the true nature of our differences with the major-
ity of the Central Committee has been cleared up. (We
stated in the Council that we see no other honest way out
of the squabbling except a congress, and we voted for a
congress.) We stress that we are withdrawing temporarily
and conditionally, by no means resigning altogether, and
greatly desiring a comradely clarification of our differences
and misunderstandings.
2) In view of (a) the need for C.C. members on the Coun-
cil to live abroad; (b) the need for personal consultation
with the C.C. members in Russia; c) the need for a C.C.
member abroad after the departure of Kurtz, Beast and
Lenin (Kurtz and Beast are leaving for Russia, Lenin is
taking his official and full holiday for not less than two
months); (d) the need to arrange that the conduct of affairs
here that give rise to “squabbling” should be in the hands
of those C.C. members who disagree with us, for we are
powerless to combat the squabbling otherwise than as we
are doing,
—in view of all this, we most earnestly request the
C.C. to send here immediately and without fail at least
one of its members from Russia.
236 V. I. L E N I N

We ask you to inform us at once of the receipt of this

letter and of your reply.
P. S. To avoid gossip and false rumours, we have
informed the Council of our resignation in the following
form (copy in full):
“To the Chairman of the Party Council
“Comrade, in view of the departure of one of us, and
the holiday being taken by the other, we are regretfully
compelled to relinquish temporarily the post of C.C. mem-
bers on the Council. We have informed the Central Com-
mittee of this.

“With Social-Democratic greetings,

Kurtz,
Lenin”
Written March 1 3 , 1 9 0 4
Sent from Geneva to Russia
First published in 1 9 2 9 Printed from the original
 237

99
TO F. V. LENGNIK
I add my personal request to Stake that he should on no
account resign. 239 If Valentin is unwilling to consult on
everything and to hand all, absolutely all, information
to Stake, then let Valentin resign. Let Stake bear in mind
that the whole course of events is now in our favour; a
little more patience and persistence, and we shall win.
Make sure to acquaint everyone with the pamphlet, * es-
pecially Brutus. After the pamphlet we must make a fur-
ther attack on Brutus. Brutus will be ours; for the time
being I shall not accept his withdrawal; you should not
accept it either; put his resignation in your pocket for
the time being. There is no question of Zemlyachka’s
resignation, remember that; Nil does not even claim that
she has resigned. Inform Zemlyachka about this and stand
firm. I repeat: our side will gain the upper hand within
the Central Committee.
Written May 2 6 , 1 9 0 4
Sent from Geneva to Moscow
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original

* The reference is to One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (see pre-
sent edition, Vol. 7).—Ed.
238

100
TO G. M. KRZHIZHANOVSKY

Dear friend,
You will, of course, grasp the gist of the matter from
our agreement with Nil. 240 For heaven’s sake, don’t be
in a hurry to make decisions and don’t despair. Be sure first
to read my pamphlet * and the Council minutes. Do not
let your temporary withdrawal from affairs worry you;
better abstain from some of the voting, but do not with-
draw altogether. Believe me, you will still be very, very
much needed and all your friends are counting on your
early “resurrection”. Many people in the Party are still
in a state of bewilderment and confusion, at a loss to grasp
the new situation and faint-heartedly losing confidence in
themselves and in the right cause. On the other hand,
it is becoming more and more evident to us here that
we are gaining from delays, that the squabbling is dying
out of itself and the essential issue, that of principles,
is irrevocably coming into the forefront. And in this
respect the new Iskra is pitiably feeble. Don’t believe the
stupid tales that we are out for a split, arm yourself with
a certain amount of patience and you will soon see that
our campaign is a splendid one and that we shall win by
the force of conviction. Be sure you reply to me. It would
be best if you could wangle things so as to come out here for
a week or so—not on business, but just for a holiday, and
to meet me somewhere in the mountains. I assure you that
you will still be very much needed, and although Konyaga
* One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (see present edition, Vol. 7).—
Ed.
 TO G. M. KRZHIZHANOVSKY 239

mistakenly dissuaded you from one plan of yours—a thing

put off is not a thing lost! Gird up your loins, we are still
full of fight.
Yours,
Lenin
Written not earlier than
May 2 6 , 1 9 0 4
Sent from Geneva to Russia
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original
240

101
TO L. B. KRASIN 241

From Old Man to Horse, private

In connection with the documents sent you (the agree-
ment with Nil and my official letter to the C.C. * ), I should
like to have a talk with you, but I do not know whether
we shall succeed in meeting. Your “friend” 242 was here
recently and he spoke of your possible arrival, but Nil
contradicted this news. It will be a great pity if you do
not come; your coming would be absolutely essential in
all respects, as there are misunderstandings galore and
they will increase more and more, hindering all work,
unless we succeed in meeting and having a detailed talk.
Write to me without fail whether you are coming and
what you think of my pamphlet. In general, you are un-
pardonably inactive where letters are concerned.
In my opinion, Boris (and Konyaga, too, apparently)
have got stuck in an obviously obsolete point of view.
They are still “living in November”, when squabbling
overrode everything else in our Party struggle, when it
was permissible to hope that everything would “come
right of itself” given a certain personal tractibility, etc.
This point of view is now antiquated and to persist in it
means either being a parrot senselessly repeating one and
the same thing, or a political weathercock, or renouncing
any leading role whatsoever and becoming a deaf-and-
dumb cabman or factotum. Events have irrevocably shat-
tered this old point of view. Even the Martovites refuse
to have anything to do with “co-optation”; the theoretical

* “Letter to the Members of the Central Committee” (see present

edition, Vol. 7).—Ed.
 TO L. B. KRASIN 241

drivel that fills the new Iskra has already de facto pushed
all squabbling far into the background (so that now only
the parrots can call for a cessation of squabbling); by the
force of events the issue has boiled down—for heaven’s
sake grasp this—it has boiled down to whether the Party
is satisfied with the new Iskra. If we don’t want to be
pawns, we absolutely must understand the present situation
and work out a plan for a sustained and inexorable struggle
on behalf of the Party principle against the circle spirit,
on behalf of revolutionary principles of organisation against
opportunism. It is time to get rid of old bugbears which
make out that every such struggle is a split, it is time
to stop hiding our heads under our wings, evading one’s
Party duties by references to the “positive work” . . . of
cabmen and factotums; it is time to abandon the opinion,
at which even children will soon be laughing, that agita-
tion for a congress is Lenin’s intrigue.
I repeat: the C.C. members are in very serious danger
of becoming extremely backward eccentrics. Anyone who
possesses a particle of political honour and political honesty
must stop shifting and shuffling (even Plekhanov has not
succeeded in that, leave alone our good Boris!), and must
adopt a definite position and stand by his convictions.

All the very best. Awaiting your reply,

Yours,
Lenin
Written not earlier than May 2 6 ,
1904
Sent from Geneva to Baku
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original
242

102
TO YELENA STASOVA AND F. V. LENGNIK
We have just received Absolute’s letter about the meet-
ing and do not understand it at all. On whose initiative
is the meeting being arranged? Who will attend it? Will
Nikitich, Deer and Valentin be there? It is essential to
know everything in the greatest possible detail. For what
may happen is this: Deer, Nikitich and Mitrofan may
transfer their votes to Nil or Valentin, which will give them
a majority, and they may carry out a coup d’état; it is easier
to do this abroad, where the Council is at hand to sanction
their decisions. In general a meeting here of the soft mem-
bers 243 may turn out to be very dangerous at the present
time. Judging by the way Nil behaves, one could expect
anything from him. He says, for example, in connection
with Plekhanov’s letter: “We must reply that we do not
agree with Lenin’s policy, but we don’t want to give him
up.” What he understands by Lenin’s policy, God alone
knows. He refused to discuss matters with Falcon: “You
will learn my opinion from Valentin.” He talks to the
Minority in a very friendly way, quite different from the
way he talks to the Majority. Falcon wanted to go away
today, but just now we are in some perplexity. The “soft”
ones alone may decide, if it is to their advantage, that
transfer of votes is not allowed, in which case Falcon ought
not go away—it will be an extra vote and, besides, support
for Lenin is needed. If, however, there are no grounds for
thinking that the meeting will end in a coup, then there
is no need for Falcon to hang about. In the first event,
wire: “Geld folgt” * (meaning: Falcon to travel immedi-

* “Money follows”.—Ed.
 TO YELENA STASOVA AND F. V. LENGNIK 243

ately); in the second event, wire: “Brief folgt” * (meaning-

Falcon to remain abroad). The address for the telegram
is.... **
Reply also by letter without delay and in as much detail
as possible. Settle the time more exactly. What do you
mean by: prepare lodgings? Do you too think that all the
“stone-hards” can go away without everything falling
into the hands of the hard-soft “Matryona-ites”? If, for
example, Valentin remains while the others go away, he
can break a lot of china. In that case, perhaps, Falcon’s
presence will be needed in Russia. Think all this over very
carefully. At present we do not share your optimism con-
cerning the C.C., but we are optimists as regards our
victory.
If the meeting is a general one, let Stake once more make
desperate efforts to drag Deer out here and explain to him
that the transfer of his (Deer’s) vote to Konyaga or Boris
could mean a coup d’état and Lenin’s withdrawal for a
desperate struggle.
Written June 19, 1904
Sent from Geneva to Moscow
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from a copy
written out by N. K.
Krupskaya with corrections
and an addition
by V. I. Lenin

* “Letter follows”.—Ed.
** Space was left in the manuscript for the address.—Ed.
244

103
TO Y. O. MARTOV, SECRETARY OF THE PARTY
COUNCIL

Reply to Comrade Martov

Comrade,
I received your undated letter while travelling, and
without having the Council minutes at hand. At all events
I consider it in principle absolutely impermissible and
unlawful that outside a Council meeting members of the
Council should give their votes or make arrangements on
any matters that come within the competence of the Coun-
cil. I cannot therefore comply with your request about
voting for candidates. If I am not mistaken, the Council
decided that all Council members should represent our
Party at the Congress. 244 Consequently, the question has
been settled. If any Council member is unable to go, then,
in my opinion, he can appoint someone else in his place;
I do not know, of course, whether it is customary for in-
ternational congresses to permit such substitution, but
I do not know of any obstacle to it in our Party Rules or
in the Party’s usual regulations. Personally I am also
unable to go and would like as a substitute for myself
Comrade Lyadov, who has plenipotentiary powers from
the C.C., and Comrade Sergei Petrovich, member of the
Moscow Committee.
With Social-Democratic greetings,
N. Lenin, council member
P. S. Re the communication to the C.C., I shall write
to the Geneva agents, who are in charge of all matters
during my absence.
Written August 1 0 , 1 9 0 4
in the Swiss mountains
Sent to Geneva
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original
 245

104
TO M. K. VLADIMIROV 245
For Fred
Dear Comrade,
I have received your last letter. I am writing to the old
address, although I am afraid that letters are not reach-
ing you; the previous letter was answered in considerable
detail. The comradely trust which is evident in all your
letters induces me to write to you personally. This letter
is not written from the collegium and is not intended for
the Committee.
The state of things in your Committee, which is suffer-
ing from a lack of people, lack of literature and complete
lack of information, is similar to the state of things in
Russia as a whole. Everywhere there is a terrible lack of
people, even more so in the Minority committees than
in those of the Majority, complete isolation, a general
mood of depression and bitterness, stagnation as regards
positive work. Ever since the Second Congress, the Party
is being torn to pieces, and today things have gone very,
very far in this respect; the tactics of the Minority have
terribly weakened the Party. The Minority has done all
it could to discredit the C.C. as well, beginning its per-
secution already at the congress, and carrying it on inten-
sively both in the press and orally. In even greater measure
it has discredited the C.O., which it has turned from a
Party organ into an organ for settling personal accounts
with the Majority. If you have been reading Iskra there is
no need to say anything to you about this. In their attempts
to dig up fresh disagreements they have now trotted
forth as their slogan “liquidation of the fourth, Iskra,
246 V. I. L E N I N

period”, and are burning everything that they worshipped

yesterday, totally distorting the perspective and interpret
it. The Party functionaries, who remember what they stood
for yesterday, do not follow the lead of the C.O. The vast
majority of the committees adhere to the standpoint of
the Congress majority and are breaking their spiritual
ties with the Party organ more and more.
The present state of affairs, however, is having such
an effect on positive work, and hindering it to such an
extent, that among a whole number of Party functionaries
a mood has developed that makes them immerse themselves
in positive work and stand completely aloof from the em-
bittered internecine struggle which is taking place in the
Party. They want to close their eyes, stop up their ears
and hide their heads under the wing of positive work;
they are running away to escape from things which no one,
being in the Party, can now escape from. Some of the C.C.
members have adopted such a “ conciliatory ” attitude in
an attempt to blanket the growing disagreements, to blan-
ket the fact that the Party is disintegrating. The Majority
(the non-conciliatory Majority) says: we must quickly find
some way out, we must come to some arrangement, we must
try to find the framework within which the ideological
struggle can proceed more or less normally; a new congress
is needed. The Minority is against a congress; they say:
the vast majority of the Party is against us and a congress
is not to our advantage; the “conciliatory” Majority is
also against a congress, it is afraid of everyone’s growing
animosity against the C.O. and the C.C. To think that
a congress could lead only to a split would mean to admit
that we haven’t got a Party at all, that Party feeling is
so poorly developed among all of us that it cannot over-
come the old circle spirit. In this respect we have a better
opinion of our opponents than they have of themselves.
Of course, it is impossible to guarantee anything, but an
attempt to settle the conflict in a Party manner, and to
find a way out, must be made. The Majority, at any rate,
does not want a split, but to go on working under the con-
ditions which have now been created is becoming more
and more impossible. Already more than ten committees
have expressed themselves in favour of a congress (St.
 TO M. K. VLADIMIROV 247

Petersburg, Tver, Moscow, Tula, Siberia, Caucasus, Ekate-

rinoslav, Nikolayev, Odessa, Riga, Astrakhan), but even
if the great majority of the committees pronounce for a
congress it will not take place so very soon, for both the
C.O. and the C.C., and probably the Council as well, will
oppose the wishes of the majority of the comrades in Russia.
With regard to literature, the C.C. comrade with whom
we talked about this replied that it was being punctually
supplied to your Committee. Obviously, there has been
some confusion. Persons were sent to you twice, but in
Russia they were directed to other places. We shall try to
send you new things as opportunity arises.

With comradely greetings,

Lenin
Written August 1 5 , 1 9 0 4
in the Swiss mountains,
sent to Gomel
First published in 1 9 3 4 Printed from a
copy written out
by N. K. Krupskaya
248

105
TO THE I S K R A EDITORIAL BOARD
To the C.O. of the R.S.D.L.P.
August 24, 1904
Comrades,
Being rather far from Geneva, I learnt only today that
the editors of the Central Organ intend to publish a “decla-
ration” said to have been adopted by the Central Commit-
tee.246
I consider it my duty to warn the editors of the C.O.
that already on August 18, 1904, I made a statement
contesting the lawfulness of this declaration, * i.e., the
lawfulness of the decision on this question allegedly
adopted by a majority of the C.C.
There are at present six members of the C.C. (owing to
Comrade Mitrofan’s resignation and, if the rumour is to
be believed, the recent arrest of Zverev and Vasiliev).
According to my information, it is even probable that
only three members out of the six had the audacity to speak
for the whole C.C. and to do so not even through the two
representatives abroad, who are formally bound by the
agreement of May 26, 1904 (this agreement was signed by
Glebov, Zverev and myself).
I enclose herewith a copy of my statement of August 18,
1904, and I must state that the editorial board of the C.O.
will be responsible for giving press publicity to the whole
incident and conflict in the event of the “declaration” being

* “To Five Members of the Central Committee” (see present edi-

tion, Vol. 7).—Ed.
 TO THE ISKRA EDITORIAL BOARD 249

published before the matter of my protest against the

validity of the decision has been settled within the C.C.

N. Lenin,
C.C. member and representative abroad

P. S. In any case I consider it absolutely obligatory

that publication of the “declaration” should be withheld
until I have thrashed out the matter with Comrade Glebov
who, according to my information, is today leaving Berlin
for Geneva. Not even I, a member of the C.C., have any
knowledge of the latter’s decision concerning the publica-
tion of this declaration.
If, nevertheless, the editorial board decides to publish
the declaration, then I consider it is morally bound to
publish also my protest against its lawfulness.
Written in the Swiss mountains,
sent to Geneva
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from a
copy written out
by N. K. Krupskaya
250

106
TO MEMBERS OF THE MAJORITY COMMITTEES
AND ALL ACTIVE SUPPORTERS
OF THE MAJORITY IN RUSSIA
WITH THE TEXT OF A LETTER TO LYDIA FOTIYEVA
Dear Lydia Alexandrovna,
Please send the following letter to all our friends in Rus-
sia as soon as possible (desirably today):
“Please begin immediately collecting and dispatching
all correspondence to our addresses with the inscription:
‘For Lenin’. Money, too, is badly needed. Events are
taking a sharper turn. The Minority is obviously preparing
a coup through a deal with part of the Central Committee.
The worst is to be expected. Details in a few days.”
Send this letter immediately
(1) to St. Petersburg, to the address of Mouse, (2) to Tver, (3) to Odessa
(to both addresses), (4) to Ekaterinoslav, (5) to Siberia, (6) to the
Urals, (7) to Riga (to both addresses), (8) to Rosa, (9) to Nizhni-
Novgorod (the address for letters: Library of the Vsesoslovny Club
in a brochure), (10) to Saratov (to Golubev’s address), and generally
to all the addresses of friends on whom we can fully depend.

Best regards.

Leon * should not leave so soon, her document will be sent out,
but not before a day or two.**

Written about August 2 8 , 1 9 0 4 ,

in Switzerland
Sent to Geneva
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original

* Unidentified.—Ed.
** The lines printed in small type are Krupskaya’s text.—Ed.
 251

107
TO V. A. NOSKOV
To Comrade Glebov, Member of the C.C.
August 30, 1904
Comrade,
I cannot take part in the voting on co-optation 247 proposed
by you until I receive your written reply to my protest
of August 18, 1904, and detailed information on the deci-
sions allegedly adopted by the Central Committee. I cannot
come to Geneva at the present time.

Lenin, C.C. member

Written in the Swiss mountains,
sent to Geneva
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original
252

108
TO V. A. NOSKOV
To Com. Glebov. In reply to your note of August 30,
1904, we inform you that the lawfulness and validity of
the C.C. decisions to which you refer have been contested
by C.C. member, Comrade Lenin. In the capacity of C.C.
agents who have been kept informed of the whole course
of the conflict within the C.C. we, in turn, also contest the
lawfulness of this decision and state that the decision of
the C.C. cannot be recognised as lawful, for it begins by
stating as a fact what is known to be untrue: here abroad
we ourselves have seen two C.C. members who were not
informed of the meeting of the Central Committee. Since
you have once told us a direct untruth (about an alleged
ban imposed by the Central Committee on Comrade Lenin’s
book * ) we are the more inclined to doubt statements ema-
nating from you. We therefore request you to furnish us
immediately with exact data for checking the lawfulness
of the C.C. decision (composition of the meeting ** and
written statements of each participant). While having no
intention whatever to oppose lawful decisions of an actual
majority of the C.C. we shall pay no attention to any state-
ment of yours until this lawfulness has been proved to us.
Written August 3 0 or 3 1 , 1 9 0 4
in the Swiss mountains,
sent to Geneva
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original

* One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (see present edition, Vol. 7).—
Ed.
** To avoid misinterpretation, we state that after publication
of the untrue statement (in the declaration) concerning the compo-
sition of the meeting, we have absolutely no possibility of arriving
at the truth except by getting to know the composition of the meeting.
 253

109
TO V. A. NOSKOV
To Comrade Glebov
September 2, 1904
Comrade,
Please let me know whether you intend to reply to my
protest in connection with the decision allegedly adopted
by a majority of the Central Committee.
At what “preceding regular meeting of the C.C.” did
Comrade Osipov announce his resignation?
When exactly and by whom were the C.C. members who
were absent when Osipov made this statement informed
about this?
Did Comrade Valentin report to the Central Committee
about his (Valentin’s) dispute with Comrade Vasiliev in
connection with the supposed resignation of Comrade
Osipov?
When and to whom did Comrade Travinsky formally
announce his resignation? Please let me have a copy of
this announcement and all the details. Perhaps someone has
already written to me about this, but the letter has gone
astray?
Until the lawfulness (of the composition of the C.C.
and its decision of . . . July) has been “verified” by all
members of the C.C., I do not regard either Comrade Glebov
or myself entitled to represent the C.C. in the Party Council.
N. Lenin,
C.C. member
Written in the Swiss mountains,
sent to Geneva
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original
254

110
TO Y. O. MARTOV, SECRETARY OF THE PARTY
COUNCIL
To Comrade Martov
September 2, 1904
Comrade,
In reply to your invitation of August 31, 1904, to a
sitting of the Council, I must state that until the lawfulness
of the composition of the C.C. and of its last, allegedly
regular, meeting has been verified by all C.C. members,
I do not consider either Comrade Glebov or myself entitled
to represent the C.C. in the Party Council. Until such a
check is made I regard all official steps undertaken by
Comrade Glebov (and participation in the Council is also
an official step) as unlawful.
I shall confine myself to pointing out one obvious un-
truth and one inaccuracy in the “verification” of the C.C.’s
composition carried out by three C.C. members at their
“meeting” of . . . July. 1) Regarding the resignation of
Mitrofanov, I have the written statement of Comrade
Osipov. About the resignation of Travinsky, I have had
no definite written statement from anyone. Three C.C.
members at least prematurely accepted the resignation,
without consulting the other members. 2) Regarding the
notorious resignation of Comrade Osipov I have a written
communication of C.C. member Vasiliev about his dispute
with Comrade Valentin and the decision to examine the
dispute at a general meeting of the Central Committee.
About Osipov’s resignation, too, I have not had a single
communication. The statement of the three C.C. members
that Osipov formally announced his withdrawal at the
preceding regular meeting of the C.C. is an obvious lie,
 TO Y. O. MARTOV 255

documentarily refuted by the agreement of May 26, 1904,

signed by Zverev and Glebov. This agreement, which was
concluded months after the “preceding regular meeting of
the C.C.” and after Osipov is alleged to have joined the
St. Petersburg Committee, records the C.C. as consisting
of nine members, i.e., including Osipov.

N. Lenin,
C.C. member
Written in the Swiss mountains,
sent to Geneva
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from a
copy written out
by N. K. Krupskaya
256

111
TO Y. O. MARTOV, SECRETARY OF THE PARTY
COUNCIL
To Comrade Martov
Duplicate
September 7, 1904
Comrade,
In connection with the copies you have sent me, I have
to state that the Council need not have troubled to repeat
its invitation, seeing that I have already replied to it by
a refusal. Never have I expressed a desire that investiga-
tion of the “conflict” in the C.C. should be submitted to
the Council. On the contrary, I have plainly stated in
letters to Comrade Glebov and to Comrade Martov that only
the C.C. members as a whole are competent to verify the
lawfulness of its composition. The Council is not author-
ised even by the Rules to examine conflicts within the
Central Committee. *
Since the Bureau of the International Congress has accept-
ed the transference by me of my mandate, 248 I am no
longer accountable in any way to any Council. I shall
willingly give explanations (in writing or in print) con-
cerning definite issues to anyone who wants them.

N. Lenin,
C.C. member
Written in the neighbourhood
of Geneva, sent to Geneva
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original

* See pp. 253-55 of this volume.—Ed.

 257

112
TO PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONFERENCE OF THE
SOUTHERN COMMITTEES 249 AND TO THE
SOUTHERN BUREAU OF THE C.C., R.S.D.L.P.

Comrades,
In reply to your resolution on the desirability of an Organ-
ising Committee of the Majority being set up, we hasten
to inform you that we entirely agree with your idea. We
should prefer only to call the group not an Organising
Committee, but a Bureau of the Majority Committees. We
do not consider it possible for us to appoint the B.M.C.
ourselves, and are restricting ourselves to recommending
comrades Martyn, Demon and K., Baron, Sergei Petrovich,
Felix and Lebedev, who (as you know) have actually begun
the work of uniting the Majority committees. We think
that, given the direct support of several committees, these
comrades could act as a special group uniting the activities
of supporters of the Majority.

(Participants of the Meeting of the 22 250)

Written later than October 5 ,
1904
Sent from Geneva to Odessa
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original
258

113
TO THE MAJORITY COMMITTEES
1) To be written to all our committees:
“Immediately and without fail write officially to the
C.C. in Russia (sending us a copy of your letter) requesting
that the Committee be supplied with all publications of the
new publishing house of Bonch-Bruyevich and Lenin, 251
and that they be supplied regularly. Get a reply from the
C.C. and send it to us. Make use of a personal meeting with
C.C. members and ask them about their reply in the pres-
ence of witnesses. Have you received the supplement to
Nos. 73-74—the decisions of the Council 252 ? You must
protest against this scandalous affair, it is a downright
falsification of the congress, a downright incitement of the
periphery against the committees and a shifting of the
squabble to the Council. If you have not received these
decisions, enquire about them also from the C.C. and keep
us informed. We shall issue shortly a detailed examination
of these Council decisions.”
2) The full reply of the 22 concerning the Organising
Committee to be sent to Odessa, stipulating that the place
they received it from is to be kept secret. The letter to
be inscribed “for Baron, Osip and Leonsha exclusively”.
Let Odessa send us, Felix and Mouse, immediately their
reply, their amendments, or their agreement, etc. Let Odessa
send immediately Nikolayev’s decision concerning the
congress.
Written later than October 5 ,
1904
Sent from Geneva to Russia
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original
 259

114
TO THE SIBERIAN COMMITTEE

Geneva, October 30, 1904

To the Siberian Committee from N. Lenin
Comrades,
I should like through you to answer Comrade Simonov,
who was here as a representative of the Siberian Union and
who, before departing, left me a letter (I was not in Ge-
neva at the time) setting out his conciliatory point of view.
It is this letter, the contents of which are probably known
to you from Comrade Simonov, that I should like to talk
to you about. Comrade Simonov’s point of view amounts
to this: they (the Minority) are, of course, anarchists and
disrupters, but there is nothing to be done with them; a
“truce” is necessary (Simonov stresses that, in contrast
to other conciliators, he does not speak of peace but of a
truce) in order to find some way out of an intolerable situa-
tion, and to gather strength for a further struggle against
the Minority.
I found Simonov’s letter extremely instructive as coming
from such a rarity as a sincere supporter of conciliation.
There is so much hypocrisy among the conciliators that
one finds it refreshing to meet the views (even if incorrect)
of a man who says what he thinks. And his views are cer-
tainly incorrect. He himself realises that it is impossible
to be reconciled with falsehood, confusion and squabbling,
but what is the sense of talking about a truce? For the Mi-
nority will use such a truce merely for strengthening their
positions. Factional polemics (cessation of which was hypo-
critically promised by the hypocritical C.C. in its recent
letter to the committees, a letter that you too have prob-
260 V. I. L E N I N

ably already received) have not ceased but have assumed

the especially vile forms that were condemned even by
Kautsky, who sides with the Minority. Even K. Kautsky
said in his letter to Iskra that a “hidden” polemic is worse
than any other, for the issue becomes confused, hints re-
main obscure, straightforward answers are impossible. And
take Iskra; the leading article in No. 75, the subject of
which is very remote from our differences, will be found
interspersed, without rhyme or reason, with senilely em-
bittered abuse against the Ivanovs on the Council, the sheer
ignoramuses, etc., etc. From the standpoint of our deserters
from the C.C., this, probably, is not factional polemics!
I say nothing, in substance, of the arguments used by the
author of the leading article (apparently Plekhanov): that
Marx was mild towards the Proudhonists. Can you imagine
a falser use of historical facts and great names of history?
What would Marx have said if the slogan of mildness was
used to cover up muddling the distinction between Marxism
and Proudhonism? (And is not the new Iskra wholly occu-
pied in muddling the distinction between Rabocheye Dyelo-
ism and Iskrism?) What would Marx have said if mildness
had been made a cover for asserting in print the correctness
of Proudhonism against Marxism? (And is not Plekhanov
now playing the fox in print by pretending to recognise
that the Minority is correct in principle?) By this com-
parison alone Plekhanov gives himself away, betrays the
fact that the relation of the Majority to the Minority is
equivalent to the relation of Marxism to Proudhonism, to
that very relation of the revolutionary to the opportunist
wing which figures also in that memorable article “What
Should Not Be Done”. Take the decisions of the Party
Council (No. 73 and the supplement to Nos. 73-74) and you
will see that the cessation of the Minority’s secret organisa-
tion, proclaimed in the above-mentioned letter of the C.C.
to the committees, signifies nothing but the passing of three
C.C. members into the secret organisation of the Minority.
In this sense the secret organisation has really disappeared,
for all three of our so-called central institutions—not
only the C.O. and the Council, but also the Central Com-
mittee—have now become a secret organisation (for struggle
against the Party). In the name of a struggle (“on prin-
 TO THE SIBERIAN COMMITTEE 261

ciple”) against formalism and bureaucracy, they are now

declaring war on the “headings”, declaring that the pub-
lishing house of the Majority is not a Party one. They fal-
sify the congress, counting the votes falsely (16 9 4 = 61,
for five members of the Council figure in the total 61, but
in half the organisations the Council figures as an organisa-
tion with two votes!), concealing the resolutions of the
committees from the Party (it is concealed that Nizhni-
Novgorod, Saratov, Nikolayev and the Caucasus were in
favour of a congress: see the last resolutions in our pamphlet
To the Party, and The Fight for a Congress 253 ). They bring
squabbling into the Council, interminably distorting the
question of representation at the Amsterdam Congress 254
and having the audacity to publish charges of “deceit”
against the Northern Committee, when this incident had
not only not been investigated (although the C.C. had
decided to investigate it as far back as July), but the com-
rade accused by some slanderer has so far not even been
questioned (during three months, August, September and
October, this comrade was abroad and saw Central Com-
mittee member Glebov, who had taken the decision for
an investigation but did not take the trouble to present
the charges to the accused person himself!). They encourage
disruption in the name of the Council, inciting the “periph-
ery” to attack the Majority committees, and uttering
a deliberate lie about St. Petersburg and Odessa. They
condemn as an “abuse” the voting of one and the same com-
rades in different committees, when at the same time three
Council members—Plekhanov, Martov and Axelrod—vote
three times against a congress: once on the editorial board,
once in the Council and once in the League! They assume
the powers of a congress by declaring credentials invalid.
Isn’t that falsifying the congress? And can it be that Com-
rade Simonov would advise a truce in relation to these
tactics as well?
Take the report to the Amsterdam Congress 255 which
has recently been issued in Russian. Deliberately flouting
the will of the Party, the Minority speak in the name of the
Party, repeating in a covert form the same lie about the
old Iskra which was always being propagated by Martynov
and Co., and which is now being served up by Balalaikin-
262 V. I. L E N I N

Trotsky. Or maybe Comrade Simonov wants a truce with this

Balalaikin too (whose pamphlet is published under the
editorship of Iskra as plainly stated in Iskra)? Maybe here,
too, he believes in the cessation of factional polemics prom-
ised by the C.C.?
No, the belief that a truce with hypocrisy and disrup-
tion is permissible is one that is unworthy of a Social-
Democrat and profoundly erroneous at bottom. It is faint-
heartedness to think that “there is nothing to be done”
with writers, even notable ones, and that the only tactic
left in relation to them is that formulated by Galyorka
(“Down with Bonapartism”) in the words “You curse but
bow down”. To the conversion of all the Party’s central
institutions into a secret organisation for struggle against
the Party, to the Council’s falsification of the congress,
the Majority replies by a further and inevitable strengthen-
ing of its unity. Disdaining hypocrisy, it openly puts for-
ward a programme of struggle (see the resolution of the
22 endorsed by the Caucasian Union, 256 and the Commit-
tees of St. Petersburg, Riga, Moscow, Odessa, Ekaterinoslav
and Nikolayev. The C.O., of course, concealed this reso-
lution from the Party although it received it two months
ago). The southern committees have already taken a de-
cision to unite the committees of the Majority and to set
up an Organising Committee to combat the flouting of the
Party. There is not the slightest doubt that such an organ-
isation of the Majority will be set up in the near future and
will act openly. Despite the lying stories of deserters from
the C.C., the adherents of the Majority are growing in
number in Russia, and the young literary forces, repelled
by the muddled and hypocritical Iskra, are beginning to
rally from all sides to the newly-started publishing house
of the Majority (the publishing house abroad of Bonch-
Bruyevich and Lenin) with the aim of giving it every pos-
sible support by transforming, enlarging and developing it.
Comrade Simonov had no reason to be down-hearted.
He was wrong to jump to the conclusion that however
nasty it was, there was nothing to be done about it. There
is something to be done! The more grossly they flout the
idea of a congress (Balalaikin-Trotsky, writing under the
editorship of Iskra, has already declared a congress to be
 TO THE SIBERIAN COMMITTEE 263

a reactionary attempt to reinforce the plans of the Iskrists.

Ryazanov was more sincere and honest when he called
the congress a packed affair) and the more grossly they
flout the Party and its functionaries in Russia, the more
merciless becomes the rebuff they encounter and the more
closely does the Majority rally its ranks, uniting all per-
sons of principle and recoiling from the unnatural and
intrinsically rotten political alliance of Plekhanov, Marty-
nov and Trotsky. It is precisely such an alliance that we
see now in the new Iskra and in Zarya No. 5 (a reprint of
Martynov’s article has appeared). Anyone who sees a little
further than his nose, whose policy is not determined by
interests of the minute and coalitions of the hour, will
understand that this alliance, which breeds only confusion
and squabbles, is doomed, and that the adherents of the
trend of the old Iskra, people who are able to distinguish
this trend from a circle even of notable “foreigners”, must
and will be the grave-diggers of this alliance.
I should be very glad, comrades, if you would inform me
of the receipt of this letter and whether you have succeeded
in forwarding it to Comrade Simonov.

With comradely greetings,

N. Lenin

First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original

264

115
TO A. M. STOPANI 257
To Tu—ra from Lenin, private
Dear Comrade,
I was extremely glad to have your letter. Please write
punctually every week, even if only a few lines, and make
sure that all addresses are usable and that you have reserve
addresses for letters and rendezvous. It’s a downright scan-
dal that the adherents of the Majority are so scattered!
No common work is possible without regular contact and
we have had nothing from you for over six months.
I absolutely and fully agree with everything you write
concerning the need to unite the Majority, to rally its com-
mittees and prepare for a united congress capable of en-
forcing the will of the Party workers in Russia. Very close
contact is essential for all this, otherwise we shall drift
apart and you will know absolutely nothing of our com-
mon affairs.
The C.C. has now wholly fused with the Minority and has
virtually become part of its secret organisation, the aim of
which is to fight against a congress at all costs. The new
decisions of the Council plainly falsify both the counting
of votes and the will of the committees (supplement to
Iskra Nos. 73-74. Have you seen it?). Now we must be
prepared for the fact that they will not convene a congress
on any account, will not shrink from any violation of the
Rules, nor from any further flouting of the Party. They
openly jeer at us, saying “where is your strength?” We
should indeed be behaving like children if we confined
ourselves to faith in a congress, without preparing straight-
away to counter force by force. For this purpose we must:
1) immediately unite all the Majority committees and set
up a Bureau of the Majority Committees (the initiative
has already been taken by Odessa & Nikolayev & Ekateri-
noslav) to combat the Bonapartism of the central bodies;
 TO A. M. STOPANI 265

2) exert every effort to support and extend in every way

the Majority’s publishing house (started here by Bonch-
Bruyevich and myself; Bonch-Bruyevich is only the pub-
lisher). A group of writers in Russia has already set to
work on this and you should immediately begin collecting
and sending all kinds of material, correspondence, leaflets,
comments, and so on and so forth, especially from workers
and about the workers’ movement. Do this without fail
and immediately. (If from now on you do not begin to send
us an item every week, we shall break off relations with you.)
In the matter of the Bureau, what has been done already
is this. The Odessa & Nikolayev & Ekaterinoslav committees
took the following decision (quote in full) ... = = The 22
answered them as follows ... = =258
You must try to go to Tiflis as soon as possible and hand
over both the one and the other. Let them speedily join.
It will, of course, be possible to add members from the
Caucasus to the Bureau. And so, let all the committees
of the Caucasus immediately give their opinion about the
idea of a Bureau, that is to say, write to us and to St. Pe-
tersburg (or Riga?) (address..., key ...), whether they agree
to a Bureau and whether they want changes or additional
candidates. For heaven’s sake see to it that this matter of
prime importance is dealt with properly, sensibly and quickly.
Some comrades are demanding a conference of the Major-
ity committees in Russia. We here think this is not only
expensive but bureaucratic and ineffectual. But we must
press on with might and main. It is not worth while coming
together to elect a Bureau; it is much better to reach
agreement on this by letter or by a tour made by one or two
comrades When the Bureau speaks out and is joined by
Ekaterinoslav & Odessa & Nikolayev & St. Petersburg & Mos-
cow & Riga & the Caucasus, then this Bureau will at once be
speaking as the representative of the organised Majority.
And so, for heaven’s sake, make haste and answer speedily.
All the very best.
Yours,
N. Lenin
Written November 1 0 , 1 9 0 4
Sent from Geneva to Baku
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original
266

116
TO A. A. BOGDANOV
Dear friend,
Please tell Rakhmetov immediately that he is acting
like a real pig towards us. He cannot imagine how eagerly
everyone here is expecting from him definite and precise,
encouraging reports, and not the telegrams he sends us.
This eternal suspense and uncertainty is real torture. It
is absolutely impossible that Rakhmetov should have noth-
ing to write about: he has seen and is seeing many people,
he has spoken with Zemlyachka, he has been in touch with
Beard, the Moscow lawyers and writers, etc., etc. He must
keep us au courant, pass on contacts, inform us of new ad-
dresses, forward local correspondence, tell us about busi-
ness meetings and interesting encounters. Rakhmetov has
not sent us a single new contact! It’s monstrous. Not a
single item of correspondence, not a single report about
the group of writers in Moscow. If Rakhmetov were to be
arrested tomorrow, we’d find ourselves empty-handed, as
if he had never lived! It’s a crying shame; he could have
written everything and about everything without the slight-
est danger, and all he has done is to hint at some young
forces and so on. (What is known about Bazarov, Frich,
Suvorov and the others?) Not less than once a week (that’s
not much, surely), two or three hours should be spent on
a letter of 10-15 pages, otherwise, I give you my word,
all contact is virtually broken. Rakhmetov and his bound-
less plans become a boundless fiction, and our people here
are simply running away, drawing the horrified conclu-
sion that there is no sort of majority and that nothing will
come of the majority. In their new form, the tactics of the
Minority have become quite clear, namely, to ignore and
keep silent about the Majority’s writings and the Major-
ity’s existence, to keep polemics out of the C.O. and talk
importantly about positive work (recently the editors of
the C.O. issued in print, “for Party members only”, a
 TO A. A. BOGDANOV 267

letter to Party organisations concerning a plan for the

participation of Social-Democrats in the Zemstvo cam-
paign—staggering pomposity about staggering banalities.
An analysis and scathing criticism of this letter has been
issued here by Lenin * ). It is essential that the Majority
should come forward with an organ of its own 259; the neces-
sary money and workers’ letters for this are lacking. We
must work hard to get both the one and the other; unless
we have the most detailed and exhaustive letters nothing
will come of it. Contacts are not being transmitted, there
is no possibility of attacking one and the same personage
from different angles, there is no co-ordination in the work
of the bulk of the Bolsheviks who travel about Russia ar-
ranging things each on his own. This dispersal of efforts
is felt everywhere; the committees are again lagging behind
the situation, some of them unaware of the Council’s new
decisions (the supplement to Iskra Nos. 73-74, a special
ten-page leaflet), others not giving serious thought to them
and not realising that these decisions are tantamount to
the most complete and brazen falsification of the congress.
Only children could fail to see now that the Council and
C.C. will stop at nothing to sabotage a congress. We must
counterpose this by a force = a press organ & t he organisa-
tion of the Majority in Russia, otherwise we are bound
to die. Lenin has not yet seen Lightmind; it is strange that
the latter has moved to the side lines and maintains a wait-
ing attitude!
And so, give Rakhmetov a triple dressing-down and make
him write a diary as a punishment. Why hasn’t Mme Rakh-
metova gone where she promised? We repeat: all and sun-
dry will run away (even Galyorka is groaning and moan-
ing), for there is no sign of any contact with Russia, no
sign that Rakhmetov is alive, working for the common
cause, that he is worried and concerned about it. Without
letters there is nothing but complete isolation!
Written November 2 1 , 1 9 0 4
Sent from Geneva to Russia
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original

* The reference is to the pamphlet The Zemstvo Campaign and

“Iskra”’s Plan (see present edition, Vol. 7).—Ed.
268

117
TO NADEZHDA KRUPSKAYA
December 3, 1904
Today I sent a business letter to Bonch. I forgot to add
an important thing—that 3,000 copies (of Leiteisen’s dic-
tionary) be printed; this is essential for price calculation.
Tell Bonch about this at once.
I am sending you the statement of the Union Committee
and of the Caucasian representative of the C.C., 260 received
today by Raisa. * In my opinion, it is absolutely necessary
to re-issue this immediately in leaflet form in our publish-
ing house. Do this at once without fail; the Nikolayev
and other resolutions can be added to the leaflet, but it
should be kept quite small, 2-4 (maximum) pages (without
any headings, merely with a mention below of the publish-
ers).
I have just received your letter. I don’t understand what
the matter is with the “plan” of Lyadov and Rakhmetov,
but there is something wrong here. I shall try to come as
quickly as possible and hasten Destroyer’s arrival.
I warmed the attached sheets but without success. Per-
haps you’ll try some other reagents.

A free evening has occurred unexpectedly. I am sending

you on the other side a letter which I advise you to forward
immediately to all three from me personally, ** without
a powwow. It will give them a good shake up; afterwards
we could find out whether the news was exaggerated or not.
The fact remains that disunity is beginning, and a warning

* Unidentified.—Ed.
** See pp. 271-73 of this volume.—Ed.
 TO NADEZHDA KRUPSKAYA 269

must be issued and the culprits denounced most forcefully

at the very start. I strongly advise you to send this letter
off at once to all three from me personally. Tomorrow I
shall talk to Destroyer and, I’m sure, he’ll be for me, so
will Vasily Vasilyevich and Schwarz, but it will be best
if the text is mine personally. I wanted to write to Martyn
Nikolayevich and give him a piece of my mind, but I don’t
think it’s any good; I shall come and talk it over, as he
is harmless here for the time being. As to the damage that
has started in Russia, my letter will go some way in
paralysing it. A pity you did not make Martyn Nikolayevich
write to me at once in Paris about everything—a great
pity, it was so important.
I have re-read the letter to Rakhmetov; a hard word
here and there could, perhaps, have been omitted, but I
earnestly advise you to send the letter off at once from me
personally in this sharply worded form.
I called on Leiteisen. He read me Plekhanov’s letter
to him. Plekhanov, of course, swears at Lenin for all he
is worth. He writes that “Trotsky’s pamphlet is trashy,
like himself”. He asks Leiteisen “not to side with the Mi-
nority, but with him” (Plekhanov). He complains of “the
tragedy of his life, when, after twenty years, there isn’t
a comrade who believes him”. He says that he asks for
“comradely confidence but not subordination to authority”,
and that he is “seriously thinking of resigning” . . . for the
time being this is entre nous.
Deutsch wrote to Leiteisen the other day, asking for
financial assistance—he says they have no money. Zasulich
wrote the same thing (earlier) to Yefron, swearing at Ga-
lyorka and considering Sergei Petrovich to be Galyorka(!).
I hope to leave on Monday, the day after tomorrow, to
read on Tuesday and Wednesday in Zurich, to be in Berne
on Thursday, and home on Friday. It may take a few days
longer though. 261
Write to me in Zurich through Argunin (in two envelopes,
but see that the inner one is fairly strong, and be cautious).
Have they written from Lausanne, have they asked me to go
there? Have they given an address?
Yours,
N. Lenin
270 V. I. L E N I N

Be sure to write immediately to all our committees to

send us a formal order to reprint openly for everyone the
editorial board’s letter on the Zemstvo. Do this, just to
be on the safe side. No excuses, please. Get hold of the letter
itself (or republish it) and circulate it in envelopes to the
Majority committees.
Sent from Paris to Geneva
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original
 271

118
TO A. A. BOGDANOV, ROZALIA ZEMLYACHKA
AND M. M. LITVINOV 262
From Lenin to Rakhmetov, Zemlyachka and Papasha, private
December 3, 1904
Dear friend,
I received news of Martyn Nikolayevich’s arrival (I
have not seen him myself) from which I infer that things
are in a bad way with us. The Bolsheviks in Russia and
those abroad are at sixes and sevens again. From three
years’ experience I know that such disunity can do enor-
mous damage to our cause. I see evidence of this disunity
in the fact: 1) that Rakhmetov’s arrival is being held up;
2) that the weight of emphasis is being shifted from the
press organ here to something else, to a congress, a Rus-
sian O.C., etc.; 3) that deals of some kind between the C.C.
and the writers’ group of the Majority, and almost idiotic
enterprises of the Russian organ, are being connived at
or even supported. If my information about this disunity
is correct, I must say that the bitterest enemy of the Major-
ity could not have invented anything worse. Holding up
Rakhmetov’s departure is sheer unpardonable stupidity,
verging on treachery, for gossip is increasing terribly and
we risk losing impact here because of the childishly fool-
ish plans for devising something immediately in Russia.
To delay the Majority’s organ abroad (for which only the
money is lacking) is still more unpardonable. The whole
crux now lies in this organ, without it we shall be heading
for certain, inglorious death. We must get some money at
all costs, come what may, if only a couple of thousand,
and start immediately, otherwise we are cutting our own
272 V. I. L E N I N

throats. Only hopeless fools can put all hopes on a congress,

for it is clear that the Council will torpedo any congress,
wreck it even before it is convened. Understand me prop-
erly, for heaven’s sake; I am not suggesting that we aban-
don all agitation for a congress and renounce this slogan,
but only children could now confine themselves to this, and
fail to see that the essence lies in strength. Let there be
a spate of resolutions about the congress as before (for some
reason Martyn Nikolayevich’s tour did not yield a single
repeat resolution, which is a pity, a great pity), but this
is not the crux of the matter—how can anyone fail to see
this? An Organising Committee or a Bureau of the Major-
ity is necessary, but without a press organ this will be a
pitiful cipher, a sheer farce, a soap bubble which will burst
at the first setback caused by police raids. At all costs an
organ and money, money to us here, get it by any means
short of murder. An Organising Committee or a Bureau
of the Majority should authorise us to start an organ (as
quickly as possible) and make a round of the committees,
but should the O.C. take it into its head to first get “pos-
itive work” going, and put off the organ for the time being,
then such an idiotic Organising Committee would ruin
the whole thing for us. Finally, to publish anything in
Russia, to make any sort of deal with the dirty scum of
the C.C. means committing an outright betrayal. That
the C.C. wants to divide and split up the Bolsheviks in
Russia and those abroad is obvious; this has long been its
plan and none but foolish greenhorns could be taken in by
it. To start an organ in Russia with the help of the C.C.
is madness, sheer madness or treachery; this is what fol-
lows and will inevitably follow from the objective logic
of events, because the organisers of an organ or a popular
newspaper are bound to be fooled by every mangy tyke
of a Central Committee. I plainly prophesy this and I give
such people up in advance as a hopeless case.
I repeat: first and foremost comes an organ, and again
an organ, and money for an organ; to spend money on any-
thing else now is the height of folly. Rakhmetov must be
dragged out here at once, without delay. Making a round
of the committees should have the primary aim of securing
local correspondence (it is inexcusable and disgraceful that
 TO BOGDANOV, ZEMLYACHKA AND LITVINOV 273

we have no correspondent items all this time! It’s a down-

right shame and a spoke in our wheel!); all agitation for
a congress should be merely an incidental matter. All the
Majority committees should immediately and in actual
practice break with the C.C. and transfer all relations to
the O.C. or the Bureau of the Majority; this O.C. must
immediately issue a printed announcement of its formation,
and make it public at once without fail.
Unless we nip this disunity among the Majority in the
bud, unless we come to an agreement on this both by letter
and (most important) by a meeting with Rakhmetov, we
here will all give the whole thing up as a hopeless job. If
you want to work together, you must all pull together
and act in concert, by agreement (and not in defiance of
and without agreement). Damn it all, it’s a downright dis-
grace and scandal that people go out to get money for an
organ and engage instead in all kinds of piddling lousy
affairs.
In a few days I shall come out in print against the C.C.
still more vigorously. If we don’t break with the C.C.
and the Council we shall deserve only to be spat on by
everyone.
I await a reply and Rakhmetov’s arrival. 263
N. Lenin
Sent from Paris to Russia
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original
274

119
TO M. M. LITVINOV
To Papasha from Lenin
Dear friend,
I hasten to reply to your letter, which pleased me very,
very much. You are a thousand times right that we must
act vigorously, in a revolutionary way, and strike the iron
while it’s hot. I agree, too, that it is the Majority commit-
tees that must be united. The need for a centre in Russia
and an organ here is now clear to all of us. As far as the
latter is concerned, we have already done all we could.
Private is working with might and main, he has enlisted
participants, has thrown himself whole-heartedly into the
job and is trying his hardest to find a millionaire, with
considerable chance of success. Finally, you are a thousand
times right in that we must act openly. The question at
issue between us touches only on a minor point and should
be discussed calmly, viz.: whether to have a conference of
committees or direct formation of a Bureau of the Majority
Committees (we prefer this title to Organising Committee,
although of course it is not a matter of the title) which would
be recognised at first by some, and afterwards by all, of the
Majority committees. You are for the former, we are for the
latter. If a conference abroad were possible, I would be
wholly in favour of it. In Russia, however, it would be dev-
ilishly dangerous, bureaucratic and ineffectual. Meanwhile
Odessa & N ikolayev & E katerinoslav have already come to
terms and authorised the “22” to “appoint an Organising
Committee”. We replied by recommending the title “Bureau
of the Majority Committees” and seven candidates (Mer-
maid, Felix, Zemlyachka, Pavlovich, Gusev, Alexeyev,
Baron). We are writing to Odessa and St. Petersburg about
 TO M. M. LITVINOV 275

this. Alexeyev is already on his way to you. Will it not be

best to carry out the election of candidates through Riga,
St. Petersburg & Moscow, and immediately afterwards make
a public statement about this (we are sending you a draft
of the announcement * ), and then rush off to the Northern
Committee, the Caucasus, Saratov, Nizhni-Novgorod, etc.,
asking them to subscribe and supplementing the Bureau
as liberally as possible by a couple or so of their candidates
(although it is not very likely that the subscribing commit-
tees will demand large additions to the members of the
Bureau). I definitely cannot imagine our meeting with dif-
ficulties over the composition of the Bureau.
The advantages of this method are: speed, cheapness,
safety. These advantages are very important, for speed
counts above all now. The Bureau will be the official body
for uniting the committees and will in fact completely re-
place the C.C. in the event of a split. The membership of
the literary group for our future central organ is already
fully designated (a five- or six-man board: Private, Gal-
yorka, myself, Schwarz & Lunacharsky & perhaps Bazarov).
Tackle the transportation job yourself and do so energetical-
ly. We have got hold here of a former Bundist who has done
a lot of work on two frontiers; he promises to arrange things
for 200-300 rubles monthly. We are only waiting for the
money before putting him in touch with you.
The disadvantage of your method is the red tape. I con-
sider it quite useless to present ultimatums to the C.C.
and Council. The C.C. is playing the hypocrite and I don’t
doubt now for a moment that they have sold themselves
completely to the Minority and are out to falsify the con-
gress. We should not harbour any illusions. Now, when
they control all the central bodies, they have a thousand
means for falsifying the congress and have already begun to
do so. We shall prove this in print by analysing the Council’s
decisions (Iskra Nos. 73-74, supplement). We, of course,
stand and will continue to stand for a congress, but we
must cry from the house-tops that they are already falsify-
ing the congress and that we shall expose their falsification.
As a matter of fact, I now put the congress in the ninth

* See present edition, Vol. 7, pp. 503-05.—Ed.

276 V. I. L E N I N

place, allotting the first to the organ and the Russian centre.
It’s absurd to speak of disloyalty when they have pushed
us into it themselves by making a deal with the Minority.
It is a lie to say that the secret organisation of the Minority
has been dissolved; it has not; three members of the C.C.
have entered this secret organisation, that is all. All three
central bodies now constitute a secret organisation against
the Party. Only simpletons can fail to see that. We must
reply by an open organisation and expose their conspiracy.
Please strengthen everyone’s faith in our organisation
and in the future organ. We need only to be patient a little
longer, while Private finishes his job. Collect and send
us local correspondence (always inscribed: for Lenin) and
material, especially from workers. You and I differ on a
minor point, as I would be only too glad to have a confer-
ence. But really, the game is not worth the candle; it will
be much better to come out at once with an announcement
from the Bureau, for we shall easily reach agreement on its
membership and conflicts on this score are improbable. And
once the Bureau proclaims itself it will quickly gain
recognition and will begin to speak on behalf of all the
committees. Think this over carefully once more and reply
speedily.
Written December 8, 1 9 0 4
Sent from Geneva to Russia
First published in 1 9 2 6 Printed from the original
 277

120
TO ROZALIA ZEMLYACHKA
To Zemlyachka from Old Man
December 10, 1904
I have just returned from my lecture tour and received
your letter No. 1. I spoke with Mermaid. Did you get my
abusive letter (sent also to Papasha and Sysoika)? * As
regards the composition of the O.C., I, of course, accept
the general decision. I don’t think Private should be drawn
into this—he should be sent out here immediately. Fur-
ther, it is essential to organise a special group (or to sup-
plement the O.C.) for making regular rounds of the commit-
tees and maintaining all contacts between them. Our con-
tacts with the committees and with Russia in general are
extremely inadequate and we must exert every effort to
get more local correspondents’ reports and ordinary letters
from comrades. Why don’t you put us in touch with the
Northern Committee? With the Moscow printing workers
(this is very important!)? With Ryakhovsky? With Tula?
With Nizhni-Novgorod? Do this immediately. Further, why
don’t the committees send us their repeat resolutions con-
cerning the congress? This is essential. I am very much
afraid that you are too optimistic about the congress and
about the C.C.; you will see from the pamphlet The Council
Versus the Party (it is already out) that they go to any
lengths, perform the devil knows what tricks, in their de-
sire to sabotage the congress. In my opinion, it is a definite
mistake on the part of the O.C. not to issue a printed an-
nouncement. In the first place, an announcement is necessary
in order to offset our open way of acting to the Minority’s

* See pp. 271-73 of this volume.—Ed.

278 V. I. L E N I N

secret organisation. Otherwise the C.C. is bound to catch

you out, to take advantage of Sysoika’s ultimatums and
talk of your “secret” organisation; this will be a disgrace
for the Majority, a disgrace for which you will be wholly
to blame. Secondly, a printed announcement is necessary
in order to inform the mass of Party workers about the new
centre. You will never be able to do this even approximately
by any letters. Thirdly, a statement about the unity of the
Majority committees will be of tremendous moral signifi-
cance as a means of reassuring and encouraging despondent
members of the Majority (especially here abroad). To ne-
glect this would be a great political mistake. I therefore
insist, again and again, that immediately after the Northern
Conference the Bureau of the Majority (or the O.C. of the
Majority committees) should issue a printed statement
mentioning the consent and direct authorisation of the
Odessa, Ekaterinoslav, Nikolayev, four Caucasian, Riga,
St. Petersburg, Moscow, Tver, and Northern committees,
etc. (perhaps the Tula and Nizhni-Novgorod committees),
i.e., 12-14 committees. This will not only not harm the
struggle for a congress but will be of tremendous assistance
to it. Answer at once whether you agree or not. Regarding
the Zemstvo campaign, I strongly recommend that both
my pamphlet * and the letter of the Iskra editorial board
should be published in Russia immediately and openly
(without the stupid heading “for Party members”). I may
write another pamphlet, but the polemic with Iskra must
be republished without fail. Finally, and this is particu-
larly important and urgent: may I sign the local manifesto
about a new organ ** on behalf of the Organising Commit-
tee of the Majority committees (or better the Bureau of the
Majority Committees)? May I speak here in the name of the
Bureau? May I call the Bureau the publisher of the new
organ and organiser of the editorial group? This is extremely
necessary and urgent. Reply immediately, after seeing
Private; tell him, and repeat it, that he must come here

* The Zemstvo Campaign and “Iskra”’s Plan (see present edition,

Vol. 7).—Ed.
** “A Letter to the Comrades (With Reference to the Forthcoming
Publication of the Organ of the Party Majority)” (see present edition,
Vol. 7).—Ed.
 TO ROZALIA ZEMLYACHKA 279

immediately, without delay, if he doesn’t want to run the

risk of being arrested and doing great harm to our cause.
People everywhere abroad chatter an awful lot; I have heard
them myself when on a lecture tour in Paris, Zurich, etc.
A last warning: either he clears out and comes here at once
or ruins himself and throws all our work back a year. I do
not undertake to present any ultimatums about a congress
to anyone here, as that would only evoke ridicule and jeers;
there is no point in play-acting. Our position will be ten
times cleaner and better if we come forward openly with
the Bureau of the Majority and openly declare for a congress,
instead of carrying on silly backdoor negotiations, which
at best will serve only to delay matters and allow new in-
trigues on the part of people like Glebov, Konyagin, Nikit-
ich and other rotters. The entire Majority here is fretting
and worrying, longing for an organ, demanding it every-
where. We cannot publish it without direct authorisation
from the Bureau, but publish it we must. We are doing
everything we can to raise money and hope to succeed;
you too must try to raise some. For heaven’s sake, hurry
up with the authorisation to publish in the name of the
Bureau, and print a leaflet about it in Russia.
Sent from Geneva to Russia
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original
280

121
TO THE CAUCASIAN UNION COMMITTEE
OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
To the Caucasian Union from Lenin
Dear Comrades,
We have just received the resolutions of your confer-
ence. 264 Send us without fail a more carefully made copy—
there is a lot that is undecipherable. Without fail, too,
carry out as soon as possible your splendid plan—to send
your special delegate here. Otherwise it will really be ex-
tremely difficult, almost impossible, to reach agreement
and remove mutual misunderstandings. This is an urgent
necessity at the present time.
You still have little knowledge of all the documents
and all the dirty tricks of the Council and the Central Com-
mittee. There is not the slightest doubt that they have
already side-tracked the Third Congress and will now split
all the committees. It is essential immediately 1) to set up
a Bureau of the Majority Committees, 2) to entrust it with
all matters concerning the congress and all leadership of
the committees, 3) to support our organ Vperyod, 265 4) to
publish your resolutions (do you authorise us to do this?)
and an announcement about the Bureau.
Please reply quickly.
Yours,
Lenin
We do not understand what relationship your (Caucasian)
Bureau bears to the All-Russia Bureau of the Majority
Committees. Write speedily, and best of all send a delegate.
Written later than December 1 2
1904
Sent from Geneva
First published in 1 9 2 6 Printed from the original
 281

122
TO THE CAUCASIAN UNION COMMITTEE
OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
Dear Comrades,
I have received your letter concerning Borba Proletaria-
ta. 266 I shall do my best to write and shall tell my editorial
comrades about it too. I am heavily occupied at present
with work for the new organ. A detailed letter on this mat-
ter has already been sent to you. * Let us have your reply
as soon as possible and please send more, more and still
more, workers’ letters. The success of the organ depends
now on you in particular, for the beginning is especially
difficult.
Yours,
N. Lenin
Written December 2 0 , 1 9 0 4
Sent from Geneva
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original

* “A Letter to the Comrades (With Reference to the Forthcoming

Publication of the Organ of the Party Majority)” (see present edition,
Vol. 7).—Ed.
282

123
TO MARIA ESSEN 267
From Lenin to Nina Lvovna, private
December 24, 1904
Dear Beastie,
I have long been intending to write to you, but have
been hard pressed for time. We are now all in high spirits
and terribly busy; yesterday the announcement concerning
publication of our newspaper Vperyod came out. The entire
Majority rejoices and is heartened as never before. At last
we have stopped this sordid squabbling and shall get down
to real team-work with those who want to work and not to
make rows! A good group of writers has formed, we have
fresh forces. Money is scarce, but we should be getting some
soon. The Central Committee, by betraying us, has lost
all credit; it has co-opted (in an underhand way) the Men-
sheviks and is raising a hue and cry against the congress.
The Majority committees are uniting, they have already
elected a Bureau and now the organ will cement this unity.
Hurrah! Cheer up, we’re all coming to life again. Sooner
or later, one way or another we certainly hope to see you
too. Drop me a line how you are getting on, and, above
all, keep cheerful; remember, you and I are not so old yet—
we have everything before us.

Affectionately yours,
Lenin
Sent from Geneva to Russia
First published in 1 9 2 6 Printed from the original
 283

124
TO ROZALIA ZEMLYACHKA
To Zemlyachka from Lenin, private
December 26, 1904
Dear friend,
I have received your authorisation. In a day or two I
shall be writing for the press on your business. * I recently
received also the minutes of the Northern Conference. 268
Hurrah! You have done a splendid job and you (together
with Papasha, Mouse and others) are to be congratulated
on a huge success. A conference like that is a very difficult
thing under Russian conditions; apparently, it has been
a great success. Its significance is tremendous; it fits in
most appropriately with our announcement of our news-
paper (Vperyod). The announcement has already been is-
sued. The first number will come out at the beginning of
January, new style. The task now is: 1) To issue in Russia
as quickly as possible a printed leaflet about the Bureau of
the Majority Committees. For heaven’s sake, don’t put this
off even for a week. It is devilishly important.
2) Once again to make a round of the committees of the
south (and Volga), stressing the importance of giving every
support to Vperyod.
Transportation will be taken care of, so long as we have
Papasha. Let him take energetic steps for passing on his
heritage in case of arrest.
Get Rakhmetov away quickly from dangerous areas and
send him to destination. Be quick!
When we have money, we shall send a lot of people.
* “Statement and Documents on the Break of the Central Insti-
tutions with the Party” (see present edition, Vol. 7).—Ed.
284 V. I. L E N I N

We are publishing an article in Vperyod No. 1, about

the St. Petersburg disgrace (the Minority’s disruption of
the demonstration.) *
Hurry up with the public announcement about the Bu-
reau, and be sure to list all the thirteen committees. 269
Hurry, hurry and again hurry! We shall then have the
money.

Yours,
Lenin
My best regards to all friends.
Sent from Geneva to Russia
First published in 1 9 2 6 Printed from the original

* The article referred to is: “Time to Call a Halt!”, published in

Vperyod No. 1 (see present edition, Vol. 8).—Ed.
 285

125
TO A. I. YERAMASOV 270
To Monk from Lenin, private
Dear Comrade,
I was very glad to learn that it is now possible to establish
more regular contact with you. It would be good if you
were to take advantage of this to write me a few lines about
how you feel and what the immediate prospects are. Up
till now all news of you has come through intermediaries,
which always makes mutual understanding rather difficult.
Throughout the year our Party affairs have been in a
scandalous state, as you have probably heard. The Minority
has wrecked the Second Congress, created the new Iskra
(Have you seen it? What do you think of it?) and now, when
the vast majority of the committees that have expressed
themselves at all have vigorously rebelled against this
new Iskra, the Minority has wrecked the Third Congress
as well. It has become all too obvious to the Minority
that the Party will not tolerate their organ of tittle-tattle
and squabbling in the struggle, of reversion to Rabocheye
Dyelo-ism in matters of principle, to the famous organisa-
tion-as-process theory.
The situation now has been made clear. The Majority
committees have united (four Caucasian and the Odessa,
Ekaterinoslav, Nikolayev, St. Petersburg, Moscow, Riga,
Tver, Northern and Nizhni-Novgorod committees). I have
begun here (with new literary forces) to publish the news-
paper Vperyod (and announcement has been issued, No. 1
will appear at the beginning of January, new style). Let
us know what you think of it and whether we can count
on your support, which would be extremely important for us.
Written between December 2 3 , 1 9 0 4
and January 4 , 1 9 0 5
Sent from Geneva to Russia
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original
286

126
TO THE ST. PETERSBURG ORGANISATION
OF THE R.S.D.L.P.

The Moscow Zubatovist Workers’ Society has a branch

in St. Petersburg with the same Rules (workers of machine
industry) and partly even with the same membership, that
is, with those who previously worked in the St. Petersburg
Zubatovist Society (Ushakov, Starozhilov and Gorshkov,
Pikunov and Mokhnatkin, Nikiforov, and others). This
Society is sponsored by Litvinov-Fallinsky, Chizhov and
Langovoi. It is strongly recommended that extreme caution
be exercised in contacts with this Society owing to the
huge risk of agent provocateurs. The Society has now gone
a bit left, but is completely at the service of the bourgeoisie
and the police.
(This information comes from a well-informed person.)
Written in October-December 1 9 0 4
Sent from Geneva
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original
 287

QPU

127
TO A COMRADE IN RUSSIA
January 6, 1905
Dear friend,
Thank you for your detailed letter. It will be very wel-
come if you tackle local affairs more energetically.
As for my view of the arguments of the editorial board
in its second “secret” leaflet 271 quoted by you, I can only
say the following so far. First of all one is struck by the
glaring absurdity of “secret” when 1) there is nothing
secret about it, and 2) the same ideas were repeated in
No. 79 (the Ekaterinodar demonstration, the article of a
correspondent, and the editors’ comment). No. 79 is analysed
in Vperyod No. 1. * You will receive it before Monday
and will see how we present the issue. Secrecy technique
by means of a leaflet nowadays is simply absurd, and I
would attack it particularly sharply.
In essence, the “ideas” of the editors in this new produc-
tion of theirs offer, as it were, two points of vantage: 1) Old
Believer’s position, to which the editors refer and which
is clarified in Iskra, and 2) playing at parliamentarism,
“parades and manoeuvres”, lack of faith in the proletariat,
a bashful attempt to retract on the question of panic (as
much as to say, those words about panic were perhaps
“superfluous” (!)).
This should be strongly emphasised
Ad 1. Old Believer’s position, which clearly emerged
also in No. 77 (the leading article)—N.B., N.B., in my
* See Lenin’s article “Good Demonstrations of Proletarians and
Poor Arguments of Certain Intellectuals” (present edition, Vol. 8).—
Ed.
288 V. I. L E N I N

opinion, is sheer muddle. I shall analyse it in the press. 272

To justify his muddled resolution he is obliged to “invent”
a good bourgeoisie. A “bourgeois democracy” is invented
distinct from the Zemstvo people and liberals (as if the
Zemstvo people were not bourgeois democrats!), which,
practically speaking, includes the intelligentsia (by atten-
tively reading No. 77 and No. 79 you will clearly see that
bourgeois democracy is identified with the “radical intel-
ligentsia”, “democratic intelligentsia” and “intellectualist
democracy”—e.g., No. 78, p. 3, column 3, 9th line up,
and passim).
To class the intelligentsia, in contrast to the Zemstvo
people, etc., as bourgeois democrats is sheer nonsense.
To call on them to become “an independent force” (No. 77,
Iskra’s italics) is claptrap. The real basis of broad
democracy (the peasants, handicraftsmen, etc.) is ignored
here, as are also the Socialist-Revolutionaries, who are
the natural and inevitable left elements of the radical
intelligentsia. I can only outline these propositions here,
as it is necessary to deal with them in greater detail in
the press.
Old Believer is chockful of pretentious drivel about the
“democratic intelligentsia” being the “motor nerve” (!) of
liberalism, and so on. His attempt to represent as a “new
word” the term “third element”, used to describe the uplift
intelligentsia, the intellectuals among the Zemstvo em-
ployees, etc., is amusing. See my review of home affairs
in Zarya No. 2-3, where there is a whole chapter entitled
“The Third Element”. * Only the new Iskra could find a
“new word” here.
It is not true that the Social-Democrats, as a vanguard,
can influence only the democratic intelligentsia. They can
influence and are influencing the Zemstvo people too. Our
influence on them and on Mr. Struve is a fact overlooked
only by people enamoured of the “evident, tangible
results” of gala performances.
It is untrue that, apart from the Zemstvo people and
democratic intelligentsia, there is no one to influence (peas-
ants, handicraftsmen, etc.).

* See present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 281-89.—Ed.

 TO A COMRADE IN RUSSIA 289

It is untrue that it is the intelligentsia, in contrast to

the liberals, that constitutes “bourgeois democracy”.
It is untrue that the French Radicals and Italian Repub-
licans have not obscured the class-consciousness of the
proletariat.
It is untrue that the “agreement” (of which the editors
wrote in the first leaflet) could have referred to Old Be-
liever’s “conditions”. That is absurd. The editors are hedg-
ing, clearly aware that in fact the conditions have gone
by the board.
Ad 2. In my opinion, the second point stands out par-
ticularly clearly in a sentence of the second leaflet:
“We should, in our view, follow our class enemy and
temporary political ally in that very sphere in which they
are fulfilling the role of political leader entrusted them
by history, that of emancipating the nation; in this sphere
the proletariat should measure its strength against the bour-
geoisie”. *
This is playing at parliamentarism with a vengeance!
“Measure its strength”—to what depths our despicable
intellectualist gasbags degrade this great concept by reduc-
ing it to the demonstration of a handful of workers at a
Zemstvo meeting! What a hysterical fuss, trying to snatch
an advantage from a momentary situation (just now the
Zemstvo people are “in the limelight”—fire away about
the sphere in which they fulfil the role entrusted them by
history! For pity’s sake, gentlemen! Don’t talk so pretty!).
“Full contact of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie that
is politically in the limelight.” What can be “fuller” than
that! “Argufying” with the Mayor, of Ekaterinodar him-
self!
The defence of the idea about the “highest type of mobi-
lisation” is not quite clear, for here you are paraphrasing
and not quoting. But this idea contains the key to their
confusion. The distinction between an “ordinary”, and a
“political demonstration” (does the second leaflet really
say that in so many words? Is it a printed leaflet? Can
you get a copy? a specimen?) is a real gem. This, I think,
is where the opponent should be brought to bay, for it is

* The italics are Lenin’s.—Ed.

290 V. I. L E N I N

here that he comes to grief. It is not demonstrations in the

Zemstvos that are bad, but high-faulting judgements about
the highest type that are fatuous.
I shall leave it at that for the time being. I am prepar-
ing for my lecture today. 273 It is said that the Mensheviks
have decided not to come.
No. 1 of Vperyod comes out today. 274
Write in some detail about your impression of Vperyod,
obtain letters for it, especially for the workers’ section.
[I advise you to compare the second leaflet of the editorial
board with No. 77 and No. 78. Old Believer, and No. 79.]

Yours,
N. Lenin
Written in Geneva
First published in 1 9 3 4 Printed from the original
 291

128
TO ROZALIA ZEMLYACHKA

To Zemlyachka from Lenin, private

I have received your huffy letter and hasten to reply.
You have taken offence for nothing. If I did say hard things,
I meant them lovingly, really, and with the reservation:
provided Lyadov’s information was correct. The tremen-
dous work you have done to win over fifteen committees
and organise three conferences 275 is highly appreciated by
us, as you could have seen from the preceding letter con-
cerning the Northern Conference. * We have not taken and
are not taking a single step without you. The young lady
who went to St. Petersburg promised to use her personal
connections to obtain money, and we wrote to N. I. 276 for
you, and not at all through any desire to ignore you (the
inscription “private” was intended solely as a safeguard
against our enemies). The misunderstanding about our let-
ters to N. I. we shall explain to her immediately. To the
devil with N. I., of course.
Many thanks to the committees for sending addresses.
Please send some more. Gusev has gone, Lyadov will be
going when we have money.
Lyadov set out the matter of the organ in Russia some-
what incorrectly, and I beg your pardon if I lost my temper
a bit and offended you.
As regards the open action of the Bureau I shall not argue
this point any more. A fortnight, of course, is a trifle. Be-
lieve me, I fully and positively intend to reckon with the
opinion in Russia on all points, and I only ask you seriously:
for heaven’s sake, inform me more frequently about this

* See p. 283 of this volume.—Ed.

292 V. I. L E N I N

opinion. If I am guilty of succumbing to the mood of the

Bolsheviks abroad, I can hardly be blamed, since Russia
writes rarely and exasperatingly little. I fully accept the
choice of the Northern Conference, 277 and, believe me, I
do so right willingly. Try to raise money and write telling
me that you are not angry.

Wholly yours,
Lenin
Written at the beginning
of January 1 9 0 5
Sent from Geneva
to St. Petersburg
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original
 293

129
TO THE SECRETARY OF THE MAJORITY
COMMITTEES’ BUREAU
January 29, 1905
Dear friend,
I have a great favour to ask you: please give Rakhmetov
a scolding, yes, a good sound scolding. Really, he acts
towards us like the Osvobozhdeniye people 278 or priest
Gapon 279 towards the Social-Democrats. I have just been
looking at the table of our correspondence with Russia. 280
Gusev sent us six letters in ten days, but Rakhmetov two
in thirty days. What do you think of that? Not a sign of
him. Not a line for Vperyod. Not a word about the work,
plans and connections. It’s simply impossible, incredible,
a disgrace. No. 4 of Vperyod will come out in a day or two,
and immediately after it (a few days later) No. 5, but
without any support from Rakhmetov. Today letters arrived
from St. Petersburg dated January 10, very brief ones.
And no one arranged for good and full letters about the
Ninth of January! 281
I have had no reply whatever to my letter to Rakhmetov
about literary contributions! *
Neither is there anything about the Bureau and the con-
gress. 282 Yet it is so important to hurry up with the an-
nouncement concerning the Bureau and with the conven-
ing of the congress. For heaven’s sake, don’t trust the Men-
sheviks and the C.C., and go ahead everywhere and in the
most vigorous manner with the split, a split and again
a split. We here, carried away by enthusiasm for the revo-
lution, were on the point of joining with the Mensheviks

* See present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 43-46.—Ed.

294 V. I. L E N I N

at a public meeting, but they cheated us again, and shame-

fully at that. We earnestly warn anyone who does not
want to be made a fool of: a split, and an absolute split.
Sent from Geneva
to St. Petersburg
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original
 295

130
TO AUGUST BEBEL
Geneva, February 8, 1905
Comrade,
On the very day you wrote to me 283 we were preparing
a letter to Comrade Hermann Greulich, * in which we ex-
plained how and why the split in the Russian Social-
Democratic Labour Party has now become an accomplished
fact. We shall send a copy of this letter to the Executive
Committee of the German Social-Democratic Party.
The Third Congress of our Party will be convened by the
Russian Bureau of the Majority Committees. The Vperyod
editorial board and the Bureau are only provisional central
bodies. At the present time, neither I nor any of the edit-
ors, contributors or supporters of Vperyod known to me
can assume the responsibility of taking any new, important
steps binding on the whole Party without a Party Congress
decision. 284 Thus, your proposal can be submitted only to
this Party Congress.
Please excuse my poor German.

With Social-Democratic greetings,

N. Lenin
Sent to Berlin
First published in German Printed from the
and Russian in 1 9 0 5 original
Translated from
the German

* “A Brief Outline of the Split in the R.S.D.L.P.,” (see present

edition, Vol. 8).—Ed.
296

131
TO S. I. GUSEV 285
To Khariton
February 15, 1905
Dear friend,
Many thanks for the letters. Be sure to keep this up,
but bear in mind this: 1) never restrict yourself to making
a precis of letters or reports handed over to you but be
sure to send them on (apart from your own letters) in full;
2) be sure to put us in direct touch with new forces, with
the youth, with newly-formed circles. Don’t forget that
the strength of a revolutionary organisation lies in the
number of its connections. We should measure the efficiency
and results of our friends’ work by the number of new Rus-
sian connections passed on to us. So far not one of the St.
Petersburgers (shame on them) has given us a single new
Russian connection (neither Serafima, nor Sysoika, nor
Zemlyachka, nor Nik. Iv.). It’s a scandal, our undoing,
our ruin! Take a lesson from the Mensheviks, for Christ ’ s
sake. Issue No. 85 of Iskra is chockful of correspondence.
You have been reading Vperyod to the youth, haven’t you?
Then why don’t you put us in touch with one of them?
Remember, in the event of your being arrested we shall
be in low water unless you have obtained for us a dozen or
so new, young, loyal friends of Vperyod, who are able to
work, able to keep in contact, and able to carry on corres-
pondence even without you. Remember that! A professional
revolutionary must build up dozens of new connections
in each locality, put all the work into their hands while
he is with them, teach them and bring them up to the mark
not by lecturing them but by work. Then he should go to
another place and after a month or two return to check up
 TO S. I. GUSEV 297

on the young people who have replaced him. I assure you

that there is a sort of idiotic, philistine, Oblomov-like fear
of the youth among us. I implore you: fight this fear with
all your might.

Yours,
Lenin
Sent from Geneva
to St. Petersburg
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original
298

132
TO S. I. GUSEV

February 25, 1905

We have just this moment learnt from Lyadov’s letter
that the C.C. has agreed to a congress. 286 I adjure the
Bureau by all that is holy not to believe the C.C. and not
on any account to relinquish a single jot of their complete
independence in convening the congress. The Bureau has
no right to yield an inch to the C.C. If it does we here will
raise a revolt and all the rock-firm committees will be
with us. The C.C. has been invited to the congress, and let
it come with the Mensheviks, but we and we alone are con-
vening the congress. Vperyod No. 8, with the Bureau’s
announcement and our energetic addendum, * will come
out on Tuesday (February 28, 1905). For heaven’s sake,
do everything to ensure that this letter is forwarded quickly
to Lyadov, Sysoika and Zemlyachka.

Yours,
Lenin
Sent from Geneva
to St. Petersburg
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original

* See present edition, Vol. 8.—Ed.

 299

133
TO S. I. GUSEV
To Nation
Dear friend,
Thanks tremendously for the letters. You are simply
rescuing us from the effects of our foreign environment.
Be sure to keep it up. For heaven’s sake, obtain correspond-
ence from the workers themselves. Why don’t they write? It’s
a downright disgrace! Your detailed account of the Com-
mittee’s agitation at the elections to the Shidlovsky Com-
mission 287 is magnificent. We shall print it.
One more question: did you accept on the Committee
the six workers mentioned? Reply without fail. We advise
you by all means to accept workers on the Committee, to
the extent of one-half at least. Unless you do this you will
not be fortified against the Mensheviks, who will send
strong reinforcements from here.
No one from the Bureau writes about the congress. This
worries us, for Mermaid’s optimism (and partly yours) that
the C.C.’s consent to the congress is a gain, inspires grave
misgivings. To us it is as clear as daylight that the C.C.
wanted to fool you. You should be a pessimist as far as
the C.C. is concerned. Don’t believe it, for Christ’s sake!
Make the most of the moment to induce the Minority com-
mittees, especially those of the “Marsh”, to turn up. It’s
tremendously important to give special attention to Kiev,
Rostov and Kharkov; we know that there are Vperyod sup-
porters, workers and intellectuals, in all these three centres.
At all costs delegates from these committees should be
brought to the congress with a consultative voice. * The

* Write all this to Mermaid and Demon.

300 V. I. L E N I N

same applies to the Moscow print-workers. Altogether it

is most deplorable that the Bureau did not publish our
decision to have the workers’ organisations invited to the
congress: this is a tremendous mistake. Rectify it quickly
and without fail.
I strongly advise carrying out agitation among all the
300 organised workers in St. Petersburg for sending one
or two delegates to the congress with a consultative voice
at their own expense. The idea will no doubt appeal to the
workers, and they will set to work with a will. Don’t forget
that the Mensheviks will try their damnedest to discredit
the congress in the eyes of the workers by saying: there
were no workers present. This has to be taken into consid-
eration and special attention must be paid to workers’
representation. The workers of St. Petersburg will certainly
collect three hundred rubles for two workers’ delegates
(or some Maecenas will make a special donation for it)—
agitation among the workers for sending the cap round
will have a tremendous effect, everyone will know of it.
This would be of enormous importance. Be sure to read this
in the Committee and at meetings of organisers and agitat-
ors. Do all our organisers and agitators speak to the workers
about direct connections with Vperyod?
All the very best.
Yours,
Lenin
P.S. Both Bureau leaflets (No. 1 on an uprising and
No. 2 on the attitude towards the liberals) are excellent
and we are reprinting them in full in Vperyod. 288 If only
they were to keep this up! By the way: why has the writ-
ers’ group declared that it belongs to the organisation
of the St. Petersburg Committee? The reason this is not
advisable is this. A writers’ group attached to the Com-
mittee would have no mandate to the congress. If it was
a special group, not belonging to any committee, but an
all-Russia “writers’ group belonging to the Russian
S.D.L.P.”, it would have the right (with the Bureau’s per-
mission) to send a delegate with a consultative voice. Ar-
range this, please! We shall not publish the fact that it is
a group attached to the St. Petersburg Committee. Let
 TO S. I. GUSEV 301

1) the S.P.C. part with it; 2) let it become a separate and

special group at least for a time; 3) let it “submit a request”
(there’s bureaucracy for you!) for its delegate to be admitted
to the congress with a consultative voice; 4) let the Bureau
give permission. I can’t believe that a dozen writers will
be unable to raise 200 rubles for a delegate! I’m sure it
would be useful to have their delegate at the congress (for
example, Rumyantsev or someone else). Inform the Bureau
of this or, better still, do all this yourself without any reports
at all.
Written at the beginning
of March 1 9 0 5
Sent from Geneva
to St. Petersburg
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original
302

134
TO S. I. GUSEV
To Nation from Lenin
March 11, 1905
Dear friend,
I have just received Nos. 10 and 11. * Many thanks,
particularly for the scolding in No. 10. I love to hear people
scold—it means they know what they are doing and have
a line to follow. You’ve given the “old wolf ” a proper
trimming; the mere perusal of it made him scratch him-
self. No. 11, though, showed that you are far too optimistic
if you hope so easily to come to terms with the St. Peter-
sburg Mensheviks. Oh, I fear the Danaans 289 and advise
you to do the same! Have you noticed that everything that
is not to their advantage remains a matter of words, undoc-
umented—for example, the C.C.’s agreeing to a congress.
Issue No. 89 of Iskra appeared today with the Council’s
decision of March 8, 1905, against a congress—a lying, rag-
ing decision (“by acting the way they do, the participants in
a congress place themselves outside the Party”), which gives
the number of “qualified Party organisations, apart from
the central bodies”, as of January 1, 1905, as thirty-three
(a shameless lie, non-existent committees, like that of the
Kuban and the unendorsed Kazan Committee, have been
invented, while in the case of two others, those of Polesye
and the North-West, the date has been mixed up, January
1, 1905, being stated instead of April 1, 1905). Clearly there
can be no question of the Council’s participation in the
congress, nor, consequently, of the League and the Central
Organ. I’m very glad of this, and I don’t believe that the

* Gusev’s letters to Lenin.—Ed.

 TO S. I. GUSEV 303

Mensheviks in Russia will go; I don’t believe it. So far not

one of you has sent us a single written statement of a single
Menshevik committee agreeing to a congress. Be under no
illusion! If the St. Petersburg Mensheviks agree to make
concessions, demand from them, as a conditio sine qua non,
recognition of the congress to be convened by the Bureau,
and recognition of the St. Petersburg Committee as the only
legal committee connected with the working-class movement
—to be given in writing, and copies to be sent to Vperyod
without fail (over their own signatures) and on behalf of
all the members, specified by name, of the St. Petersburg
Minority group. Even then do not allow them any contacts
at all—otherwise you will win yourselves internal ene-
mies, mark my words!
Inform Rakhmetov immediately by express telegram that
around March 20, 1905, there will be a most important
conference here with the Socialist-Revolutionary Party and
a host of other parties about an agreement for an uprising 290
—Rakhmetov’s presence is essential, let him come post-
haste and lose no time.
In conclusion I tell you once again: you do not know
the Minority forces throughout Russia and are under an illu-
sion. This is a mistake. The Mensheviks at present are strong-
er than we are; it’s going to be a long and hard fight.
The icons abroad 291 raise a heap of money. I consider
it simply indecent for us to raise the question of an agree-
ment with the Bund, etc., after their (and the Lettish)
conference with the C.C. 292 (minutes in Posledniye Izves-
tia 293 and in Iskra No. 89). It would be idiocy; it would
look as if we were thrusting ourselves upon them. We shall
be told: we don’t know you, we have already reached agree-
ment with the C.C. It will end in disgrace, believe me!

All the very best. Lenin

Sent from Geneva
to St. Petersburg
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original
304

135
TO S. I. GUSEV
To Gusev from Lenin
March 16, 1905
Dear friend,
I have just learnt that, at the request of the Bund, the
conference here of eighteen Social-Democratic and other
revolutionary parties (including the Socialist-Revolutionary
Party and the P.P.S.) has been postponed to the beginning
of April. It is extremely important for us to settle jointly
with Rakhmetov a number of fundamental questions con-
cerning our participation in this conference (its aim is to
reach agreement on an uprising). Iskra is carrying on a
most vile intrigue. If Rakhmetov has not left yet, make
every effort to see that he goes immediately, and let me
know at once without fail exactly what you know about
the time of his departure.
We are pretty worried here about the congress. It’s all
very well for you, Igor and Lyadov to write about the
Old Man being nervy. Who wouldn’t be nervy when we are
surrounded here by enemies who take advantage of every
item of news and who get their news more quickly than we
do. Really, this is unpardonable on the part of the Bureau.
As regards the East, for example, all we know is that Zem-
lyachka is touring the Urals and that Lyadov visited Sa-
ratov. The reply from the latter place is vague, nothing
definite. We do not know what arrangements have been
made for publishing leaflets over the signature of the “Com-
mittees of the Eastern District”. It is a disgrace and a scan-
dal! Recently the Socialist-Revolutionaries showed us one
such leaflet, a stupid one, against Gapon! Obviously, this is
a C.C. intrigue, but surely two members of the Bureau who
 TO S. I. GUSEV 305

visited the East could have learnt something and written

us about it in good time, so as not to put us in an idiotic
position in face of the enemy! Don’t they feel ashamed
at putting Vperyod in such an extremely awkward position?
And more than awkward, because Iskra brazenly takes
advantage of everything. In Iskra No. 89 the Council excom-
municates everyone who goes to the congress. The votes
are again falsified there. They count 75 votes as of January
1, 1905 (33 9 2 = 66 & 9 from the C.C., Central Organ and
Council). They have invented the Kazan and Kuban com-
mittees, which were never endorsed, and lie about the Po-
lesye and North-Western committees having been endorsed
as of January 1, 1905. Actually, they were not endorsed
until April 1, 1905. We exposed this lie in Vperyod No.
10. *
Here is something that should be borne in mind: for
the congress to be lawful from Iskra’s point of view, there
must be nineteen committees attending it. By our reckoning,
this is wrong. But if there were 28 (apart from the League)
fully qualified organisations in Russia as of January 1, 1905,
then the participation of 14-15 at the congress is extremely
desirable, almost essential. Meanwhile, we have 13 — 1
(Ekaterinoslav) & 2 (Voronezh and Tula) = 14, and that only
by counting Tiflis, a doubtful. Of course, the congress is
necessary all the same, if only of a dozen committees,
and the sooner the better. Any kind of congress, so long as
it is a congress. But why is there no news of the Bureau
having visited a single neutral or Menshevik committee?
Was it not decided that the Bureau would invite and visit
all of them? Why hasn’t Lyadov visited the Kuban Com-
mittee? Why, in travelling through, did he not invite to
the congress the Don, Kharkov, Gornozavodsky and Kiev
committees? And the various groups in these towns? An
excellent means of stirring the workers is to invite them
to the congress themselves. Why isn’t this being done? It
would really have enormous significance! Why isn’t there
a scrap of news about Kursk, the Polesye Committee and
others? We shall do everything we can from here, but not

* See “Whom Are They Trying to Fool?” (present edition, Vol. 8).—
Ed.
306 V. I. L E N I N

much can be done from here. There are slight chances of

making contact with Kazan, Siberia, Kursk, Polesye, and
Saratov, but all this is problematical. And yet, if all these
five, plus the Urals, were at the congress, then its full law-
fulness, even according to Iskra’s reckoning, would be
beyond doubt. Do write.

Yours,
Lenin
Sent from Geneva
to St. Petersburg
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original
 307

136
TO THE ODESSA COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.

To the Odessa Committee from Lenin

Dear friends,
I should like to say a few words to you about congress
delegates. If you are sending them from Russia, then my
letter does not apply. But I heard that you are thinking
of giving a mandate to one of the people here. If this rumour
is true, then I would advise giving mandates to both of
your candidates here, i.e., to Josephine and Danila—one
with a vote and the other with a consultative voice (i.e.,
write a letter to the congress that the Odessa Committee
requests the congress to let Josephine attend with a con-
sultative voice, as a member of the Southern Bureau and
a very useful worker in a consultative capacity, or, for
example, Danila, as having an excellent knowledge of the
local areas and having worked with remarkable energy among
the Odessa proletariat). You may rest assured that the
congress will grant such a request from the Committee.
Please read this letter to all the Committee members and
send me a reply. 294

P. S. Are you taking workers into the Committee? This is

essential, absolutely essential! Why don’t you put us in
direct contact with workers? Not a single worker writes to
Vperyod. This is a scandal. We need at all costs dozens of
worker correspondents. I would ask you to read this part
of the letter, too, not only to all Committee members, but
also to all Majority organisers and agitators.
Regards to everyone!
Yours,
Lenin
Written March 2 5 ,
1 9 0 5 , in Geneva
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original
308

137
TO S. I. GUSEV
To be handed to Gusev from Lenin, private
April 4, 1905
Dear friend,
You wrote yourself that you were now being shadowed.
What’s more, I have gathered information fully confirming
this fact from St. Petersburgers who have recently arrived
from the scene of activities. There can be no doubt at all
about it. I know from my own experience and from that
of lots of comrades that one of the most difficult things
for a revolutionary is to leave a danger spot in good time.
Whenever the time comes to drop work in a given locality,
that work becomes particularly interesting and particularly
needed; so it seems always to the person concerned. I consid-
er it my duty, therefore, to demand of you most insistently
that you abandon St. Petersburg for a time. This is abso-
lutely essential. No excuses of any kind, no considerations
for the work, should put off this step. The harm caused
by an inevitable arrest will be enormous. The harm caused
by going away will be insignificant, and merely apparent.
Advance young assistants for a time, for a month or two,
to fill the top posts, and rest assured that, with an extreme-
ly brief and temporary setback, the cause, on the whole,
will gain by it tremendously. The young people will
acquire more experience in key posts, and any mistakes they
may make will be speedily corrected by us. An arrest, how-
ever, would ruin all our major opportunities for organising
central work. Once more, I insistently advise going out
immediately to the provinces for a month. There’s heaps of
work to be done everywhere, and everywhere general guid-
 TO S. I. GUSEV 309

ance is needed. If there is a will to go (and a will there

must be) the thing can always be arranged.
I’m not writing anything about the agreement of March
12, 1905. 295 Cursing will do no good. I suppose they could
not act otherwise. The thing now is to prepare energetically
for the congress and to increase the number of delegates.
Don’t be too free with money, take care of it; it will be
needed more than ever after the congress.
Sent from Geneva
to St. Petersburg
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original
310

138
TO OLGA VINOGRADOVA 296

To Beggar from Lenin

Dear Comrade,
I have read with interest your letter 297 (No. 6) about
the primary nucleus of the organisation among handicraft
workers. At the factories this nucleus should be represented
by the factory committee, but what about the handicraft
industries? You stand for trade union circles, but what
about your opponents—? I didn’t quite grasp what they
stand for. Neither do I know, unfortunately, what these
old trade union “councils” were. When did they exist?
How were they formed? How did they combine Social-
Democratic and trade union work?
Not being familiar with the practical aspect of this prac-
tical question, I hesitate to express an opinion as yet. Fur-
ther letters may tell me more—then we shall see. One must
study experience and be careful in changing things, that is
true. But it’s not quite clear to me what Economism has to
do with it. Don’t the factory committees, too, mainly dis-
cuss factory interests (which are also trade union interests)?
Yet no one has objected to the factory committee being
the primary nucleus of the Social-Democratic organisation.
The important thing is living conditions, conditions of as-
sembly, conditions under which people meet, conditions
of joint work, because the primary nucleus should meet
frequently and regularly and function in a particularly
lively fashion. Finally, is a single type of organisation
obligatory here? Would not a variety of types be better for
adaptation to various conditions and for acquiring richer
experience?
 TO OLGA VINOGRADOVA 311

Thanks for the letters. Keep on writing, for it is not often

we have news about the day-to-day (the most interesting)
aspect of the work.
Lenin
Written April 8, 1 9 0 5
Sent from Geneva to Odessa
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original
312

139
TO THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST BUREAU
To the Secretariat of the International Socialist Bureau
Geneva, July 8, 1905
Dear Comrades,
Your letter of July 6 somewhat surprised us. You should
already have known that Citizen Plekhanov is no longer
the representative of the Russian Social-Democratic Party
in the International Socialist Bureau.
In Iskra No. 101, Citizen Plekhanov published the follow-
ing letter, which we translate literally, and which, one
would think, he should have brought to the notice of the
Bureau:
“Comrades, the decisions of the conference [of the breakaway sec-
tion of the Party], 298 which have dealt a mortal blow to the central
institutions of our Party, compel me to divest myself of the title
of editor of the Central Organ and fifth member of the Council (elected
by the Second, lawful Congress).
“G. Plekhanov.

“P. S. I take this opportunity publicly to ask that section of the

Party which recognises the decisions of the ‘Third’ Congress 299 as
binding, whether it wishes me to continue to represent this, now—
alas!—dissevered Party in the International Socialist Bureau. I can
remain the representative of the R.S.D.L.P. only if this is the wish
of both sections.
“Montreux, May 29, 1905.”

The editorial board of Proletary, 300 the Central Organ

of the Party, replied to this statement of Citizen Plekha-
nov’s with the following paragraph, published in No. 5,
for June 13, 1905:
“In regard to Comrade Plekhanov’s postscript we can
state that the question of the Party’s representation in the
 TO THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST BUREAU 313

International Bureau by Comrade Plekhanov has now been

submitted to the C.C. of the Party for its decision.”
The question has not yet been settled and, consequently,
at the present time Citizen Plekhanov cannot, in the capac-
ity of representative of the Party, 301 sign any document
emanating from the International Bureau.
In view of this we draw your attention, dear comrades,
to the fact that it is very inconvenient for us to commu-
nicate with the Bureau through a comrade who himself
declares publicly that he cannot represent the Party so
long as it does not definitely authorise him to do so. We
again repeat our request to the International Secretariat
that, pending settlement of the question of representation
in the International Socialist Bureau, everything that con-
cerns us (letters, manifestoes, documents, funds, etc.)
should be sent to the address of the Party’s Central Com-
mittee (V. Oulianoff, Rue de la Colline, 3, Genève).
Accept, dear comrades, the assurance of our fraternal
sentiments.
Sent to Brussels
First published in 1 9 3 1 Printed from the
handwritten copy
Translated from
the French
314

140
TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
From Lenin to the members of the C.C., private
July 11, 1905
Dear friends,
A number of letters from all over Russia, Alexandrov’s
news, a talk with Tick and several other new arrivals—
all this strengthens my conviction that there is some
internal defect in the work of the C.C., a defect of organi-
sation, in the way the work is arranged. The general opinion
is that there is no Central Committee, that it does not make
itself felt, that no one notices it. And the facts confirm this
There is no evidence of the C.C.’s political guidance of the
Party. Yet all the C.C. members are working themselves
to death! What’s the matter?
In my opinion, one of the principal causes of it is that
there are no regular C.C. leaflets. Leadership by means
of talks and personal contacts at a time of revolution is
sheer utopianism. Leadership must be public. All other
forms of work must be wholly and unconditionally subordi-
nated to this form. A responsible C.C. litterateur should
concern himself first of all with writing (or obtaining from
contributors—though the editor himself should always be
prepared to write) a leaflet twice a week on Party and po-
litical topics (the liberals, the Socialist-Revolutionaries,
the Minority, the split, the Zemstvo delegation, the trade
unions, etc., etc.) and republishing it in every way, imme-
diately mimeographing in 50 copies (if there is no printing-
press) and circulating it to the committees for republication
Articles in Proletary could, perhaps, sometimes be used l
for such leaflets—after a certain amount of revision. I can-
not understand why this is not being done! Can Schmidt
 TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 315

and Werner have forgotten our talks on this? Surely it is

possible to write and circulate at least one leaflet a
week? The Report on the Third Congress * has not been re-
printed 302 in full anywhere in Russia all this time. It is
so outrageous, such a fiasco for all the C.C.’s famous “tech-
niques” that I simply cannot understand what Winter was
thinking about, what Sommer and the others are thinking
about! After all, are there not committee print-shops in
existence?
Apparently, the C.C. members completely fail to under-
stand the tasks of “keeping in the public eye”. Yet without
that there is no centre, there is no Party! They are working
themselves to the bone, but they are working like moles,
at secret rendezvous, at meetings, with agents, etc., etc.
It is a sheer waste of strength! If you are short-handed,
then put third-rate forces on the job, even tenth-rate ones,
but attend to the political leadership yourselves, issue
leaflets first and foremost. And then—personal appearances
and speeches at district meetings (in Polesye no one attend-
ed the meeting. A scandal. They all but broke away!), at
conferences, etc. Something like a C.C. diary should be
published, a C.C. bulletin, and every important question
should be dealt with in a leaflet issued twice a week. It
is not difficult to publish one: 50 copies can be run off
on a hectograph and circulated, one of the committees can
print it and have copies sent to us. The thing is to act,
to act all the time openly, to stop being dumb. Otherwise
we here, too, are completely cut off.
Perhaps the C.C. should be enlarged? Half a dozen more
agents taken on? People could be found for this, I’m sure. In
fact, I want to suggest a practical step right now: in view of
the almost total absence of correspondence between the C.C.
members (we have had only two letters from Werner and
Winter, and from Alexandrov only news from the road,
“travel impressions”, nothing more), it is absolutely
essential to carry out our joint decision of May 10, 1905,
concerning the holding of a meeting by September 1, 1905. 303
For heaven’s sake, don’t put this off, don’t be stingy about
spending 200-300 rubles. Without this, there is a great

* See present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 433-39.—Ed.

316 V. I. L E N I N

danger that we shall not be able to set things going properly.

At the moment they are not moving at all. This is evident
from all reports.
There are still six weeks to go to September 1. It is pos-
sible to wind up affairs and make arrangements for a trip
in good time, after corresponding among others with Ale-
xandrov as to who should go. I await a reply.
Sent from Geneva to Russia
First published in 1 9 2 6 Printed from the original
 317

141
TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
From Lenin to the C.C.
Dear friends,
In regard to your recent letters I should say that I agree
with all the decisions except two. 1) I emphatically protest
against the appointment of Matryona as an agent and ear-
nestly request you to revise it. He is a muddle-headed
fellow, who can cause us great harm, desert us a dozen times,
put us to shame by his stupidity, etc. Let him work in the
Committee—as an agent he is no good at all, unless you
put him on a “technique” job. As regards Stanislav, please
let me know who he is, tell me more about him. For my part
I would strongly recommend Lalayants as an agent. In Odes-
sa and the Southern Bureau he displayed outstanding abili-
ty as an organiser; according to the general opinion he has
got real live work going there. He was the guiding spirit
of all the local work—so a number of Odessites reported,
some of whom were anything but favourably disposed
towards the “rockfirm”. Last but not least he is a man of
exceptionally high principle. 2) Regarding Plekhanov, I am
extremely surprised at your silence on a question that had
been raised here in Winter’s time. Have we the right to ap-
point as the representative of the Party someone who does
not want to come into the Party and refuses to recognise
the Third Congress? He has now declared in print that he
does not consider the Third Congress lawful and will act as
representative only of both sections. A number of comrades
here had pointed out, when Winter was still here, that, in
appointing Plekhanov, we would only pamper him and
spoil him altogether. I was in favour of Plekhanov at first,
but I now see that he can only be appointed on certain
318 V. I. L E N I N

conditions. Just imagine concretely what it will mean to

have as our representative on the Bureau someone to whom
no one speaks, and who cannot be made to “represent” the
C.C. and not himself! We have now at last secured direct
contact between the Bureau (the I.S.B.) and us, and we
see that there are quite a number of small business mat-
ters, financial and others (requests on behalf of Russia and
concerning Russia, about which I wrote to them recently;
the method of representation, about which they asked me
a few days ago, etc.). The Bureau wrote about another “pro-
posal of Bebel’s” 304 (which has not yet reached us); evident-
ly, the old fellow is out to “make peace” again (Kautsky
has published a mean article in connection with the Ger-
man edition of the “Report” 305 ). Think what our position
will be if Plekhanov is the representative and Plekhanov
has to deal with Bebel on the question of “peace”! I under-
stand very well what strong reasons there are to make us
all, and especially you, desire “peace”, desire the appoint-
ment of Plekhanov, but I have become convinced that such
a step, without a real guarantee of peace, will be only a false
step, will confuse the issue still more, will cause new splits,
violations of agreements, altercations and fresh resentment,
and will only make unity more remote. In my opinion, all
the talk about unity will be so much empty phrase-making
so long as a realisable plan for it has not been worked out
from experience; things are going in this direction, we
must wait a few months, let everyone assess the absurdity
of the decisions of the conference, let experience destroy
their idiotic “organisational statute”, let experience cut
down their claims (for, in general, things are going better
with us, and we are obviously going forward to victory)—
and then direct negotiations will be started between the
central bodies without intermediaries, then we shall work
out (whether at once or after two or three attempts, I do
not undertake to say, of course) a modus vivendi. But now
it is necessary to fight.
My proposal is to make a “proposal” to Plekhanov on
your lines, but on condition that he is willing to recognise
the Third Congress, come into the Party and submit to its
decisions. By such a step we shall observe the conventions
and eliminate any possible confusion.
 TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 319

Pending your reply I shall not propose anything to Ple-

khanov. I earnestly beg you to postpone a decision until
we meet in September.
I am extremely surprised that you write nothing about
the “Open Letter” 306 written by Reinert that was sent to
me. I don’t understand the why and wherefor. Why is there
not a word about this in the decisions? Write quickly
whether it is to be published in the Central Organ. If it is,
then I should like very much to ask for a slight alteration
concerning tactical differences so that it may not come into
contradiction with my pamphlet, which Lyubich will tell
you about. 307 I hope we shall see eye to eye on this and,
if possible, I would ask to be allowed to make this altera-
tion myself.
I am extremely surprised that the “Report” is not being
issued in Russia in full. It’s scandalous! Make all the tech-
nical staff hurry up with this, for heaven’s sake!
We are extremely grateful for the detailed decisions,
letters from committees and leaflets you have sent us. At
long last something like regular contacts between us are
being established! Please, don’t drop this custom and find
a good St. Petersburg secretary. We are badly in need of
information from St. Petersburg about Party affairs, the
liberals, questions of Party life that are being discussed
in the circles, etc., etc. Do not forget that the Bund and
the Mensheviks are better informed than we are here!

All the very best.

N. Lenin
Written July 1 2 , 1 9 0 5
Sent from Geneva to Russia
First published in 1 9 2 6 Printed from the original
320

142
TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
No. 1
July 28, 1905
Dear friends,
The two following important questions must be decided
as quickly as possible: 1) The question of Plekhanov. We
have instructed a special agent (Lyadov) to tell you how
the matter stands. I shall repeat it briefly. Plekhanov
acted with incredible impudence by writing to the Inter-
national Socialist Bureau that both sections of the Party
had recognised (!) him, and in every way denouncing and
denigrating our Third Congress. I have a copy of his letter
sent to me from the Bureau. It will be sent on to you. With
great difficulty I established direct contact with the In-
ternational Socialist Bureau and refuted Plekhanov. Ple-
khanov then refused to be the representative. You know
that I was by no means unconditionally opposed to Ple-
khanov’s appointment, but now it would be quite unthinka-
ble. It would be such a disavowal of me that my position
would become impossible. It would discredit us altogether
in the eyes of the International Socialist Bureau. Do not
forget that almost all the Social-Democrats abroad are on
the side of the “icons” and think nothing of us, look down
on us. An incautious step on your part will spoil everything.
Therefore I earnestly request Werner and Schmidt to con-
firm, as quickly as possible, if only provisionally, the
steps I have taken. That is one thing. Secondly, Plekhanov
should be offered a scientific organ in the name of the C.C.
of the R.S.D.L.P., but on condition that he recognise the
Third Congress and all its decisions as binding on him. If he
turns this down, the blame will fall on him, while we shall
have demonstrated our conciliatory spirit. If he accepts,
we shall take a further step to meet him. And so: I earnest-
ly advise you to rescind the decision about representation,
 TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 321

and, as regards the scientific organ, to draft the proposal

with the above condition. 308 2) About the proposal for
mediation on the part of the International Socialist Bureau.
The full text will be sent to you, although Lyadov has al-
ready taken it for you. For the purpose of reconciliation,
the International Socialist Bureau proposes a conference
between us and the Minority, under the chairmanship of
members of the I. S. Bureau. The foreign Social-Democrats
(Bebel and others) are strongly urging the I.S.B. to bring
pressure to bear on us. Letters of this kind have come even
from the British (the Social-Democratic Federation; I have
a copy of the letter, in the usual conciliatory vein, about
it being a crime to quarrel at such a time, etc. 309 ). I wrote
to the I. S. Bureau that it was not within my competence
to settle this question, and that the decision had to come
from the whole C.C., to which, I said, I was writing im-
mediately. Then I enquired whether they had in mind me-
diation only, or a court of arbitration that was binding on
both sides; it was important for me, I said, to write on this
point to the C.C. So far there is no reply from them.
My opinion is as follows. The conference should certainly
be agreed to. It should be fixed for round about September 1.
We should send to it without fail one or two C.C. members
from Russia (do not forget that our meeting is fixed for
September 1, and that it is extremely necessary in all re-
spects). Mediation should be accepted with thanks. A bind-
ing decision by arbitration should be refused on the strength
of the Third Congress resolution, 310 which has bound us
unconditionally and which states that the conditions for
complete amalgamation with the Minority should be sub-
mitted to the Fourth Congress for confirmation. The Third
Congress instructed us to prepare and work out these con-
ditions, but not to endorse them finally. In fulfilment of
the instruction of the Third Congress, we accept mediation
and will try to work out a fully detailed modus for agree-
ment now and for gradual amalgamation. If we can manage
it, we shall implement the agreement at once, and submit
the plan for amalgamation to the Fourth Congress, which
will then have to be convened at the same time and in the
same place with the obligatory attendance of all Minority
organisations. It is extremely important to bear in mind
322 V. I. L E N I N

that the Mensheviks have no central body whose decisions

are binding on them. Iskra is not subordinated to the Or-
ganisation Committee. We should not play the role of fools
entering into an agreement with people who have neither
the right nor the power to speak for the whole Minority.
It is essential therefore to make it clear at once that the
delegates from the Minority at the meeting with the I. S. Bu-
reau should be both from the Organisation Committee and
from Iskra, and in addition should promise to invite the opin-
ions of all Minority organisations as soon as possible, giving
a list of them to us. Incidentally, if from the point of view
of Russia it is of more importance to you that the Mensheviks
of Russia should preponderate, then you will discuss whether
special Iskra delegates are necessary. You will know best.
But do not forget that without the consent of Iskra all agree-
ments will be a fiction. One more question: should we in-
form the I. S. Bureau of the secret resolution of the Third
Congress? Have we the right to do so? I am in doubt about
this. Of course, informing the European socialist comrades
is not “publishing”, and they can be made to undertake not
to publish. But is this advisable? Decide for yourselves. It
is easy to give a satisfactory explanation even without inform-
ing them about the Third Congress resolution which binds us.
I shall publish the open letter to the Organisation Com-
mittee in Proletary No. 11 (No. 10 is already coming out).
I did not publish it earlier because I was waiting for an
explanation from you, which only arrived yesterday. We
earnestly request you to make a note on each document
whether it is to be published and published immediately.
And so, reply as soon as possible on behalf of Werner
and Schmidt at any rate: 1) Will you write the reply to the
I. S. Bureau yourselves or do you instruct me to do so?
2) Do you approve my reply or not? 3) If not, I would ask
you to hurry up with a reply, so that we can reach full agree-
ment; any misunderstanding in such a matter, lack of clarity
or lack of information, is fraught with the greatest danger.
P. S. Please send my letters on to Dubois, I haven’t
got his address.
Sent from Geneva to Russia
First published in 1 9 2 6 Printed from the original
 323

143
TO A. V. LUNACHARSKY 311
August 2, 1905
Dear An. Vas.,
Yesterday I sent you a “business” letter and asked for Iskra
No. 105 * and Plekhanov’s L. Feuerbach ** to be sent to
you. Today I’d like to talk to you on things other than cur-
rent petty business.
Our people in Geneva are down in the dumps. It’s sur-
prising how little is needed for people who are not quite
self-dependent and not used to independent political work,
to lose heart and start moping. And our Geneva Bolsheviks
are terrible mopers. A serious struggle is on, which the Third
Congress, of course, did not put an end to and merely
opened a new phase of it; the Iskrists are lively busybodies,
brazen as hucksters, well skilled by long experience in
demagogy—whereas among our people a kind of “conscien-
tious stupidity” or “stupid conscientiousness” prevails.
They can’t put up a fight, they’re awkward, inactive, clum-
sy, timid. . . . They’re good fellows, but no damn’d good
whatever as politicians. They lack tenacity, fighting spirit,
nimbleness and speed. Vas. Vas. is extremely typical in
this respect: a charming fellow, an utterly devoted worker
and honest man, but he’ll never make a politician, I’m
afraid. He’s much too kind—one can hardly believe that
the “Galyorka” pamphlets were written by him. He brings

* The leading article is said to be utter piffle! Will you write

something against it as quickly as possible? If you agree, send a tele-
gram.
** Meaning Plekhanov’s preface to the second Russian edition
of Engels’s pamphlet Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical Ger-
man Philosophy.—Ed.
324 V. I. L E N I N

no fighting spirit either to the newspaper (he is always re-

gretting that I do not allow him to write kind articles about
the Bund!) or to the colony. A spirit of despondency reigns
and I am for ever being reproached (I have only been three
weeks in the country, and travel to town for four to five
hours three and sometimes four times a week!) because things
are not going well with them, because the Mensheviks are
smarter, etc., etc.!
And our C.C., for one thing, is not much of a “politi-
cian” either, it’s much too kind, it, too, suffers from a lack
of tenacity, resourcefulness and sensitivity, from inability
to take political advantage of every trifle in the Party strug-
gle. Secondly, it has a lofty contempt for us “foreigners”
and keeps all the best people away from us or takes them
from here. And we here abroad, find ourselves behindhand.
There is not enough ferment, stimulus or impulse. People
are incapable of acting and fighting by themselves. We are
short of speakers at our meetings. There is no one to pour
cheer into people, to raise key issues, no one capable of
lifting them above the Geneva marsh into the sphere of
more serious interests and problems. And the whole work
suffers. In political struggle a halt is fatal. There are thou-
sands of demands and they are continually increasing.
The new-Iskrists are not dozing (they have now “inter-
cepted” the sailors 312 who arrived in Geneva, have enticed
them, probably by their usual political showmanship and
overloud marktschreien * , “utilising” post facto the Odessa
events for the benefit of their coterie). We are impossibly
short of people. I don’t know when Vas. Vas. intends to
write, but as a speaker and political centre he is beneath
criticism. He is more likely to spread despondency among
people than to rouse them and call them to order. Schwarz
is absent; he writes from over there zealously and well,
even better than he did here, I should say, but that’s all
he does. As for personally exercising an influence on people
and being able to direct them and meetings, he is rarely
capable of doing that even when in Geneva. It is a large,
important centre here. There are lots of Russians. Crowds of
travellers. Summer is an especially busy time, for among

* Mountebank crying of wares.—Ed.

 TO A. V. LUNACHARSKY 325

the multitude of Russian tourists coming to Geneva there

is a certain percentage of people who should and could be
made use of, aroused, drawn in and guided.
Think it over and write to me in greater detail (preferably
to my private address: 3. Rue David Dufour). Do you re-
member writing me that your absence from Geneva would
be no loss, because you wrote a lot even from afar. You do
write a lot, and we keep the newspaper going somehow
(just somehow and no more, though we desperately need
a lot more). But not only is there a loss, but a tremendous
loss, which is felt more and more sharply every day. Person-
al influence and speaking at meetings make all the differ-
ence in politics. Without them there is no political activity
and even writing itself becomes less political. Faced by an
enemy who has powerful forces abroad, we are losing more
ground each week than we can probably make up in a month.
The fight for the Party is not over, and it will not be brought
to real victory without straining every nerve....

All the best.

Yours,
N. Lenin
Sent from Geneva to Italy
First published in 1 9 3 4 Printed from the original
326

144
TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
From Lenin to the Members of the C.C.
August 14, 1905
Dear friends,
I have just read in Iskra No. 107 the minutes of the meet-
ing of July 12, 1905, between the C.C. and the Organisation
Committee. 313 It is most regrettable that so far the prom-
ised minutes have not been received from you. There have
been no letters either. Really, it is impossible to work in
this way. I knew nothing about the plan to issue the “Open
Letter” or the plan of negotiations, or the plan for some
sort of concessions. Is such an attitude to a member of the
collegium permissible? Think of the position you put me
in! The position is absolutely impossible, for it is precisely
here, abroad, that I have to answer everybody frankly—you
will admit this yourself on calm reflection.
Your reply to the Organisation Committee gives rise to
a number of perplexities. I can’t make out whether you are
trying to be cunning or what? Can you have forgotten that
there is the straightforward resolution of the Third Congress
that the terms of unification must be endorsed by a new
congress? How could one talk seriously of co-opting to the
C.C. when there are two rival organs? How could one leave
unanswered the toleration of two central organs, i.e., a
complete violation both of the Rules and of the decisions
of the Third Congress? How was it possible not to present
the Mensheviks with a principled ultimatum on the organi-
sational question: (1) congresses instead of plebiscites as
the supreme organ of the Party; (2) unconditional subordi-
nation of Party literature to the Party; (3) direct elections
to the C.C.; (4) subordination of the minority to the major-
ity, etc.?
 TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 327

Haven’t you taken warning from the unfortunate exam-

ple of the transportation “agreement”, which was immedi-
ately wrecked by Frockcoat, causing so much fresh bitter-
ness? 314 Nothing can do such harm to the cause of future
unity as a fictitious agreement which satisfies no one and
leaves grounds for a struggle; such an “agreement” will
inevitably lead to a new rupture and redoubled bitterness!
Or are you being cunning? Are you hoping to “take in”
the Organisation Committee, or to set the Mensheviks in
Russia at loggerheads with those abroad? Has there not been
sufficient experience on this score, proving the futility of
such attempts?
I repeat in all seriousness: you are putting me in an im-
possible position. I am not exaggerating. I earnestly request
you to answer these questions: 1) shall we have the meet-
ing on September 1, as we decided, or have you rescinded
this decision? 2) if you have rescinded it, then how, when
and where will your meeting (of C.C. members) be held
and what measures do you intend to take to enable me to
cast my vote and (what is much more important) discover
your real intentions. A meeting is devilishly necessary on
a thousand matters. We have no money. The Germans,
for some reason, are not giving any. If you do not send
3,000 rubles, we shall go under. Practically all the minutes
have been set up, 315 1,500 rubles are needed for the pub-
lication. The treasury is empty as never before.
What is this resolution of the Orel-Bryansk Committee?
(Iskra No. 106.) 316 There is some muddle here. For heaven’s
sake, tell us what you know. Couldn’t someone be sent
there—Lyubich from Voronezh, for example?
Sent from Geneva to Russia
First published in 1 9 2 6 Printed from the original
328

145
TO A. V. LUNACHARSKY
Dear An. Vas.,
I have received your letter. You had better write to
my private address: 3. Rue David Dufour.
I don’t know what to do about Kostrov’s pamphlet.
I have not yet read it in the press, but from the old man-
uscript I know what kind of stuff it is. You are quite right
about its being plain “Black-Hundred literature”. 317 You
ask—how to reply?
Vas. Vas. has written a paragraph for Proletary—an
uninteresting one, I don’t feel like publishing it. Olin has
delivered a lecture, he is writing, too, but I don’t think
he’ll manage it. Two things are required here, in my opinion:
firstly, “a brief outline of the history of the split”. A popu-
lar one. Starting from the beginning, from Economism.
Properly documented. Divided into periods: 1901-03; 1903
(Second Congress); August 26, 1903-November 26, 1903;
November 26, 1903-January 1904; January-August 1904;
August 1904-May 1905; May 1905 (Third Congress).
I think it could be written so clearly, exactly, and con-
cisely that even those to whom Kostrov addresses himself
would read it.
Secondly, we need a lively, sharp, subtle and detailed
characterisation (literary-critical) of these Black Hun-
dreds. As a matter of fact, this falsity is at the bottom of
things both with L. M. (did you read the disgraceful stuff
in No. 107? Schwarz is replying with an article. I don’t
know whether it is worth while?) and with Old Believer.
A number of such articles and pamphlets should be collected,
the gross lie should be shown up, nailed down, so that it
would be impossible to wriggle out of it, and branded as
definitely “Black-Hundred literature”. The new-Iskrists
have now provided plenty of material and if it is carefully
gone over and these dirty methods of tittle-tattle, talebear-
ing, etc., are exposed in all their beauty, a powerful effect
 TO A. V. LUNACHARSKY 329

could be produced. L. M.’s obscure “personal hints”

alone—what undiluted filth it is!
I may perhaps tackle the first subject myself, but not
just now, not soon; I have no time for it * (afterwards, I
daresay, it will be too late!).
I would not tackle the second subject and I think that
only you could do it. A nasty job, a stinking one, there’s
no denying it, but, after all, we are not fine gentlemen,
but newspapermen, and it is impermissible for Social-
Democratic publicists to allow “foulness and poison” to go
unbranded.
Think this over and drop me a line.
A pamphlet on the mass political strike has to be pro-
duced—that should not be difficult for you.
You should certainly continue writing popular pamphlets
as well, selecting something topical. What precisely, I do
not know. Perhaps about the Bulygin Duma? It will be
necessary to await the publication. 320
It would be good to write about workers’ organisation.
Compare our Rules (Third Congress) and the Conference
Statute, analyse the two, explain the idea, importance and
methods of revolutionary organisation of the proletariat
(particularly for an uprising), the difference between Party
organisations and those aligned with the Party, etc. In part,
this would be an answer to Kostrov, a popular one, for the
masses, on a burning topic of the day. Have a try!
All the very best,
Yours,
N. Lenin
Written between August 1 5 and 1 9 ,
1905
Sent from Geneva to Italy
First published in 1 9 3 4 Printed from the original

* I am now going to answer Plekhanov (Sotsial-Demokrat No. 2). 318

He has to be pulled to pieces thoroughly, for he, too, has a heap of
abominations and miserable arguments. I hope that I shall succeed.
Further, I am turning over in my mind a plan for a popular pam-
phlet: The Working Class and Revolution 319 —a description of demo-
cratic and socialist tasks, and then conclusions about an uprising
and a provisional revolutionary government, etc. I think such a
pamphlet is essential.
330

146
TO P. N. LEPESHINSKY 321

To Comrade Olin, who signed as secretary of the Geneva

group of the R.S.D.L.P. organisation abroad

Decision of the C.C. representative abroad, which must be

read out in full at the next meeting of the group (i.e., today,
August 29, if this decision arrives during the meeting). 322

Today, August 29, 1905, at 8 p.m., copies of the letter

from the Geneva group to the forwarding office and of the
reply of the latter to the former reached the C.C. repre-
sentative abroad.
In connection with these documents, the representative
abroad of the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P. points out to the
Geneva group that it has displayed lack of understanding
of Party discipline and has violated the Party Rules.
The forwarders are agents of the Central Committee. Any
dissatisfaction with C.C. agents is a matter for examination
primarily by the Central Committee itself. According to
the Rules, the C.C. deals with all conflicts arising within the
Party, and particularly so in the case of conflicts between
members of the Party’s various organisations and C.C.
agents. Therefore, by inviting C.C. agents to a meeting
of the group, the latter took a step that was, formally
speaking, incorrect in general and tactless in particular.
If, however, this invitation was not supposed to be a
formal act, then it should not have been made in writing
and officially.
The “personal behaviour” of “officers” is either merely
personal (unconnected with and independent of the office
they hold), in which case its investigation by the group
amounts to squabbling; or else, the personal behaviour
 TO P. N. LEPESHINSKY 331

has to do with the office, in which case every Party member,

who is dissatisfied with this behaviour, and who insists
on a formal, official investigation, is obliged first and fore-
most to address himself formally to the C.C. The Geneva
group of the R.S.D.L.P., by allowing questions concerning
dissatisfaction with C.C. agents to “come up” before the
group as a matter of formal examination prior to this being
formally reported to the C.C., has thereby again showed
failure to understand the discipline and Rules of the Party.
The difference I have just mentioned between squabbling
and criticism of an officer (criticism which is obligatory
for every Party member, and which should be made in an
open way and addressed directly to the central institutions
or the Congress, and not underhand, private, parochial
criticism), this difference is evidently not clearly grasped
by the group.
The C.C. representative abroad therefore considers it
his duty to warn all young comrades of the group. In the
“colonial” conditions of life abroad people can always be
found who are liable to contract the disease of squabbling,
gossip and tittle-tattle, people who very badly fulfil the
functions which the C.C. or the Congress entrusts to them,
but who are eager to gossip about the unsatisfactory fulfil-
ment of other functions by other Party members. Some
comrades, through inexperience, curiosity or spinelessness,
may often listen seriously to these people. Such people,
however, should not be listened to, but should be sharply
called to order and not allowed to raise formal questions
concerning the “personal behaviour of officers” until these
questions have been formally submitted for consideration
to the appropriate Party institutions and examined and
decided by them.
Party members abroad easily succumb to the disease I
have indicated, but all young comrades with healthy nerves
should keep a strict eye on themselves and others, for
the only way of combating this disease is to see to it that any
inclination towards squabbling and tittle-tattle is imme-
diately and relentlessly nipped in the bud.
That is why the C.C. representative abroad has decided:
I. To request the Geneva group to withdraw its letter
of August 28 to the forwarding office.
332 V. I. L E N I N

This would be the best and speediest way of ending a

bad business which, by the very force of events, threatens
to lead to the most unpleasant quarrels and rifts.
The group is not obliged, of course, to meet the request
which I am making in the name of the C.C. I venture to
make this request because I am dealing with comrades,
with whom so far I have never had any formal conflict.
II. Should the group reject my request then point I of
the decision falls away. In that case, I propose that the
group:
1) Inform me whether it intends to comply with the
Party Rules as explained above, i.e., to comply with the
decision made by me in the name of the C.C. (an appeal
against this decision can be made (a) at a full meeting of
the C.C. or (b) at a Congress, but it is binding until an-
nulled by a higher body).
2) Send me, in accordance with Clause 11 of the Party
Rules, all information concerning the make-up of the group
and “all its activities” (votings, etc.) in connection with
the present unfortunate business.

N. Lenin
the Representative Abroad
of the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P.
Written August 2 9 , 1 9 0 5
in Geneva (local mail)
First published in 1 9 3 1 Printed from the original
 333

147
TO P. N. LEPESHINSKY
At the request of Comrade Vas. Vas. I am explaining
the passage he indicated in my decision (that people can
be found who do their work badly, but who are eager to
gossip about the shortcomings of others). The suggestion
that I meant to accuse someone, etc., is without grounds.
Every Party worker has his shortcomings and drawbacks
in the work, but we must be careful that criticism of short-
comings or their examination at the central Party bodies
does not overstep the boundary where tittle-tattle begins.
The whole point and substance of my decision are meant
to serve as a warning and a request that an immediate stop
be put to a matter that has been wrongly and badly begun.

N. Lenin
Written August 2 9 , 1 9 0 5
in Geneva (local mail)
First published in 1 9 3 1 Printed from the original
334

148
TO A. V. LUNACHARSKY
Dear An. Vas.,
Your plan for a pamphlet on Three Revolutions pleased
me immensely. I’d drop the reply to Plekhanov for the
time being if I were you—let that enraged doctrinaire
bark away to his heart’s content. To delve specially into
philosophy at such a time! You must work as hard as you
can for Social-Democracy—don’t forget that you are com-
mitted for your entire working time.
As for the Three Revolutions, tackle this straight away.
This subject has to be dealt with in a thorough manner.
I am sure you could make a success of it. Describe, in a
popular way, the tasks of socialism, its essence and the
conditions for its realisation. Then—victory in the present
revolution, the significance of the peasant movement (a
separate chapter), what could now be regarded as complete
victory; a provisional government, revolutionary army,
uprising—the significance and conditions of new forms of
struggle. Revolution à la 1789 and à la 1848. Finally (better to
make this the second part and the preceding one—the third),
about the bourgeois character of the revolution, more fully
about the economic aspect, then thoroughly expose the
Osvobozhdeniye people in all their interests, tactics and po-
litical intrigue.
This is a rich theme indeed, and a militant one, against
the Iskra vulgarisers. Please tackle it at once and take
your time over it. It is extremely important to produce a
popular thing on this subject, something forceful and
pointed.
Now about the split. You misunderstood me. It’s no use
your waiting for me, for these are different subjects: one is
 TO A. V. LUNACHARSKY 335

the history (we shall try to manage that); the other—an

outline of their polemical methods. A literary-critical out-
line on the subject, let us say, of “cheap and shoddy litera-
ture”. Here an analysis is to be given in a whole pamphlet
of several chapters, with quotations, showing up all this
disgusting claptrap of Old Believer, Martov and the rest
in their polemic with Proletary, as well as the rehash of
this theme in “Majority or Minority”, etc. Pillory them
for their paltry method of warfare. Make them into a type.
Draw a full-length portrait of them by quotations from their
own writings! I am sure you’d pull it off, if only you collect
a few quotations.

All the very best.

Yours,
Lenin

P.S. I have received the article about Kuzmin-Karava-

yev. Also the 1848 feuilleton.
Written at the end of August 1 9 0 5
Sent from Geneva to Italy
First published in 1 9 3 4 Printed from the original
336

144
TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
From Lenin to Members of the C.C.
September 7, 1905
Dear friends,
Today I received news of your agreement to a conference
on the Duma with the Bund, the Letts, etc. 323 Only today,
although the thing happened a month ago! It is left for me
to write you another “protest” (an occupation which, it
seems, is becoming my profession)....
Definitely, I shall accuse you formally before the Fourth
Congress of the crime called “restoration of duocentrism
in defiance of the Rules and will of the Party”. Really, I
shall. Just think—is it not duocentrism that you have
introduced! I am obliged ex officio to run the organ of the
Central Committee. Is that not so? But how can I do that
when I do not get a scrap of writing on any question of
tactics, and a for-r-r-rmal enquiry about the “pre-arranged”
meeting on September 1 (new style) is left without reply!
Just think what the outcome will be if there is disharmony
between us! Is it so difficult to get someone to write in good
time, if only on matters of “state importance”?
I have written about the Duma in Nos. 12, 14 and 15 of
Proletary. I am also writing in No. 16, which will come out
on September 12 (new style) * . In Posledniye Izvestia (Sep-
tember 1, new style, No. 247) the Bund talked itself pop-
eyed. We’ll give them a whipping they won’t forget till
* See “The Boycott of the Bulygin Duma, and Insurrection”,
“‘Oneness of the Tsar and the People, and of the People and the Tsar’”,
“In the Wake of the Monarchist Bourgeoisie, or in the Van of the
Revolutionary Proletariat and Peasantry?” and “The Theory of Spon-
taneous Generation” (present edition, Vol. 9).—Ed.
 TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 337

they’re able to sit up again. These Bundists are such dolts

and trumpeters, such nitwits and idiots, they are the limit!
Iskra has got tangled up in lies, especially Martov in the
Wiener Arbeiter-Zeitung (August 24, new style—transla-
tion in Proletary No. 15). For heaven’s sake, don’t rush
in with an official resolution and do not give way an inch
to this Bundist-new-Iskrist conference. Is it true that there
will be no minutes? How can one possibly confer with these
prostitutes without minutes?
I strongly warn you against the Armenian Social-Demo-
cratic Federation. 324 If you have agreed to its participation
in the conference, you have made a fatal mistake, which must
be rectified at all costs. It is represented in Geneva by a
couple of disrupters who publish sheer trivia here and
have no serious connections with the Caucasus. It is a Bund
creatura, nothing more, specially invented to cultivate
Caucasian Bundism. If you allow these people to attend
a Russian conference, that is, a conference of organisations
working in Russia, you will get yourself into a terrible
mess. All the Caucasian comrades are against this gang
of disruptive writers (I know this from many people); and
we shall soon trounce them in Proletary. You will only evoke
protests from the Caucasus and a fresh squabble instead of
“peace” and “unity”. For pity’s sake! How can one ignore
the Caucasian Union, which is working so hard in Russia,
and hobnob with the dregs of the Geneva marsh! I beg you
most earnestly, don’t do it.
I have received the decision about dividing the money
equally with the Organisation Committee. It will be carried
out to the letter.

All the best.

N. Lenin
Sent from Geneva to Russia
First published in 1 9 2 6 Printed from the original
338

150
TO P. A. KRASIKOV
September 14, 1905
Dear friend,
I hasten to reply to your pessimistic letter. I cannot
verify the facts, but it seems to me that you are exaggerat-
ing; that’s the first point. The C.C.’s leaflets are good,
and Rabochy No. 1 is very good. 325 This is a big thing.
At the moment financial affairs are bad, but connections
exist and the prospects are very good. One big enterprise,
very solid and profitable, has been set up, so the “finan-
cier” 326 is certainly not asleep. The second point: you take
a wrong view of things. To wait until there is complete
solidarity within the C.C. or among its agents is utopian.
“Not a circle, but a party”, dear friend! Focus attention
on the local committees; they are autonomous, they give
full scope, they free one’s hands for financial and other
connections, for statements in the press, and so on and so
forth. Mind you don’t make the same mistake you are
blaming others for; don’t moan and groan, and if you don’t
like working as an agent, push on with committee work
and urge those who think like you to do the same. Assuming
that you do have differences of opinion with the “agents”.
It is far more advisable for you to get your views accepted
in the committee, especially if it is a united, principled
committee, and to conduct an open, straightforward,
vigorous policy in it than to argue with the “agents”. If you
are right about the anaemia of the committees and a plethora
of “agents”, the remedy for this malady is in your own
hands: flock into the committees. The committee is autono-
mous. The committees decide everything at congresses. The
committees can pass resolutions. The committees have the
 TO P. A. KRASIKOV 339

right to go into print. Don’t sit idle, looking up at the

“heads”, but get down to business on your own. You now
have a broad, free field and independent, rewarding work
in a most important committee. Throw yourself into it,
pick a willing team, approach the workers boldly and
widely, run off leaflets, order them from us, Schwarz, me,
Galyorka, loudly voice your Party opinion in the name of
the committee. In this way, I assure you, you will do a
thousand times more to influence the whole Party and the
C.C. in the direction you desire than by bringing personal
influence to bear on the agents and members of the C.C.
It strikes me that you are looking at things in the old paro-
chial way, and not from the Party standpoint. The C.C.
is elective, the congress is not far off, you have your rights,
make use of them and bring all energetic, resolute sup-
porters on to the same road: into the committees! Pressure
must be brought to bear formally, through the committees,
and not personally through talks with the agents. No one
is obliged to be an agent if he wants to work in the com-
mittees!
You write that the agent Myamlin stated that Iskra’s
Khlestakovian report is fair. 327 Very well. That is his
right. But in Letuchy Listok No. 1, the C.C. stated that two-
thirds of the Party is on our side. That means that Myamlin
has hit out at himself! Your job is to curb the Myamlins
and expose and discredit them through your own committee,
and not through talks with them. The committees will elect
people who appoint the Myamlins, but it is not the Myam-
lins who decide the fate of the Party. Let energetic people
capture the committees: there you have a slogan for all,
which I advise you to spread, to drum into people’s heads
and to implement.
The agent Myamlin stands for two central organs. Again:
who will decide? The committees and their delegates to the
fourth congress. Prepare one, two or more committees—
there you have a rewarding and practical task. Suppose the
Myamlins are victorious. The committees have the right to
start their own organ of the press, even a single committee!
That is why you err and drift into the old, pre-party point
of view when you write: “They are printing Trotsky’s leaf-
lets” (there is nothing wrong in that if the leaflets are fairly
340 V. I. L E N I N

good and vetted. I advise the St. Petersburg Committee,

too, to print his leaflets vetted, say, by you), or when you
write: “A fall from grace à la Boris is imminent.” I don’t
understand it. Suppose there are Borises. This junk is al-
ways plentiful. Suppose the Borises and Myamlins prove
to have the majority (of the committees, don’t forget that,
of the committees). Then “all the preceding work is undone”,
you conclude. Why? How can Proletary become undone,
what can cause its undoing? Even the absurdity of “two
central organs” will not cause the undoing of Proletary,
it will only introduce absurdity into the Rules. Life will
only preserve Proletary and sweep away the absurdity. Even
the Myamlins will not dare to close down Proletary. And
finally, let us assume the worst of possible endings, in the
vein of your pessimism: suppose the closing down does take
place. I shall then ask: what is the St. Petersburg Commit-
tee for? Is it likely that Proletary will be weaker as the organ
of the St. Petersburg Committee than as one of “two” cen-
tral organs? Take immediate energetic measures to have the
St. Petersburg Committee establish not formal, but busi-
ness-like, close, permanent ties with Proletary, and you
will strengthen your position and the impact of your ideas
so much that you will defy a hundred Myamlins. The
St. Petersburg Committee is a force three times as great
as all the “agents” put together. Make Proletary the organ
of the St. Petersburg Committee and the St. Petersburg
Committee the thorough-going executor of the ideas and
tactics of Proletary; there you have a real struggle against
Myamlinism, and not a struggle by complaints and groan-
ing. Hundreds of addresses can be found in St. Petersburg,
and a host of opportunities for organising workers’ corre-
spondence, revitalising contacts, placing orders for leaflets,
republishing articles from Proletary in leaflet form, retell-
ing them in leaflets, re-writing them in the form of leaflets,
etc., etc. Leaflets can and should deal also with general
Party problems (the other day the Kostroma Committee
sent us a resolution against Plekhanov being appointed to
the International Bureau: a downright smack in the eye,
and no mistake!). Myamlinism must be combated by exem-
plary organisation of committee agitation, by militant
leaflets to the Party and not by wry complaints to the C.C.!
 TO P. A. KRASIKOV 341

What article of mine in No. 5 (?) of Zarya (on Proko-

povich) are you referring to? 328 I am puzzled. Why are you
dissatisfied with Ruben? Put me in direct touch with him
and Lalayants without fail.
All the very best. Write oftener and cheer up! The Myam-
lins be damned!
Yours,
N. Lenin
Sent from Geneva
to St. Petersburg
First published in 1 9 2 6 Printed from the original
342

151
TO S. I. GUSEV
To Nation from Lenin
September 20, 1905
Dear friend,
Thanks for letter No. 3. We may publish part of it. 329
You have made a start with the talks with the editorial
board not merely on formal questions (on the Rules, con-
tacts, addresses, and so on), not only on subjects for report-
age (such and such events occurred), but on the subject of
the gist of your views, your understanding of our tactics,
and how precisely you put these tactics into effect in lec-
tures, at meetings, etc. Such talks between practical workers
in Russia and ourselves are extremely valuable to us, and
I request you most earnestly to advocate, remind and in-
sist everywhere that anyone who wants to consider the Cen-
tral Organ his own C.O. (and every Party member should
want that), should not restrict himself to formal answers
or reports, but should talk with the editorial board about
the views he is advocating, talk not for publication, but
to create an ideological connection. To regard such talks
as a mere pastime is to lapse into narrow-minded practical-
ism and leave to chance the entire principled, ideological
aspect of all our practical work, all agitation, for without
a clear, well-thought-out ideological content agitation de-
generates into phrase-mongering. And to work out a clear
ideological content it is not enough to be merely a contrib-
utor to the C.O., it requires also joint discussions about
how the practical workers understand one or other proposi-
tion, how they are putting into actual practice particular
views. Without this, the editorial board of the C.O. is
left in the air, it will not know whether its advocacy is
accepted, whether there is any response to it, how practical
life modifies it, what amendments and additions are needed.
 TO S. I. GUSEV 343

Without it, Social-Democrats will sink to a level where the

writer scribbles and the reader reads from time to time.
Consciousness of connection with the Party is still weak
among us, it has to be strengthened by word and deed.
I shall try to make use of your example by publishing
part of your letter. On the whole we are in agreement and
see eye to eye with you (your ideas coincide with mine in
Two Tactics). In particular, it seems to me that you are
wrong in attacking the Mensheviks for the words “prepara-
tion of the masses for an uprising”. If there is a mistake
here, it is not a cardinal one.

All the very best.

Yours,
N. Lenin
Sent from Geneva to Odessa
First published in 1 9 2 6 Printed from the original
344

152
TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
I received your Letuchy Listok No. 2 for June 24, 1905,
only today, October 3, 1905, new style. (It takes the
“United Centre” three months to inform its members....)
The article: “Fundamentals of Party Organisation” is
very good. I can imagine what it’s like to have to chew
over the ABC to the Mensheviks! But you have to. The
writer of the article has made an excellent job of it. I am
thinking of publishing it in Proletary. 330 It is late, of course,
but better late than never.
This article has set me thinking that you can and should
see to it that the C.C. is not mute but always articulate.
The time is past for ideological leadership through “whisper-
ings” in secret meeting places and rendezvous with agents!
Leadership should be through political literature. Rabochy
is not suitable for that, it has a different role to perform.
You must decidedly issue a C.C. bulletin in a format not
exceeding two printed pages, but you should issue it twice
a week. It would contain a short article on a political,
tactical or organisational subject, then brief, minor items
of three lines each. Only (1) it must be printed, for the
hectograph is now very bad (is there not some small equip-
ment that operates rapidly?) and (2) it must be done punc-
tually and frequently.
Your plan of converting Rabochy into a smaller weekly
newspaper is not clear to me. In my opinion, a popular
organ is one thing (I am not in favour of it, but the Congress
decided on it, so that’s that), and a bulletin of really guiding
political articles of a general kind is another. You have
three or four good contributors, so it would be as easy as
anything to get two small articles every week, and the
significance would be tremendous!
Written October 3 , 1 9 0 5
Sent from Geneva to Russia
First published in 1 9 2 6 Printed from the original
 345

153
TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
October 3, 1905
Dear friends,
I have received a pile of documents and listened to
Delta’s detailed story. I hasten to reply on all the points.
1) I shall not be able to come at the scheduled time,
as there can be no question of my leaving the newspaper
now. 331 Voinov is stuck in Italy. Orlovsky had to be sent
away on business. There is no one to replace me. Therefore
the thing is being postponed until Russian October, as
arranged by you.
2) I repeat my most urgent request that you send a
formal reply to the International Bureau. As to whether
you are sending someone to the conference abroad. Exactly
whom and when. As to whether you are appointing some-
one—also precisely. Otherwise you will discredit yourselves
incredibly in the eyes of the International Bureau.
3) About Plekhanov, also formally and conclusively—
yes or no. Who should be appointed? Postponement of this
question is extremely dangerous. 332
4) About legal publishing, make a formal decision
quickly. My draft agreement with Malykh, 333 has done you
no harm whatever, as it is only a draft. I merely repeat
that Malykh provided a livelihood for lots of people here,
whom the Party is unable to maintain. Do not forget that.
I would advise both concluding an agreement with Malykh
and continuing to do business with the others after the
manner of Schmidt.
5) As regards opposition to the C.C. on the part of almost
all the agents, I have the following to say. Firstly, co-opting
Insarov and Lyubich, which I fully welcome, will probably
346 V. I. L E N I N

improve matters very much. Secondly, some of the agents

are evidently exaggerating somewhat. Thirdly, would it
not be advisable to put some of the agents on the commit-
tees with instructions to concern themselves with the whole
area of two or three neighbouring committees? Unity of
tactics should not be overestimated: a certain variety in
the actions and plans of the committees will do no harm.
6) I consider it extremely important to start preparing
for the fourth congress. 334 It is high time. It will prob-
ably be six months late at least, if not more. All the
same, it is high time. I think we are a little to blame for
the laxity among some of the committees and for allowing
them to waive the decisions of the Third Congress concern-
ing the conditions of admission for the Mensheviks. If these
committees, which at one and the same time recognise
and do not recognise the Third Congress, do not define
their attitude to the fourth congress, there will be chaos
Some of them will not attend the fourth congress. Another
scandal. Some of them will attend it and desert to the other
side at the congress. We should not confuse the policy of
uniting the two parts with the mixing-up of both parts.
We agree to uniting the two parts, but we shall never agree
to mixing them up. We must demand of the committees
a distinct division, then two congresses and amalgamation.
Two congresses at the same time, in one place, and they
will discuss and accept the drafts for amalgamation pre-
pared beforehand.
But just now we must vigorously oppose any mixing-up
of the two sections of the Party. I would advise giving the
agents a watchword of this kind in the most definite form
and instructing them to put it into effect.
If this is not done there will be an unholy mess. The
Mensheviks have everything to gain by confusion and they
will go out of their way to breed it. They won’t be “any
the worse for it” (since nothing can be worse than their
disorganisation), whereas we value our organisation, em-
bryonic though it is, and will defend it tooth and nail.
It pays the Mensheviks to mix things up and make another
scandal out of the fourth congress, for they are not even
contemplating a congress of their own. We must direct all
our efforts and all our thoughts towards cementing and
 TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 347

better organising our section of the Party. These tactics

may seem “egoistic”, but they are the only reasonable
ones. If we are well united and organised, if we get rid of
all the whiners and turncoats, then our hard core, even if
not very large, will carry with it the whole mass of “organ-
isational nebulosity”. But if we have no such core, the
Mensheviks, having disorganised themselves, will disor-
ganise us as well. If we have a hard core, we shall soon
force them into amalgamation with us. If we have no core,
then it will not be the other core (it is non-existent) that
will win the day, but the muddleheads, and then, I assure
you, there will be fresh squabbles, a fresh, inevitable split
and resentment a hundred times worse than before.
So let us prepare for real unification by increasing our
own strength and working out clear drafts for standards
of rules and tactics. And the people who chatter idly about
unification, who mix up the relations between the sections
of the Party, should, in my opinion, be ruthlessly removed
from our midst.
All the best.
Yours,
N. Lenin
Sent from Geneva to Russia
First published in 1 9 2 6 Printed from the original
348

154
TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
October 5, 1905
Dear friends,
I have just received Reinert’s new letter. I have gone
carefully into his proposal, talked it over with Delta and
revised my negative reply in the letter of October 3, 1905.
I can return Orlovsky in a week’s time. They could then,
perhaps, manage without me somehow for a week or two.
I would write a few articles in advance and do some writing
during the journey. But your plan, nevertheless, seems to
me highly irrational. According to the news now filling
the foreign press, feeling in Finland is running very high.
It is openly reported that a number of outbreaks are immi-
nent and that an uprising is being prepared. Troops are
being sent there in force. The coastal and naval police have
been reinforced fourfold. After the John Grafton inci-
dent, 335 special attention is being paid to ships approach-
ing the coasts. Arms have been discovered in many places
and the search for them has been stepped up. It is consid-
ered within the bounds of possibility that clashes will be
deliberately provoked to provide a pretext for using armed
force.
To arrange a general meeting there under such circum-
stances means taking a quite unnecessary risk. It would
be an absolutely desperate undertaking. A trifling accident
(the likelihood of which in Finland now is particularly
great) would be enough to wreck everything, both the C.C.
and the C.O., for then everything here would go to pieces.
We must face the facts: it would mean handing over the
Party wholly to the Menshevik leaders to be torn to pieces.
I am sure that when you have thought the matter over you
will agree that we are not entitled to do that.
 TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 349

Please discuss whether the plan could not be altered

in the following way. All of us to meet in Stockholm.
Compared to the present plan this would mean for you some
slight inconveniences and tremendous advantages. The
inconveniences lie in the half-a-day’s delay (counting from
Abo, near which it is proposed to meet) or a maximum of
one day each way. Two days in all, possibly even 4 days.
That is a mere trifle. The advantages are greater safety.
A total break-down would then be ruled out completely.
That means we shall not in the slightest jeopardise the
C.O. and the whole C.C.; we shall not be doing anything
stupid or desperate. Some of you can travel quite legally;
they cannot be arrested. The rest will obtain passports of
other people or will travel without passports (Delta says
it is easy for the Finns to arrange for crossing the frontier).
In the event of an arrest being made, it would be, firstly,
an isolated case and not wholesale break-down and, secondly,
there would be absolutely no evidence, so that in the event
of legal proceedings it would be impossible for the police
to dig up anything serious. We are then guaranteed meeting
for two to three days in complete safety, with all the docu-
ments available (I shall bring them with me and you will
send yours by post, etc.), and with the possibility of draw-
ing up any minutes, manifestos, etc., that we like. Finally,
we would then try out whether I could travel to Stockholm
more frequently, in order to work for you and for the leaflets,
etc., from there (the Mensheviks, I believe, did something
of the kind in the South).
Please discuss this plan carefully. If you approve, send
me a telegram addressed: Kroupsky, 3, Rue David Dufour,
Genève, signed Boleslav with just a number indicating
the date when I ought to be in Stockholm (30= I should
be there by September 30; 2 or 3= I should be there by
October 2 or 3, and so on).

All the best.

N. Lenin
Sent from Geneva to Russia
First published in 1 9 2 6 Printed from the original
350

155
TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
October 8, 1905
Dear friends,
I hasten to inform you of an important change that
has taken place in regard to representation on the Interna-
tional Bureau. The South-Russian Conference of Menshe-
viks 336 adopted a resolution on this question in which
(1) there is a gross lie about me personally. I am replying in
No. 20 of Proletary, * which will come out the day after
tomorrow; (2) they ask Plekhanov to represent their section
of the Party.
This is exactly what we need! Plekhanov, of course,
will accede to their request. His quasi-neutrality, which
is so disastrous to us, will be shown up, and that is just
what we wanted to prove. Let there be two representatives
on the International Bureau: one from the Majority and
one from the Minority. That will be the best thing. Moreover,
if Plekhanov represents the Minority that will be better
still. It is an excellent precedent for future unity. I ear-
nestly request you: abandon now all thought of Plekhanov
and appoint your own delegate from the Majority. Only
then will our interests be fully taken care of. It would be
good to appoint Orlovsky. He knows languages, he is a good
speaker, and an impressive personality. Most contacts are
by writing, almost all of them, and we, of course, would
begin consultations. As a matter of fact, there would be
nothing to consult about: I assure you from experience
that this representation is a mere formality. At one time

* See “Representation of the R.S.D.L.P. in the International

Socialist Bureau” (present edition, Vol. 9).—Ed.
 TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P. 351

Plekhanov often entrusted this representation to Koltsov,

and no harm ever came of it, although Koltsov was no good
at all as a “parliamentarian” and an impossible, clumsy
lout in general.

All the best.

N. Lenin
Sent from Geneva to Russia
First published in 1 9 2 6 Printed from the original
352

156
TO A. V. LUNACHARSKY
October 11
Dear An. Vas.,
Your article deals with a subject that is extremely inter-
esting and very timely. 337 Recently, in a leading article,
Leipziger Volkszeitung 338 ridiculed the Zemstvo members
for their September Congress, for “playing at a Consti-
tution”, for already posing as parliamentarians, etc., etc.
The mistake of Parvus and Martov needs analysing from
this aspect. But your article gives no analysis. I believe
the article should be revised along one of two lines: either
the weight of emphasis should be shifted to our new-Isk-
rists, who are “playing at parliamentarism”, and you
should demonstrate in detail the relative, temporary im-
portance of parliamentarism, the futility of “parliamentary
illusions” in an era of revolutionary struggle, etc., by
explaining the whole thing from the beginning (for Russians
this is very useful!) and introducing a bit of Hilferding, 339
just by way of illustration; or else you should take Hilfer-
ding as a basis—the article will then need less revision—
give it a different heading, but describe more clearly Hil-
ferding’s method of presenting the question. Of course,
you may find another plan of revision, but please set to
work on it at once, without fail. You have time for it, since
the article could not go into this issue (the Moscow events340&
the old material have taken up all the space). So, the
deadline is Tuesday, October 17. Please make it a com-
prehensive article and send it by October 17. It would
be better to revise it along the first lines, it may then turn
out to be an editorial!
If we already had a parliament, we would certainly
support the Cadets, 341 Milyukov and Co. contra Moskov-
 TO A. V. LUNACHARSKY 353

skiye Vedomosti. For example, when balloting, etc. Such

action there would not in the slightest degree violate the
independence of the class party of Social-Democracy. But
in an era not of parliament, but of revolution (you make
the distinction in the very heading), support for people
who are incapable of fighting in a revolutionary way is
1) violation of the independence of our Party. The deal
cannot be clear and above-board. It is precisely the “sale”
of our right to revolution, as you say, and not the use of
our right for the purpose of support. In a parliament we
give support without in any way disappearing. Now we
are disappearing by obliging the Milyukovs to speak for
us on definite terms. Further, what is most important
2) such support is betrayal of the revolution. There is no
parliament as yet, it is only an illusion of the Milyukovs.
We must fight in a revolutionary way for a parliament,
but not in a parliamentary way for a revolution; we must
fight in a revolutionary way for a strong parliament, and
not in an impotent “parliament” for a revolution. In Russia
now, without the victory of the revolution, all victories
in “parliament” (the Duma or the like) are nothing, worse
than nothing, for they blind the eyes by a fiction. Parvus
has not understood this.
The Cadets have already become regierungsfähig * (the
Trubetskois and Manuilovs in the role of rectors, etc.),
they have already climbed to the second storey of freedom
of assembly (at the price of debasing assemblies), the storey
of quasi-parliamentarism. All they need is that the prole-
tariat, while remaining actually in the basement, should
imagine itself on the second storey, should fancy itself
a parliamentary force and agree to “conditions” about
“support” and so on. That is a rich theme! We now are
strong owing to the revolutionary struggle of the people
and weak in a quasi-parliamentary respect. With the Cadets
it is just the reverse. They calculate on dragging us into
quasi-parliamentarism. Iskra has allowed itself to be fooled.
It is on this point that a detailed analysis of the relation of
“‘parliamentarism’ to revolution” would be appropriate
(cf. Marx on the class struggles in France in 1848).342

* Fit to govern.—Ed.
354 V. I. L E N I N

These ideas outlined by you (I am stating them, of course,

in a very general and inexact way) must be amplified,
mulled over, and served up. People in Russia are now badly
in need of having the relation between parliamentarism
and revolution explained to them from the very beginning.
But Martov and Co. go into hysterics and scream: if only
we would become legal! If only we would act openly! It
doesn’t matter how, so long as it’s legal! It is now of all
times that we need steadfastness, the continuation of the
revolution, struggle against a wretched semi-legality.
Iskra has failed to understand this. Like all opportunists,
they do not believe in the energy and stubbornness of the
workers’ revolutionary struggle. Moscow is a lesson to
them. And here we have that vulgarian Parvus applying
to Russia the tactics of petty deals!
Did you receive my letter? All the very best to you and
to An. Al.

Yours,
Lenin
Written October 1 1 , 1 9 0 5
Sent from Geneva to Florence
First published in 1 9 3 1 Printed from the original
 355

157
TO S. I. GUSEV
To Nation from Lenin
October 13, 1905
Dear friend,
The resolution of the Odessa Committee on the trade
union struggle (“decisions” No. 6 or 5—it is not clear;
in letter No. 24. It is dated September 1905) seems to me
highly erroneous. The excitement of the struggle against
the Mensheviks naturally explains this, but one must not
fall into the other extreme. And that is just what this
resolution does. I venture, therefore, to make a critical
analysis of the Odessa Committee’s resolution, and would
ask the comrades to discuss my remarks, which are in no
way due to a desire to find fault.
The resolution is in three (unnumbered) parts in the
preamble, and five (numbered) parts in the resolution proper.
The first part (the opening paragraph of the preamble)
is quite good: to undertake “leadership of all manifesta-
tions of the class struggle of the proletariat” and “never
to forget the task” of leading the trade union struggle.
Splendid. Further, the second point, that the task of pre-
paring for an armed uprising comes “into the forefront”,
and (the third or final point of the preamble) “in conse-
quence of this the task of leading the trade union struggle
of the proletariat inevitably recedes into the background”.
This, in my opinion, is wrong theoretically and incorrect
from the point of view of tactics.
It is wrong theoretically to equate the two tasks as if
they were on the same level: “the task of preparing for an
armed uprising” and “the task of leading the trade union
struggle ” . The one task is said to be in the forefront, the
356 V. I. L E N I N

other in the background. To speak like that means com-

paring and contrasting things of a different order. The
armed uprising is a method of political struggle at a given
moment. The trade union struggle is one of the constant
forms of the whole workers’ movement, one always needed
under capitalism and essential at all times. In a passage
quoted by me in What Is To Be Done? 343 Engels distin-
guishes three basic forms of the proletarian struggle: econom-
ic, political, and theoretical—that is to say, trade union,
political, and theoretical (scientific, ideological, and
philosophical). How can one of these basic forms of struggle
(the trade union form) be put on a level with a method
of another basic form of struggle at a given moment? How
can the whole trade union struggle, as a “task”, be put
on a level with the present and by far not the only method
of political struggle? These are incommensurable things,
something like adding tenths to hundredths without reduc-
ing them to a common denominator. In my opinion, both
these points (the second and third) of the preamble should
be deleted. Alongside “the task of leading the trade union
struggle” can be put only the task of leading the general
political struggle as a whole, the task of waging the general
ideological struggle as a whole, and not some particular,
given, modern tasks of the political or ideological struggle.
In place of these two points mention should be made of
the necessity of never for a moment forgetting the political
struggle, the education of the working class in all the
fullness of Social-Democratic ideas, and the need to achieve
a close, indissoluble connection between all manifesta-
tions of the workers’ movement for creating an integral,
truly Social-Democratic movement. This indication could
be the second point of the preamble. The third could mention
the necessity of warning against the narrow conception and
narrow formulation of the trade union struggle, which are
zealously disseminated by the bourgeoisie. I am not, of
course, putting forward a draft for the resolution, I am not
touching on the question whether it is worth while making
special mention of this; for the time being I am merely
examining what expression of your thought would be theo-
retically correct.
Tactically, the resolution in its present form puts the case
 TO S. I. GUSEV 357

for an armed uprising rather lamely. An armed uprising

is the highest method of political struggle. Its success
from the point of view of the proletariat, i.e., the success
of a proletarian uprising under Social-Democratic leader-
ship, and not of any other kind of uprising, requires exten-
sive development of all aspects of the workers’ movement.
Hence the idea of contraposing the task of an uprising to
the task of leading the trade union struggle is supremely
incorrect. In this way the task of the uprising is played
down, belittled. Instead of summing up and crowning the
entire workers’ movement as a whole, the result is that the
task of the uprising is dealt with as a thing apart. Two
things are, as it were, mixed up: a resolution on the trade
union struggle in general (this is the subject of the Odessa
Committee’s resolution), and a resolution on the disposi-
tion of forces in the present work of the Odessa Committee
(your resolution goes off on this tack, but that’s quite
another pair of shoes).
I pass on to the numbered points of the part comprising
the resolution proper.
Ad I. “To expose the illusions” “which are bound up
with the trade unions” . . . this is more or less passable,
although it were best deleted. Firstly, it belongs to the
preamble, where the inseparable connection of all aspects
of the movement should be pointed out. Secondly, the
nature of the illusions is not stated. If this is to be inserted
at all, there should be added: bourgeois illusions as to
the possibility of meeting the economic and other needs
of the working class in capitalist society.
. .. “strongly emphasising their [the unions’s] narrowness
compared with the ultimate aims of the workers’ move-
ment”. It follows that all trade unions are “narrow”. What
about Social-Democratic trade unions which are linked
with the political organisation of the proletariat? The
crux of the matter is not that trade unions are “narrow”,
but that this one aspect (and narrow just because it is one
aspect) should be bound up with others. Consequently,
these words should either be thrown out or further mention
should be made of the need to establish and strengthen
the connection between one aspect and all the others, the
need to imbue the trade unions with Social-Democratic
358 V. I. L E N I N

content, Social-Democratic propaganda, and to draw them

into all Social-Democratic work, etc.
Ad II. All right.
Ad III. For the reasons stated, it is incorrect to compare
the task of the trade unions with the “most urgent and
primary task” of an armed uprising. There is no need to
speak of the armed uprising in a resolution on the trade
union struggle, for the former is a means for the “over-
throw of the tsarist autocracy” which is mentioned in point II.
The trade unions could broaden the basis from which we
shall draw strength for an uprising, so that, I say once
again, it is erroneous to contrapose one to the other.
Ad IV. “To wage a vigorous ideological struggle against
the so-called Minority”, which is reverting to “Economism”
“in problems of the trade unions”. Isn’t this too general
for a resolution of the Odessa Committee? Doesn’t it seem
an exaggeration? After all, there has been no criticism in
the press of any resolution of the Mensheviks on the “trade
unions”. It has merely been pointed out that the liberals
praise them for a tendency to fall over backwards in their
zeal on this question. The only [inference] to be drawn from
this is that we too must show zeal, without however “fall-
ing over backwards” in the attempt. I think this point
should either be deleted altogether, leaving only a warning
against narrowness and mentioning the struggle against
the tendencies of the bourgeoisie and liberals to distort
the tasks of the trade unions, or it should be formulated
specially in connection with some particular resolution
of the Mensheviks (I do not know of such resolutions at
the present time, unless some kind of Akim resolutions
appeared among you in the South).
Ad V. Now this is the real thing. The words “and, if
possible, leadership” I would replace by “and leadership”.
We do everything “if possible”. The insertion of these
words here of all places may be misinterpreted in the sense
that we strive less for leadership, etc.
Generally speaking I think we should be careful not to
exaggerate the struggle against the Mensheviks on this
issue. This is probably just the time when trade unions
will soon begin to spring up. We must not stand aloof,
and above all not give any occasion for thinking that we
 TO S. I. GUSEV 359

ought to stand aloof, but endeavour to take part, to in-

fluence, etc. For there is a special section of workers, elderly
family men, who will make very little contribution to
the political struggle at present, but very much to the
trade union struggle. We must make use of this section,
merely guiding their steps in this field. It is important
that at the very outset Russian Social-Democrats should
strike the right note in regard to the trade unions, and at
once create a tradition of Social-Democratic initiative in
this matter, of Social-Democratic participation, of Social-
Democratic leadership. In practice, of course, there may
not be enough forces, but that is quite another question;
even so, given an ability to make use of all the available
forces, some will always be found for the trade unions
as well. Forces have been found for writing a resolution
on the trade unions, i.e., for ideological guidance, and
that’s the crux of the matter!
I wish you all the best and ask you to drop me a line
about receipt of this letter and about your thoughts in con-
nection with it.

Yours,
N. Lenin
Sent from Geneva to Odessa
First published in 1 9 2 6 Printed from the original
360

158
TO MARIA ESSEN
October 26, 1905
Dear Beastie,
I received your long letter a few days ago. Many thanks
We get very little news from St. Petersburg, and few leaflets
of any kind. Please do not abandon your intention to send us
absolutely all news of every kind as well as correspondence.
As regards Party affairs, it seems to me that your pessi-
mism is a bit exaggerated. I judge by things over here.
I continually hear from the “periphery” that Proletary
is obviously on the decline, that things are going from bad
to worse, that the newspaper is running to seed and so on
and so forth. But things are not as bad as they seem. With
the gigantic movement that there is now, no single C.C.
in the world, under conditions where the Party is illegal
could satisfy a thousandth part of the demands made on it.
That our slogans, the slogans of Proletary, are not just a
voice crying in the wilderness, can be clearly seen even
from the legal newspapers, which report meetings of 10,000-
15,000 in the University, etc. My word, our revolution in
Russia is a fine one! We hope to return there soon—things
are heading that way with remarkable speed.
We shall certainly arrange a meeting with the C.C. This
question is already settled and everything has been arranged.
As regards differences of opinion, you seem to be exagger-
ating too. I see no disagreements here between Proletary
and the C.C. Timing the uprising? Who would undertake
to fix it? Personally, I would willingly postpone it until
the spring, and until the Manchurian army comes home;
I am inclined to think that in general it will be to our
advantage to postpone it. But, then, nobody asks us, any-
way. Take the present tremendous strike.
 TO MARIA ESSEN 361

That the C.C. is focussing its attention on leadership

through the press is, in my opinion, the right tactics. I only
wish that in addition to Rabochy, which is very useful
at the present time, we had agitational bulletins, small
ones of two, or a maximum of four, pages, lively, frequent,
issued at least once a week, and sometimes twice. With
the present gigantic, incredible growth of the movement,
the Party can be led only through the press. And we must
produce lively, mobile, speedy, brief leaflet-bulletins,
giving the main slogans and the results of the main events.
Concerning stoppage of the Central Organ, there is a
misunderstanding here. They were afraid of the whole busi-
ness going bankrupt, but had no intention of suppressing
the C.O. Generally speaking the importance of the foreign-
based section of the Party is now diminishing hour by hour,
and this is unavoidable. We shall not abandon Proletary,
of course, under any circumstances, until we can get it
published in Nevsky Prospekt in St. Petersburg. But we
must now pay a great deal of attention to a legal newspaper
as well. We here abroad already have to put the shutters
up (propagandist literature), and we shall soon close down
altogether and open up in St. Petersburg.
In preparing for the uprising, I would advise at once
carrying out extensive propaganda everywhere for the
organisation of a large number, hundreds and thousands,
of autonomous combat squads, very small ones (from three
persons upwards), which would arm themselves as best
they can and prepare themselves in every way. The time
of the uprising, I repeat, I would willingly postpone until
the spring, but it is difficult, of course, for me to judge
from a distance.

All the very best.

Yours,
N. Lenin
Sent from Geneva
to St. Petersburg
First published in 1 9 2 6 Printed from the original
362

159
TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
To the C. C.
Please write to me immediately whether you authorise
me to invite Plekhanov on to our broad Editorial Committee
(the 7-man one) and the editorial board of Novaya Zhizn. 344
Wire (signature—Boleslav. Address—Krupskaya): yes or no.
I shall make another attempt at a rapproachement with
him, although there is not much hope.
Written October 2 7 , 1 9 0 5
Sent from Geneva to
St. Petersburg
First published in 1 9 2 6 Printed from the original
 363

160
TO G. V. PLEKHANOV
Dear Georgi Valentinovich,
I am writing this letter to you because I am convinced
that the need for Social-Democratic unity is a question
that can no longer be put off, and the possibility for it is
now greater than ever. Two reasons prevent me from further
postponing a direct approach to you: 1) the founding of
a legal Social-Democratic newspaper, Novaya Zhizn, in
St. Petersburg, and 2) the events of the last few days. 345
Even if these events do not lead to our returning to Russia
very soon, at any rate this return is now very, very near,
and the Social-Democratic newspaper provides an imme-
diate basis for the most serious joint work.
That we Bolsheviks earnestly desire to work together
with you is something I need hardly repeat to you. I have
written to St. Petersburg asking all the editors of the new
newspaper (at present there are seven of them: Bogdanov,
Rumyantsev, Bazarov, Lunacharsky, Orlovsky, Olminsky
and myself) to send you a joint and official request to join
the editorial board. But events will not wait, postal com-
munication is interrupted, and I do not think I am justi-
fied in postponing an essential step for what is really a mere
formality. In fact, I am absolutely sure of general agreement
and joy on account of this proposal. I am very well aware
that all Bolsheviks have always regarded disagreement with
you as something temporary, due to exceptional circum-
stances. It goes without saying, the struggle often involved
us in steps, statements and actions which were bound to
make future unity more difficult, but there has always
been a readiness on our part to unite, a consciousness of
he extreme abnormality of the best force among Russian
364 V. I. L E N I N

Social-Democrats standing aloof from the work, a conscious-

ness of the entire movement’s extreme need of your guiding,
close and immediate participation. And we all firmly
believe that if not today, then tomorrow, and if not tomor-
row, then the day after, our union with you will come about
despite all difficulties and obstacles.
But it would be better if it were today rather than tomor-
row. Things have now taken such a turn that we may be
too late, and we intend to exert every effort not to be
late.
Would you care to work together with us? I should be
extremely glad if you would agree to meet me and talk
this over. I am confident that a personal meeting would
remove many misunderstandings, and many seeming diffi-
culties in the way of unity would vanish at once. But should
you not agree in general, or not agree just now, I venture
to take the liberty of touching on some of these difficulties
in advance.
These difficulties are: 1) Your disagreements with many
members of the new editorial board. 2) Your disinclination
to join either of the two halves of the Social-Democratic
Party.—The first difficulty, I think, is wholly removable.
We are in agreement with you on approximately nine-
tenths of the questions of theory and tactics, and to quarrel
over one-tenth is not worth while. You wanted, and still
want, to correct some assertions, which you regard as erro-
neous, in my writings. But nowhere at any time have I gone
out of my way specially to impose my views on any Social-
Democrat, and none, positively none, of the new editors
has entered into an engagement to be “Leninist”. Barsov’s
speech at the Third Congress was an expression of the general
view in this respect. You consider that the philosophical
views of three of the seven persons mentioned are erro-
neous. 346 But these three, too, have not attempted, and
are not attempting, to link these views of theirs with any
official Party matter. And these three—I am not speaking
at random but on the basis of precise knowledge of the
facts—would be extremely glad to work jointly with you.
For you and us to part company politically now, at a time
when your general sympathy with the views of the Majority
is known, among other things, from your lecture, is evi-
 TO G. V. PLEKHANOV 365

dent from your latest writings, and is evident indirectly

from the position adopted by Parvus, who is perhaps most
in agreement with you—to part company politically now
would be extremely undesirable, extremely inoppor-
tune, and extremely harmful for the Social-Democratic
movement.
And a new legal newspaper, which will have an audience
of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of workers—indeed,
all the coming work in Russia at a time when your immense
knowledge and vast political experience are terribly needed
by the Russian proletariat—all this will provide new ground,
on which it will be so much easier to forget the past and
work together on a real live job. To pass from work in
Geneva to work in St. Petersburg is a transition that is
exceptionally favourable, psychologically and from the
Party standpoint, for going over from disunity to unity,
and I very much hope that we shall not miss such an oppor-
tunity, which has not occurred since the Second Congress
and which, probably, will not occur again so soon.
Here, however, is the second difficulty. Perhaps you do
not want unity with one half of the Party. You will demand
unity of the whole Party as a conditio sine qua non for your
participation in the work. You are quite right in holding
that such unity is desirable and necessary. But is it possible
at present? You yourself are inclined to answer this in the
negative, for not long ago you were proposing a federa-
tion. Today the broadest tribune for our influence on the
proletariat is a daily newspaper in St. Petersburg (we shall
be in a position to issue it in an edition of 100,000 copies
and bring the price down to one kopek). Is a joint editorial
board with the Mensheviks conceivable at present? We
think it is not. And so do the Mensheviks. And so do you,
judging from your proposal for a federation. Are three
newspapers really necessary? Cannot we get together for
a political organ of revolutionary Social-Democracy when
there are really no organisational disagreements between
us, and the Party’s coming out into the open tomorrow
will dispel all lingering fears about conspiracy. And the
revolution itself will sweep away our tactical differences
with astonishing speed; besides, you have not expressed
any disagreement with the resolutions of the Third Congress;
366 V. I. L E N I N

and these resolutions, after all, are the sole Party directive
that unites all of us Bolsheviks.
It seems to me that under such circumstances your com-
ing over to us is fully possible, and it will not make future
unity more difficult, but will rather facilitate and accel-
erate it. Instead of the present struggle, which is being
protracted owing to your standing aloof, the revolutionary
Social-Democratic movement as a whole will be in a strong-
er position. The struggle, too, will gain by it by becoming
steadier, more disciplined. The general body of Social-
Democrats will at once feel confident, hopeful—a different
atmosphere will immediately be created, and the new
newspaper, hour by hour, will win for itself a leading position
in the Social-Democratic movement, without looking back-
wards, without going into details of the past, but only
firmly and steadfastly leading the working class in the
present arena of struggle.
I conclude by once again asking you to agree to meet
me and by expressing the general confidence of us Bol-
sheviks in the usefulness, importance and necessity of
working jointly with you.

Sincerely yours,
V. Ulyanov
Written at the end of October 1 9 0 5
in Geneva (local mail)
First published in 1 9 2 6 Printed from the original
 367

161
TO MOTYA AND KOSTYA, * MEMBERS OF THE ODESSA
ORGANISATION OF THE R.S.D.L.P.
(MAJORITY)
To Motya and Kostya, Members
of the Majority of the Odessa organisation
Dear Comrades,
I have received your “Letter to the Comrades”. I shall
not publish it—indeed you do not ask me to do so. But
I consider it my duty to reply to you. I have more than
once stated in print what I am repeating to you now. It
is useless to complain and mourn over the split. We must
work hard to do away with it, we must think how to unite,
and not indulge in platitudes and lamentation. Complain-
ing about the struggle of two parties and creating a third,
and a secret one at that, as you have done, hiding yourselves
from both organisations—means intensifying the split. If
you have been expelled for violating the rules of the organ-
isation, it serves you right, and it’s no use trying to muddle
things by making out that you were expelled for your
opinions, for your conciliatory attitude, and not because
of your disruptive activities.
An “inaugural congress” is an empty phrase. Just think
a bit, the tiniest little bit, what groups precisely should
send their delegates, and how many from each? Just think
a tiny bit how you would react to the idea of an inaugural
meeting without a basis of voting rights. Would you not
call it charlatanry?

* The bearers of these pseudonyms have not been identified.—Ed.

368 V. I. L E N I N

Why do you say nothing about the idea of two congresses,

that of the Majority and the Minority, held at the same
time and in the same place? This idea was put forward by
the C.C. and by Proletary. 347 Would it not be easier to
hold two congresses from the existing two parties than to
start by creating a third (on which you will waste months,
if not years) and then to convene three congresses? What
idiot is going to submit to an “inaugural congress” without
knowing beforehand whether the Social-Democrats will
really be represented there, which of them exactly, and
in what proportions?
The slogan of “two congresses” has in its favour 1) the
assent of one party of the two; 2) full readiness for a con-
gress on the part of the Majority and the fact that its stand-
ards for convocation and the rights of its congress were
made known; 3) the possibility of achieving the same thing
very rapidly in the groups and organisations of the other
party: by publicly listing all groups, getting their opinions,
and publishing draft rules of the congress.
But all that your slogan of an “inaugural congress” has
in its favour is the whining of certain whimperers, for
not a single section of the Party knows the basis of this con-
gress in any respect whatever. You are simply people of
little faith and weak nerves. The sight of an unclean disease
and ugly pimples has made you turn away. This is under-
standable, humanly speaking, but irrational. We think
that one must not turn away, that a third party will not
get us anywhere, whereas the two existing ones will unite
after all, albeit not at once and not without painful
treatment.
Written at the end of October-
beginning of November 1 9 0 5
Sent from Geneva to Odessa
First published in 1 9 3 1 Printed from the original
 369

QPW

162
TO MAXIM GORKY
Wednesday, August 14, 1907
Dear Alexei Maximovich,
We arrived here today with Meshkovsky and tomorrow
we are going to Stuttgart. 348 It is very, very important
that you, too, should be there. 349 For one thing, you were
appointed officially by the C.C. (with a consultative voice).
Secondly, it would be very good to see you, as it may be
a long time before we meet. Thirdly, it is only a matter
of a day’s journey from where you are and it will last not
more than a week (it is not London!). It will not be at all
late if you leave on Sunday or even Monday.
In short, everything is in favour of your coming. I wish
you would, health permitting. Don’t miss this opportunity
of seeing the international socialists at work—it is some-
thing quite, quite different from a general acquaintance
and mere chatting. The next congress will not be held
for another three years. Besides, we shall never be able
to discuss all our business by mail unless we meet. In short,
come without fail. Au revoir!
My best regards to Maria Fyodorovna. 350

Yours,
N. Lenin
Sent to the Isle of Capri (Italy)
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original
370

163
TO A. V. LUNACHARSKY
Dear An. Vas.,
I have received your pamphlet at last—the first part
arrived quite a long time ago. 351 I kept waiting for the
end so as to read it as a whole, but I waited in vain. So
far the third supplement is still missing (“How Marx Re-
garded”, etc.). This is most unfortunate for, not having
the complete manuscript, one is afraid of giving it to the
press to be set up. If this third supplement has not been
sent yet, please try to send it as quickly as possible. The
money (200 rubles) has been sent to you; did you receive
it?
As regards the content of your pamphlet, I liked it very
much, as did all our people here. A most interesting pam-
phlet and excellently written. The only thing is, there are
many unguarded statements, so to speak—I mean the
kind of things which various S.R.s, Mensheviks, syndica-
lists, etc., will pick on. We discussed collectively whether
we should touch it up or give an explanation in the preface.
We decided on the latter course, as it would be a pity to
touch it up; it would impair the integral character of the
exposition.
The conscientious and attentive reader will be able to
understand you correctly, of course; nevertheless, you
should specially guard yourself against false interpreters,
whose name is legion. For example, we must of course
criticise Bebel, and I do not approve of Trotsky, who re-
cently sent us a hymn of praise to Essen and German Social-
Democracy in general. You are right in pointing out that
in Essen Bebel was wrong both on the question of mili-
tarism and on the question of colonial policy (or rather on
 TO A. V. LUNACHARSKY 371

the character of the radicals’ fight at Stuttgart on this

subject). 352 But it should be mentioned in this connection
that these are the mistakes of a person with whom we are
going the same way, and which can only be rectified in
this, Marxist, Social-Democratic way. For there are many
people among us (you probably do not see their press)
who maliciously chuckle over Bebel for the sake of glori-
fying Socialist-Revolutionarism, syndicalism (à la Yezersky,
Kozlovsky, Krichevsky—see Obrazovaniye, etc.) and anar-
chism.
In my opinion, all your ideas can and should always
be set forth in such a way that criticism will be aimed
not at orthodoxy, not at the Germans in general, but at
opportunism. Then it will be impossible to misinterpret
you. Then the conclusion will be clear, namely, that Bol-
shevism, taking a lesson from the Germans and profiting
by their experience (this demand of yours is a thousand
times correct!), will take all that is vital from syndicalism
in order to kill Russian syndicalism and opportunism. To
do this is easier and more natural for us Bolsheviks than
for anyone else, for in the revolution we have always fought
against parliamentary cretinism and Plekhanovite oppor-
tunism. And it is we alone who, from the revolutionary
and not from the pedantic Cadet standpoint of Plekhanov
and Co., can refute syndicalism, which produces no end of
confusion (particularly dangerous confusion in the case
of Russia).
Proletary No. 17 has come out and has been sent to you,
and so has Zarnitsy. 353 Have you received them? Do you
read Tovarishch? How do you like it now? What about
your remembering old times and poking fun at them in
verse? Write please.
All the very best.
Yours,
N. Lenin
Written between November 2 and
11, 1907
Sent from Kuokkala (Finland)
to Italy
First published in 1 9 3 4 Printed from the original
372

QPX
164
TO MAXIM GORKY
January 9, 1908, Geneva
Dear Al. M.,
My wife and I arrived here a few days ago. We both
caught cold on the way. We are settling down here just
anyhow, for the time being temporarily, so everything
is bad. I was very glad to have your letter: it would really
be fine to make a trip to Capri! I shall definitely find time
one of these days to visit you. At present, unfortunately,
it is impossible. We have come here with the commission to
establish a newspaper: to transfer Proletary here from Fin-
land. We haven’t decided yet finally whether we shall choose
Geneva or some other city. In any case we must hurry and
we have our hands full with the new arrangements. It would
be nice to pay you a visit in the spring or summer, when
things here are well under way! What is the best time for
Capri?
How is your health? How do you feel? Does your work
go well? I heard while passing through Berlin that you
and Lunacharsky have been touring Italy and, in particu-
lar, have been in Rome. 354 Do you like Italy? Do you meet
many Russians?
It would be best for me to visit you when you are not
engaged on anything big, so that we can wander about
at leisure and chat together.
Have you received my book (the first volume of collected
articles for twelve years) 355 ? I asked for it to be sent to
you from St. Petersburg.
My very best regards to Maria Fyodorovna. Au revoir!
Yours,
N. Lenin
My address is: Mr. Wl. Oulianoff,
17, Rue des deux Ponts, 17, (chez Küpfer), Genève.
Sent to the Isle of Capri (Italy)
First published in 1 9 2 4 Printed from the original
 373

165
TO MAXIM GORKY AND MARIA ANDREYEVA
January 15, 1908
Dear A. M. and M. F.,
I received your express letter today. The idea of dropping
in on you on Capri is delightfully tempting, dash it! You
have painted such an attractive picture that I have definite-
ly made up my mind to come out, and I shall try to bring
my wife with me. Only I am still uncertain about the date;
at present I must give all my attention to Proletary, it
must be established and work got going smoothly at all
costs. That will take a month or two at least. But it must be
done. By the spring we shall find ourselves drinking the
white wine of Capri, looking at Naples and chatting with
you. Incidentally, I have begun to study Italian and, as
a learner, I pounced at once on the address written by Maria
Fyodorovna: expresso instead of espresso! Let’s have that
dictionary!
As for the shipment of Proletary, you have brought it
on your own head by writing. You won’t be able to wriggle
away from us now so easily! A heap of commissions have to
be given straight away to M. F.:
1) To find the secretary of the union of steamship em-
ployees (there must be such a union!) serving on steamers
that maintain communications with Russia.
2) To find out from him where the ships come from and
go to, and how often. He must arrange weekly shipments
for us without fail. How much will that cost? He must
find someone for us who is punctual (are there punctual
men among the Italians?). Will they want an address in
Russia (in Odessa, say, for delivering the newspapers) or
could small quantities be kept temporarily with some Ita-
lian innkeeper in Odessa? This is extremely important for us.
374 V. I. L E N I N

3) If M. F. cannot take care of this herself—making all

the arrangements, finding the necessary people, instruct-
ing them, checking, etc., let her be sure to put us in touch
with this secretary—we shall then write to him directly.
This thing is urgent. In two or three weeks’ time we hope
to publish Proletary here and it will have to be dispatched
at once. 356
Well—until we meet on Capri! Now, A. M., take care
of yourself.
Yours,
V. Ulyanov
Sent from Geneva to
the Isle of Capri (Italy)
First published in 1 9 2 4 Printed from the original
 375

166
TO THEODORE ROTHSTEIN 357
January 29, 1908
Dear Comrade,
About two-and-a-half to three months ago in Finland I
received your letter with the reminder about the debt, which
I handed over to the C.C. 358 Now the “Finnish smash-up”
has compelled me to move to Geneva, involving consider-
able time and trouble. Today one of the comrades here
has told me that you are insistently reminding about the
debt and that the Englishman is even threatening public-
ation in the press (!), etc.
I shall immediately write again to Russia to say that
the debt must be repaid. But, you know, it is extremely
difficult to do this now! The Finnish smash-up, the arrests
of many comrades, the seizure of papers, the need to remove
printing-presses and to send many comrades abroad all
this has entailed heavy and unforeseen expenditure. The
Party’s financial plight is all the more unfortunate because
during two years everyone has grown out of the habit of
working illegally and has been “spoilt” by legal or semi-
legal activities. Secret organisations have had to be organised
almost afresh. This is costing a mint of money. And all
the intellectualist, philistine elements are abandoning the
Party; the exodus of the intelligentsia is enormous. Those
remaining are pure proletarians who have no opportunity
of making open collections.
It should be explained to the Englishman and brought
home to him that the conditions at the time of the Second
Duma when the loan was made were quite different, that
the Party will, of course, pay its debts, but it is impossible,
inconceivable to demand this just now, that it would be
usury, and so on.
376 V. I. L E N I N

We must convince the Englishman. It is hardly likely

he will be able to get the money. And making a row will
lead him nowhere.
If I am not mistaken, the members of the factions signed
separately and the responsibility is by factions too.

All the best.

Yours,
N. Lenin

P. S. Not knowing your address, I have written to Quelch,

asking him to obtain some literature. I am extremely grate-
ful to him; I’m afraid he can’t always make out my ter-
rible English!
My address is: Vl. Oulianoff, 17, Rue des deux Ponts,
Genève.
Sent from Geneva to London
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original
 377

167
TO MAXIM GORKY
February 2, 1908
Dear A. M.,
I am writing to you about two matters.
Firstly, about the Semashko affair. If you do not know
him personally, it is not worth while your intervening
in the matter described below. If you do know him, it is
worth while.
L. Martov made a “statement” in the Berne Social-De-
mocratic newspaper to the effect that Semashko was not
a delegate at the Stuttgart Congress but merely a journalist.
Not a word about his being a member of the Social-Dem-
ocratic Party. This is a vile attack by a Menshevik on
a Bolshevik who is in prison. I have already sent my official
statement as the representative of the R.S.D.L.P. in the
International Bureau. 359 If you know Semashko personally,
or knew him in Nizhni-Novgorod, you should write without
fail to the same newspaper saying that you are shocked
at Martov’s statement, that you are personally acquainted
with Semashko as a Social-Democrat, and that you are
sure that he is not implicated in the affairs inflated by
the international police. I am quoting below the news-
paper’s address and the full text of Martov’s statement,
which M. F. will translate for you. Write to the editors
yourself in Russian, and ask M. F. to append a German
translation.
The second matter. All three of us have come together
here now, having been sent from Russia to establish Pro-
letary (Bogdanov, I and one “Praktik”). Everything is in
running order, in a day or two we shall publish an announce-
ment. 360 You are on our list of contributors. Drop us a line
378 V. I. L E N I N

as to whether you could give us something for the first

issues (something after the manner of your “notes on phil-
istinism” in Novaya Zhizn, or fragments from a story you
are writing 361, etc.).

All the very best. Best regards to M. F.!

Yours,
V. Ulyanov

The following was published in Berner Tagwacht 362 (ad-

dress of the editorial office: Kapellenstrasse 6, Bern. So-
cial-Democratic organ) No. 24, January 30, 1908.
“Erklärung. In einigen Zeitungen stand zu lesen, dass
der unlängst in Genf verhaftete D-r Simaschko ein Dele-
gierter der Genfer Gruppe der russischen Sozialdemokratie
in Stuttgart gewesen sei. Dem gegenüber erkläre ich, dass
D-r Simaschko nicht Mitglied der russischen Section auf
dem genannten Kongresse war und kein Delegiertenmandat
besessen hat. Er war dort nur als Journalist tätig.
“L. Martoff, Delegierter der russischen Sozialdemokratie
auf dem Stuttgarter Kongress.” *

That’s all. The disgusting thing about it is that Social-

Democracy indirectly, as it were, shakes the dust off its
feet, and repudiates Semashko!
Sent from Geneva to the
Isle of Capri (Italy)
First published in 1 9 2 4 Printed from the original

* Statement. Some newspapers reported that Dr. Semashko,

recently arrested in Geneva, was a delegate in Stuttgart of the Rus-
sian Social-Democratic group in Geneva. In contradiction to this,
I declare that Dr. Semashko was not a member of the Russian section
at the said Congress and had no delegate’s mandate. He was there only
in the capacity of journalist.
“L. Martoff, delegate of Russian Social-Democracy at the Stutt-
gart Congress.”—Ed.
 379

168
TO MAXIM GORKY
February 7, 1908
Dear A. M.,
I shall consult A. A. about your statement; since you
did not know him personally I think it is not worth while
publishing it. 363
To what Bolshevik symposium have you sent the article
on cynicism? I am puzzled, because people write to me
a good deal about Bolshevik symposia, but I have never
heard of this one. I hope it is to the St. Petersburg one. 364
Send me a copy of your letter to Sienkiewicz, if you have
one (indicating when it was sent)—but Sienkiewicz will
no doubt publish it since it is an opinion poll.365
Your plans are very interesting and I should like to
come. But, you will agree, I cannot very well throw up the
Party job, which needs organising immediately. 366 It is
difficult to get a new job going. I can’t throw it up. We
shall have it going in about a couple of months or so, and
then I shall be free to tear myself away for a week or two.
I agree with you a thousand times about the need for
systematically combating political decadence, renegadism,
whining, and so forth. I do not think that there would
be any disagreement between us about “society” and the
“youth”. The significance of the intellectuals in our Party
is declining; news comes from all sides that the intelligen-
tsia is fleeing the Party. And a good riddance to these scoun-
drels. The Party is purging itself from petty-bourgeois dross.
The workers are having a bigger say in things. The role
of the worker-professionals is increasing. All this is wonder-
ful, and I am sure that your “kicks” must be understood
in the same sense.
380 V. I. L E N I N

Now—how are we to exert influence, what exactly should

our literature be? Symposia or Proletary? Of course, the
easier thing is to reply: not or, but and—the reply will
be irreproachable but of little practical value. We must
have legal symposia, of course; our comrades in St. Peters-
burg are working on them by the sweat of the brow, and I,
too, have been working on them after London, while sitting
in Kwakalla. 367 If possible, all efforts should be made to
support them and continue these symposia. 368
But my experience from London up to November 1907
(half a year!) has convinced me that no systematic legal
literature can now be produced. I am convinced that what
the Party now needs is a regular political organ, consist-
ently and vigorously pursuing a policy of struggle against
disintegration and despondency—a Party organ, a political
newspaper. Many people in Russia do not believe in a
foreign-based organ. But this is an error, and our collegium
knew what it was doing when it decided to transfer Pro-
letary here. That it is difficult to organise, set it up and run
it—goes without saying. But it has to be done and it will
be done.
Why shouldn’t literary criticism be included in it? Too
little space? I don’t know, of course, your system of work-
ing. Unfortunately, when we have met, we spent more time
chattering than talking business. If you don’t like writing
small, short, periodical (weekly or fortnightly) articles,
if you prefer to work on big things—then, of course, I would
not advise you to interrupt it. It will be of greater be-
nefit!
If, however, you are inclined towards joint work in a
political newspaper—why not continue and make a regular
feature of the genre which you began with “Notes on Phil-
istinism “ in Novaya Zhizn, and began very well, in my
opinion? I wrote to you about this “with an ulterior mo-
tive” in one of the first letters, thinking: if it appeals to
him, he will seize on the idea. And it seems to me that in
your last letter you are seizing on it after a fashion. Or
am I mistaken? How great would be the gain, both for
Party work through the newspaper, which would not be
so one-sided as it previously was, and for literary work,
which would be more closely linked with Party work,
 TO MAXIM GORKY 381

with systematic, continuous influence on the Party! There

should be not “forays”, but a solid onslaught all along
the line, without stops or gaps; Bolshevik Social-Democrats
should not only attack all kinds of duffers piecemeal, but
should conquer all and everything as the Japanese conquered
Manchuria from the Russians.
Of the three subjects that you mention for the symposia
(philosophy, literary criticism, and current tactics) one-
and-a-half would go into the political newspaper, into
Proletary, viz.: current tactics and a good half of the liter-
ary criticism. Ah, there is nothing good about all those
special, long articles of literary criticism scattered through
various semi-Party and non-Party periodicals! We should
try to take a step away from this old, intellectualist, stuffed-
shirt manner, that is, we should link literary criticism,
too, more closely with Party work, with Party leadership.
That is what the adult Social-Democratic Parties in Europe
are doing. That is what we should do, too, without being
afraid of the difficulties of the first steps of collective news-
paper activity in this field.
Large works of literary criticism—in books, partially
in periodicals.
Systematic, periodic articles, in the concert of a political
newspaper, linked with Party work, in the spirit of what
was begun by Novaya Zhizn—tell me, have you any incli-
nation towards this, or not?
The third subject is philosophy. I am fully aware of my
unpreparedness in this sphere, which prevents me from
speaking about it in public. But, as a rank-and-file Marxist,
I read attentively our Party philosophers, I read attentively
the empirio-monist Bogdanov and the empirio-critics Baza-
rov, Lunacharsky, etc.—and they drive me to give all my
sympathy to Plekhanov! It takes physical strength to keep
oneself from being carried away by the mood, as Plekhanov
does! His tactics are the height of ineptitude and baseness.
In philosophy, however, he upholds the right cause. I am
for materialism against “empirio-” etc.
Can, and should, philosophy be linked with the trend
of Party work? With Bolshevism? I think this should not be
done at the present time. Let our Party philosophers put
in some more work on theory for a while, let them dis-
382 V. I. L E N I N

pute and . . . seek a meeting of minds. For the time being,

I would stand for such philosophical disputes as those be-
tween materialists and “empirios” being separated from
integral Party work.
I look forward to your reply, meanwhile I must conclude.

Yours,
Lenin
Sent from Geneva to the Isle
of Capri (Italy)
First published in 1 9 3 4 Printed from the original
 383

169
TO A. V. LUNACHARSKY
To Anat. Vas.
February 13, 1908
Dear An. Vas.,
Yesterday I sent you a short note about Bringmann.
I hasten to reply to your letter of February 11.
I don’t quite understand why you should feel hurt by
my letter. Not on account of philosophy, surely!
Your plan for a section of belles-lettres in Proletary and
for having A. M. run it is an excellent one, and pleases
me exceedingly. I have in fact been dreaming of making
the literature and criticism section a permanent feature in Pro-
letary and having A. M. to run it. But I was afraid, ter-
ribly afraid of making the proposal outright, as I do not
know the nature of A. M.’s work (and his work-bent). If
a man is busy with an important work, and if this work
would suffer from him being torn away for minor things,
such as a newspaper, and journalism, then it would be
foolish and criminal to disturb and interrupt him! That is
something I very well understand and feel.
Being on the spot, you will know best, dear An. Vas.
If you consider that A. M.’s work will not suffer by his being
harnessed to regular Party work (and the Party work will
gain a great deal from this!), then try to arrange it.
Proletary No. 21 will come out on February 13 (26). So
there is still time. It is desirable to have the manuscripts
by Friday, which will give us plenty of time to put them
in the issue which comes out on Wednesday. If it’s some-
thing urgent we could manage it even if the copy arrives on
Sunday (to avoid delay, write and send it directly to my
address), or even (in an extreme case!) on Monday.
384 V. I. L E N I N

You, too, must write without fail. Won’t you send us

for No. 21 either a political article on Russian affairs
(10,000-16,000 characters) or an article on Ferri’s resig-
nation 369 (8,000-10,000 characters)? Better still, not
“either ... or”, but “both ... and”.
I send you my best regards and ask you to reply whether
A. M.’s contribution to Proletary is being arranged. If it
is, let him begin at once, without waiting for the “meeting”
and an agreement.370
Sent from Geneva to the Isle
of Capri (Italy)
First published in 1 9 2 4 Printed from the original
 385

170
TO MAXIM GORKY
February 13, 1908
Dear Al. M.,
I think that some of the questions you raise about our
differences of opinion are a sheer misunderstanding. Never,
of course, have I thought of “chasing away the intelligen-
tsia”, as the silly syndicalists do, or of denying its neces-
sity for the workers’ movement. There can be no divergence
between us on any of these questions; of that I am quite
sure, and since we cannot get together at the moment, we
must start work together at once. At work we shall best
of all find a common language.
I am very, very pleased with your plan of writing short
paragraphs for Proletary (the announcement has been sent
to you). Naturally, if you are working on something big,
do not break it off.
Regarding Trotsky, I wanted to reply last time, but I
forgot. We (i.e., the editorial board of Proletary, Al. Al.,
myself and “Inok”—a very good colleague from the home
Bolsheviks) decided straight away to invite him on to
Proletary. We wrote him a letter, proposing and outlining
a theme. By general agreement we signed it the “Editorial
Board of Proletary”, so as to put the matter on a more
collegial footing (I personally, for example, had had a
big fight with Trotsky, a regular fierce battle in 1903-05
when he was a Menshevik). Whether there was something
in the form of our letter that offended Trotsky, I do not
know, but he sent us a letter, not written by him: “On
Comrade Trotsky’s instructions” the editorial board of Pro-
letary was informed that he refused to write, he was too
busy.
386 V. I. L E N I N

In my opinion, this is mere posturing. At the London

Congress, 371 too, he acted the poseur. I don’t know really
whether he will go with the Bolsheviks....
The Mensheviks here have issued an announcement about
the monthly Golos Sotsial-Demokrata 372 over the signatures
of Plekhanov, Axelrod, Dan, Martov and Martynov. I shall
get it and send it to you. The struggle may become sharper.
But Trotsky wants to stand “above the contending fac-
tions”....
It is in regard to materialism as a world outlook that I
think I disagree with you in substance. Not the “materialist
conception of history” (our “empirios” 373 do not deny that),
but philosophical materialism. That the Anglo-Saxons and
Germans owed their philistinism to “materialism”, and the
Romance peoples their anarchism, is something I emphatic-
ally dispute. Materialism, as a philosophy, was everywhere
pushed into the background by them. Neue Zeit, that most
sober and well-informed organ, is indifferent to philosophy,
was never a zealous supporter of philosophical material-
ism, and of late has been publishing the empirio-critics
without a single reservation. It is wrong, absolutely wrong
to think that dead philistinism could be deduced from the
materialism which Marx and Engels taught! All the phil-
istine trends in Social-Democracy are most of all at war
with philosophical materialism, they lean towards Kant,
neo-Kantianism, the critical philosophy. No, the philosophy
which Engels substantiated in Anti-Dühring keeps philistin-
ism at arm’s length. Plekhanov does harm to this philosophy
by linking the struggle here with the factional struggle,
but after all no Russian Social-Democrat ought to confuse
the present Plekhanov with the old Plekhanov.
Al. Al. has just now left me. I shall communicate with
him again about the “meeting”. If you insist—it could
be arranged for a couple of days and very soon at that.

All the best.

Lenin
Sent from Geneva to the Isle
of Capri (Italy)
First published in 1 9 2 4 Printed from the original
 387

171
TO MAXIM GORKY
March 16, 1908
Dear A. M.,
It’s a pity I can’t manage to go and see you. A reply
has come from Brussels 374 and here there is no delay. But
there is no money and no time, and I cannot abandon the
newspaper.
Judging from the fact that you own a nanny-goat, I see
that you are in a good humour, the right frame of mind,
and life is normal with you. With us things are going none
too well. We are pretty much at loggerheads with Al. Al.
over this philosophy. I am neglecting the newspaper because
of my hard bout of philosophy: one day I read one of the
empirio-critics and swear like a fishwife, next day I read
another and swear still worse. And Innokenty scolds me—
and quite right too—for neglecting Proletary. Things are
not running smoothly.
Ah, well, it’s only natural. Things will come right.
It would be fine if you could manage to write for Prolet-
ary without your major works suffering.
With warm greetings and best regards to A. Vas. and
Maria Fyodorovna.
Yours,
Lenin
Sent from Geneva to the Isle
of Capri (Italy)
First published in 1 9 2 4 Printed from the original
388

172
TO MAXIM GORKY
To A. M., private
March 24, 1908
Dear A. M.,
I have received your letter concerning my fight with
the Machists. I quite understand and respect your feelings
and I ought to say that I get something similar from my
St. Petersburg friends, but I am very deeply convinced
that you are mistaken.
You must understand—and you will, of course—that
once a Party man has become convinced that a certain doc-
trine is grossly fallacious and harmful, he is obliged to come
out against it. I would not be kicking up a row if I were
not absolutely convinced (and I am becoming more and
more convinced of this every day as I study the original
sources of wisdom of Bazarov, Bogdanov and Co.) that
their book is ridiculous, harmful, philistine, fideist—the
whole of it, from beginning to end, from branch to root,
to Mach and Avenarius. Plekhanov, at bottom, is entirely
right in being against them, only he is unable or unwilling
or too lazy to say so concretely, in detail, simply, without
unnecessarily frightening his readers with philosophical
nuances. And at all costs I shall say it in my own way.
What kind of “reconciliation” can there be here, dear
A. M.? Why, it is ludicrous even to mention it. A fight
is absolutely inevitable. And Party people should devote
their efforts not to slurring it over, putting it off or dodg-
ing it, but to ensuring that essential Party work does not
suffer in practice. That is what you should be concerned
about, and nine-tenths of the Bolsheviks in Russia will
help you in this and heartily thank you for it.
 TO MAXIM GORKY 389

How is this to be done? By “neutrality”? No. There

cannot and will not be any neutrality on such an issue.
If it is possible to speak of neutrality, it can only be in
a relative sense: we must separate all this fight from the
faction. So far, you have been writing “from the outside”,
keeping away from the factional publications; go on writing
in this way. Only so will the faction not be committed,
not be involved, not be compelled tomorrow or the day after
to decide, to vote, i.e., to turn the fight into a chronic, pro-
tracted, hopeless affair.
That is why I am against allowing any kind of philosophy
in the journal. 375 I know I am being abused for this: he
wants to stop other people’s mouths, while he has not yet
opened his own! But just think it over coolly.
A journal with philosophy. No. 1—three articles of Ba-
zarov, Bogdanov and Lunacharsky against Plekhanov. One
article of mine saying that Studies in the Philosophy of
Marxism=Berdayevism and reactionary clericalism.
No. 2—three times three keyed up articles of Bogdanov,
Bazarov and Lunacharsky against Plekhanov and Lenin.
One article of mine, proving from another angle that Studies
in the Philosophy of Marxism=reactionary clericalism.
No. 3—howling and cursing.
I could write six or a dozen articles against Studies in
the Philosophy of Marxism, one article against each author
and each aspect of his views. Can this drag on in this way?
How long? Will this not make a split inevitable through
endless exacerbation and embitterment? Will this not bind
the faction to make a decision: decide, analyse, and end
the “discussion” by a vote....
Think this over carefully, if you fear a split. Will the
practical workers undertake to distribute books with such
a “fight”? Isn’t another way better: go on writing as before,
outside the factional publications. Do your scrapping on
the side, for the time being the faction can wait. If there is
a chance of weakening the inevitable animosity, it can only
be in this way, I think.
You write: the Mensheviks will gain from a fight. You
are mistaken, deeply mistaken, A. M.! They will gain if the
Bolshevik faction does not dissociate itself from the phi-
losophy of the three Bolsheviks. In that case, they will
390 V. I. L E N I N

definitely win. But if the philosophical fight goes on out-

side the faction, the Mensheviks will be definitely reduced
to a political line and that will be the death of them.
I say: separate the fight from the faction. Of course,
such a separation, on living persons, is rather difficult and
painful. It needs time. It needs solicitous comrades. Here
the practical workers will help, here you should help, here
it is a question of “psychology”, and you know best. I think
you could help a lot here—provided that, on reading my
book against the Studies, * you don’t become as furious
against me as I became against them.
As regards the journal, think it over carefully and answer
me soon. I am a little doubtful whether it is worth while
for us to make the journey to you together at present. Why
jangle nerves unnecessarily? Why draw out the torture . . .
there is no avoiding a fight. Would it not be better to settle
this business of the journal simply, without long negotia-
tions and ceremonial and futile meetings. I am merely
putting questions to you in order to consult you.
Best regards to M. F. I shall most certainly come to
Capri and try to bring my wife along, only I should like to
do this independently of the philosophical fight.

All the very best.

Yours,
Lenin

P. S. I enclose important information about a spy among

you.
Sent from Geneva to the Isle
of Capri (Italy)
First published in 1 9 2 4 Printed from the original

* The reference is to Materialism and Empirio-criticism which

Lenin was engaged on at the time (see present edition, Vol. 14).—Ed.
 391

173
TO MAXIM GORKY
How is it there is no news from you, dear A. M.? You
wrote that you had long finished your big work and were
going to help us in Proletary. But when? What about your
doing a small article on Tolstoy or something of that sort?
Send us a line whether you intend to do so.376
Al. Al. is on his way to you. I can neither abandon the
paper nor get away from my work. But this is only a delay,
I shall come all the same.
What do you think of Proletary? It is an uncared-for
waif. Never before have I so neglected my paper: I spend
whole days reading the accursed Machists, and dash off
articles for the newspaper in incredible haste.

Well, all the best.

Yours,
Lenin

To M. F. thousand greetings! I shall bicycle down to

see her!
Get Anat. Vas. to write for Proletary too! Let me do
some philosophic barking by helping Proletary in the mean-
time!
Written in the first half
of April 1 9 0 8
Sent from Geneva to the Isle
of Capri (Italy)
First published in 1 9 2 4 Printed from the original
392

175
TO A. V. LUNACHARSKY
To Anat. Vas.
April 16, 1908
Dear A. V.,
I have received your letter. I am very glad that you are
undertaking work for Proletary. This is absolutely neces-
sary, particularly in regard to the subjects you mention
& Italian letters. Mind you don’t forget that you are a
contributor to a Party newspaper and don’t let those round
you forget it.

All the very best.

Yours,
Lenin

P. S. Privately, about philosophy: I cannot return your

compliments and I think you will soon take yours back.
As for me, I have parted company (and probably for a long
time) with the preachers of “the union of scientific social-
ism and religion” and with all Machists as well.
Sent from Geneva to the Isle
of Capri (Italy)
First published in 1 9 3 4 Printed from the original
 393

175
TO MAXIM GORKY
April 16, 1908
Dear Al. M.,
Today I received your letter and hasten to reply. It
is useless and harmful for me to come: I cannot and will
not talk to people who are preaching the union of scientific
socialism and religion. The time for notebooks 377 is past.
It’s no use arguing, and it’s stupid to jangle one’s nerves
for nothing. Philosophy must be separated from Party
(factional) affairs: the decision of the Bolshevik Centre 378
makes this obligatory.
I have already sent to be printed the most formal declar-
ation of war. 379 There is no longer any room for diplomacy
here—of course, I am speaking of diplomacy not in the
bad sense, but in the good sense of the word.
“Good” diplomacy on your part, dear A. M. (if you, too,
have not come to believe in God), should consist in separat-
ing our joint (i.e., including myself) affairs from philosophy.
A talk on other matter than philosophy won’t come
off now: it would be unnatural. Incidentally, if these other
matters, not philosophical, but Proletary matters, for exam-
ple, really demand talks just now, and at your place, I
could come (I don’t know whether I shall find the money:
there are difficulties at present), but I repeat: only on
condition that I do not speak about philosophy or religion.
And I definitely intend coming to have a talk with you
when I am free and through with my work.
All the very best.
Yours,
Lenin
Best regards to M. F.: she is not for God, by any chance,
is she?
Sent from Geneva to the Isle
of Capri (Italy)
First published in 1 9 2 4 Printed from the original
394

176
TO MAXIM GORKY
April 19, 1908
Dear A. M.,
I have received the telegram from you and M. F. and
am sending my refusal today or tomorrow morning. I re-
peat, on no account is it permissible to mix the disputes
of writers about philosophy with a Party (i.e., factional)
matter. I have already written about this to An. Vas. 380
and to avoid any misinterpretations or incorrect conclu-
sions from my refusal to come I repeat it for all the com-
rades. We should continue to conduct our factional work
harmoniously: none of us has regretted the policy which
we pursued and implemented at the time of the revolution.
Hence, it is our duty to defend it before the Party. We can
only do this all together, and we should do it in Proletary
and in all Party work.
If, in the course of it, A should inveigh against B, or
B inveigh against A, on account of philosophy, we must
do this as a thing apart, that is, without interfering with
the work.
I shouldn’t like you and the comrades to put a bad con-
struction on my refusal to come. I am very sorry, but the
whole situation and the state of the editorial board pre-
vent my coming.
All the very best.
Yours, Lenin
We are expecting to receive the promised article about
the Rome strike from An. Vas. as soon as possible. We are
expecting help for Proletary from all writers: we are all
answerable to our comrades in Russia, who are dissatis-
fied with it. Let Al. Al. concern himself seriously about
money! They are crying out in Russia for lack of money.
Sent from Geneva to the Isle
of Capri (Italy)
First published in 1 9 2 4 Printed from the original
 395

177
TO V. V. VOROVSKY 381
Dear friend,
Thanks for your letter. Both your “suspicions” are wrong.
I was not suffering from nerves, but our position is difficult.
A split with Bogdanov is imminent. The true cause is
offence at the sharp criticism of his philosophical views at
lectures (not at all in the newspaper). Now Bogdanov is
hunting out every kind of difference of opinion. Together
with Alexinsky, who is kicking up a terrible row and with
whom I have been compelled to break off all relations,
he has dragged the boycott out into the light of day.
They are trying to bring about a split on empirio-mon-
istic and boycott grounds. The storm will burst very soon.
A fight at the coming conference is inevitable. A split is
highly probable. I shall leave the faction as soon as the
policy of the “Left” and of true “boycottism” gets the up-
per hand. I invited you, thinking that your speedy arrival
would help to pacify. In August (new style) we are never-
theless counting on you without fail as a participant in the
conference. Be sure to arrange things so as to be able to
travel abroad. We shall send money for the journey to all
the Bolsheviks. Issue the slogan locally: mandates to be
given only to local, and only to active Party workers. We
earnestly request you to write for our newspaper. We can
now pay for articles and will pay regularly.
All the best.
Do you know of any publisher who would handle the
work on philosophy I am writing? 382
Written July 1 , 1 9 0 8
Sent from Geneva to Odessa
First published in 1 9 2 4 Printed from
the typewritten
copy found in
police record
396

178
TO P. YUSHKEVICH 383
Sir,
I do not agree to diluting Marxism nor to a free tribune
in publications I know nothing of.

N. Lenin
Written November 1 0 , 1 9 0 8
Sent from Geneva
to St. Petersburg
First published in 1 9 3 3 Printed from the original
 397

QP

179
TO ROSA LUXEMBURG 384
May 18, 1909
Werte Genossin,
I sent you yesterday by registered book-post a copy of
my book on philosophy—in memory of our conversation
about Mach when we last met.385
If possible, I should like to ask you to write a note about
this book for Neue Zeit 386 for the “Verzeichnis der in der
Redaktion eingelaufenen Druck-Schriften” * . If this neces-
sitates any formality, such as sending the book direct to
the editors (who do not understand Russian), please drop
me a line about it and I shall try to send a special copy to
the editors of Neue Zeit.
You, of course, have heard from Comrade Tyszka about
our internal struggle among the Bolsheviks. Your article
against the otzovists and ultimatumists 387 has pleased
everyone very much 388; it is a pity that you write so rarely
in Russian; you prefer the rich Social-Democratic Party
of the Germans to the poor Social-Democratic Party of the
Russians.
All the best! Regards to Tyszka. With greetings.

N. Lenin

P. S. The note of Die Neue Zeit editors to Rothstein’s

(excellent) article in No. 33 leads me to think that Kautsky
himself is none too pleased now with his defence of the
I.L.P. in Brussels 389 .... Am I right?
Sent from Paris to Berlin
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original

* “List of printed matter received by the editorial board.”—Ed.

398

180
TO A. I. LYUBIMOV 390
Dear Mark,
I am sending you for Lyova my reply to the Capriotes. 391
If he considers it necessary, let him make a copy for Inok,
and then send the letter to Capri—I don’t know the address.
I think it could be sent in two envelopes: the outer one
inscribed “Signor Massimo Gorki, Villa Blaesus, Capri,
Italie”, and the inner one: “For the Executive Committee
of the School”.
I don’t know any other address.
As regards Trotsky, I must say that I shall be most vi-
gorously opposed to helping him if he rejects (and he has
already rejected it!) equality on the editorial board, proposed
to him by a member of the C.C. Without a settlement
of this question by the Executive Committee of the Bol-
shevik Centre, no steps to help Trotsky are permissible.
Consequently, the Economic Committee is entitled to agree
to the printing of Pravda 392 at the Proletary printing-press
only if this will not be help for a new faction (for Trotsky
is founding a new faction, whereas the Bolshevik C.C.
member proposed to him instead that he should come into
the Party) but a strictly commercial deal, for payment,
as with any other person, provided the compositors are
disengaged, etc. I insist most categorically that the ques-
tion of the attitude to Pravda shall still be decided by the
Executive Committee of the Bolshevik Centre and that pend-
ing this decision not a single step in the way of help shall
be taken, nor shall we bind ourselves in any way.
All the best.
N. Lenin
P. S. Please make a copy of my letter to the Capriotes
in any case. It may prove necessary for the B.C.
Written August 1 8 , 1 9 0 9
Sent from Bombon (France)
to Paris
First published in 1 9 3 3 Printed from the original
 399

181
TO G. Y. ZINOVIEV 393
Dear Gr.,
I have received No. 7-8 of Sotsial-Demokrat. 394 I object
to Trotsky’s signature; signatures must be omitted. (I have
not yet read the articles.)
As regards Proletary, I think we should insert in it 1) an
article on the elections in St. Petersburg (in connection
with the claptrap of Rech 395 and Vodovozov, if Rech has
not misreported him); 2) on the Swedish strike—a summing-
up article is essential; 3) ditto on the Spanish events 396 ;
4) on the Mensheviks, in connection with their (very vile)
polemic with the Geneva (Georgien 397) anti-liquidator; 5) in
the supplement as a special sheet, an answer to the “Open
Letter” of Maximov and Co. 398 A proper answer must be
given to them so that these scoundrels do not mislead
people by their lies.
After three weeks’ holiday, I am beginning to come
round. I think I could take No. 4 and 5, upon myself, if
need be No. 1 as well, but I am still afraid to promise. Write
me your opinion and the exact deadlines. What else is there
for Proletary?
Nos. 2 and 3 can be made up from Vorwärts; I shall send
it to you, if you will undertake to write.
As regards Pravda, have you read Trotsky’s letter to
Inok? If you have, I hope it has convinced you that Trotsky
behaves like a despicable careerist and factionalist of the
Ryazanov-and-Co. type? Either equality on the editorial
board, subordination to the C.C. and no one’s transfer to
Paris except Trotsky’s (the scoundrel, he wants to “fix
up” the whole rascally crew of Pravda at our expense!)—
400 V. I. L E N I N

or a break with this swindler and an exposure of him in

the C.O. He pays lip-service to the Party and behaves worse
than any other of the factionalists.

All the best.

N. Lenin

P. S. I’m afraid we’ll have to give Kamenev up as a bad

job. An article on The Social Movement 399 has been prom-
ised six weeks (or six months) ago?
My address is: Mr. Wl. Oulianoff (Chez Madame Lecreux),
Bombon (Seine-et-Marne).
Written August 2 4 , 1 9 0 9
Sent from Bombon (France)
to Paris
First published in 1 9 3 3 Printed from the original
 401

182
TO A. I. LYUBIMOV
Dear Mark,
I entirely agree, of course, to your making free use of
my letter for a report or for publication. * Bear in mind,
though, that I am writing an article ** for Proletary in
which I bluntly describe the gang of scoundrels, Maximov
and Co., as canaille, and call their school nothing but a
“Yerogin’s hostel”. *** And so, to avoid misunderstanding:
I agree to speak “mildly” only to workers who address me
personally over their own signatures.
Maximov and Co., however, are a band of adventurers
who have enticed some workers into their Yerogin hostel.
To avoid contradictions, do not circulate my letter among
our people, but send it exclusively to organisations with
this reservation (the reservation had better be published
too):
“The appropriate reply to the company of offended writ-
ers, unrecognised philosophers and ridiculed god-build-
ers 400 who have hidden away their so-called “school” from
the Party, will be given in Proletary. The present letter,
however, is Lenin’s personal reply to those workers who
have addressed him personally.”
I should advise everyone either not to go to Bogdanov’s
lecture—or to answer him in such a way as once and for
all to kill the desire to butt in. It is base cowardice to go

* The reference is to a letter to students at the Capri Party

School (see present edition, Vol. 15, pp. 472-78).—Ed.
** If I manage to finish it, I shall send it to you tomorrow ex-
press—perhaps it will be in time for the report.
*** See “The Faction of Supporters of Otzovism and God-Build-
ing” (present edition, Vol. 16).—Ed.
402 V. I. L E N I N

gate-crashing on a faction from which he has already been

ejected. There is nothing more harmful now than sentiment-
alising. A complete break and war, more determined than
that against the Mensheviks. This war will quickly teach
the fools who have still “not made things out”.

All the best.

N. Lenin

P. S. And Plekhanov’s “Dnevnik”! 401 Don’t forget I am

waiting.
Written at the beginning
of September 1 9 0 9
Sent from Bombon (France)
to Paris
First published in 1 9 3 3 Printed from the original
 403

183
TO MAXIM GORKY
November 16, 1909
Dear Alexei Maximovich,
I have been fully convinced all the time that you and
Comrade Mikhail were the most hardened factionalists of
the new faction, with whom it would be silly of me to try
and talk in a friendly way. Today for the first time I met
Comrade Mikhail, and had a heart-to-heart chat with him
both about affairs and about you, and I perceived that I
had been cruelly mistaken. Believe me, the philosopher
Hegel was right: life proceeds by contradictions, and living
contradictions are so much richer, more varied and deeper
in content than they may seem at first sight to a man’s
mind. I regarded the school as merely the centre of a new
faction. This has turned out to be wrong—not in the sense
that it was not the centre of a new faction (the school was
this centre and is so at the present time), but in the sense
that this was incomplete, not the whole truth. Subjectively,
certain people made such a centre out of the school, objective-
ly, it was such, but in addition the school drew to it real
front-rank workers from real working-class life. What hap-
pened was that, besides the contradiction between the old
and the new faction, a contradiction developed on Capri,
between some of the Social-Democratic intellectuals and the
workers from Russia, who will bring Social-Democracy on
to the true path at all costs and whatever happens, and
who will do so despite all the squabbling and dissension
abroad, despite the “incidents”, and so on and so forth.
People like Mikhail are a guarantee of it. Moreover, it
turned out that a contradiction developed in the school
between elements of the Capri Social-Democratic intel-
ligentsia.
404 V. I. L E N I N

I gathered from Mikhail that you are taking things hard,

dear A. M. You have seen the working class and Social-
Democratic movement from an aspect and in forms and
manifestations which already more than once in the history
of Russia and Western Europe have led intellectuals of
little faith to despair of the workers’ movement and Social-
Democracy. I am confident that this will not happen in
your case, and after my talk with Mikhail I want to shake
your hand heartily. With your gifts as an artist you have
rendered such a tremendous service to the working-class
movement of Russia—and indeed not only of Russia—
and will render a still greater service yet, that it is on no
account permissible for you to fall a prey to moods of de-
pression evoked by episodes of the struggle abroad. Con-
ditions occur when the course of the working-class move-
ment inevitably gives rise to this struggle abroad, and
to splits, dissension and the quarrelling among the circles
—but this is not because of the workers’ movement being
intrinsically weak or Social-Democracy intrinsically er-
roneous, but because the elements out of which the work-
ing class has to forge its Party are too heterogeneous and
diverse in calibre. The working class will forge it in any
case, it will forge an excellent revolutionary Social-Dem-
ocratic Party in Russia, and it will do so more speedily
than sometimes seems likely from the standpoint of the
thrice-accursed emigrant position; it will forge it more
surely than might be imagined if one were to judge by
some external manifestations and individual episodes.
People like Mikhail are a guarantee of that.
All the very best to you and to Maria Fyodorovna. I am
now hopeful that we shall meet again and not as enemies.

Yours,
Lenin
Wl. Oulianoff,
4, Rue Marie Rose, 4
Paris, XIV
Sent from Paris to the Isle
of Capri (Italy)
First published in 1 9 2 4 Printed from the original
 405

184
TO MAXIM GORKY
Dear A. M.,
You are wrong in asking me to come over. Why should I
be slanging Maximov, Lunacharsky, etc.? You yourself write
about keeping at loggerheads strictly among ourselves and
yet you invite us to do the same in public. It’s no model.
And about repelling the workers, you are wrong there too.
If they accept our invitation and call on us, we shall have
a chat with them and fight for the views of a certain news-
paper, 402 which certain factionalists are abusing (I heard
this long ago from Lyadov and others) as being a deadly
bore, a semi-literate and useless paper which does not
believe in the proletariat or socialism.
As regards a new split, your arguments don’t hang to-
gether. On the one hand, both are nihilists (and “Slav
anarchists”—why, my dear man, the non-Slav Europeans
at times like ours fought, cursed and split a hundred times
worse than we do!)—and, on the other hand, the split will
be not less deep than that between the Bolsheviks and
Mensheviks. If it is a question of the “nihilism” of the “log-
gerheads”, of the semi-literacy, etc., of someone who does
not believe in what he writes, etc.—then, the split is not
deep or it is not a split at all. And if the split is deeper than
that between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks—then it is
not a question of nihilism, not a question of writers who
do not believe in what they write. It doesn’t hold water,
really! You are wrong about the present split and justly *
say: “I understand people but not their deeds.”
What strikes you and Maximov in Proletary as insin-
cerity and futility, etc., is due to a totally different view-
point on the entire present moment (and, of course, on
Marxism). We have been marking time for almost two
years now, torturing questions which still seem “disput-
* An addition “justly”: I make a reservation. Without under-
standing their deeds one cannot understand people either, unless it
be . . . outwardly. That is to say, it is possible to understand the psy-
chology of one or other participant of a struggle, but not the meaning
of the struggle, not its party and political significance.
406 V. I. L E N I N

able” to Maximov, but which events decided long ago.

And if we were to continue “disputing” about them, we
would still be vainly marking time. But by parting com-
pany, we shall show the workers clearly, directly and
definitely, two ways out. The Social-Democratic workers will
make their choice easily and swiftly, for the tactics of
preserving (in storage cans) the revolutionary words of
1905-06 instead of applying the revolutionary method to
a new, different situation, to a changed epoch, which de-
mands different methods and different forms of organisa-
tion—these tactics are dead. The proletariat is moving
towards revolution and will come to it, but not in the way
it did prior to 1905. To one who “believes” that the pro-
letariat will make it, but who does not understand this “not
in the way”—to him our position is bound to seem insin-
cere, futile, tedious, based on lack of faith in the proletariat
and socialism, etc., etc. The divergence resulting from this
is, undoubtedly, deep enough to make a split—at least
abroad—inevitable. But it does not come anywhere near
the split between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, if one
is to speak of the depth of the split in the Party, in Social-
Democracy, among Marxists.
You are surprised that I fail to see Mikhail’s hysteria,
lack of discipline (it is not for you to say, nor for Mikhail
to listen) and other bad qualities. Well, I have had a little
opportunity of testing him: I thought that nothing would
come of a conversation between you and me, that there
was no sense in writing. Under the impression of my talk
with Mikhail, I wrote at once, in the heat of the moment,
without even reading through the letter, without putting
it off until the next day. The next day I thought: I have
been foolish enough to believe Mikhail. But it turned out
that for all his enthusiasm Mikhail was right to some extent,
for we did have our talk, you and I—not without hitches,
of course, and not without Proletary being annihilated,
but that can’t be helped!
All the very best.
N. Lenin
Written not earlier than November 2 0 , 1 9 0 9
Sent from Paris to the Isle of Capri (Italy)
First published in 1 9 2 4 Printed from the original
 407

185
TO I. I. SKVORTSOV - STEPANOV 403
Dear friend,
I have received your letter of September 20, 1909, and
was extremely glad to hear from you. It is a pity there
was no news from you earlier—we are now terribly isolated
here; we tried to get in touch with you and Vyach., but
failed. These are indeed hellishly difficult years and a pos-
sibility of contacts with old friends is ten times more valu-
able for that reason. I shall answer your letter point by
point. You have seen the newspaper up to December 1908.
Since then much water has flowed under the bridge.
With the so-called “Lefts” we have a complete split,
which was made good in the spring of 1909. If you come
across my book on philosophy (I sent it to you immediately
it came out, i.e., in the beginning of the summer of 1909)
and the newspaper for 1909, you will hardly say that we
are making concessions to the silly Lefts. There is a com-
plete and formal split with Maximov and the Maximovites.
An out-and-out fight. They may set up their own organ,
or they may not. They are stirring things up in St. Peters-
burg and Odessa, but they cannot become a force; it is the
death agony of “otzovism-ultimatumism”, in my opinion.
The split with Maximov and Co. cost us no little energy
and time, but I think it was inevitable and will be useful
in the long run. Knowing your views, I think, I am even
confident, that we are in agreement here.
As to what you say about it being time to “liquidate
the belief in a second coming of the general-democratic
onset”, I definitely do not agree with you there. You would
only be playing into the hands of the otzovists (who are
very prone to such “maximalism”: the bourgeois revolu-
408 V. I. L E N I N

tion is behind us—ahead is the “purely proletarian” one)

and the extreme Right-wing Menshevik liquidators. (In-
cidentally: have you heard about the split among the Men-
sheviks? Plekhanov has left the editorial board of their
newspaper, Golos Sotsial-Demokrata, and the editorial board
of their collective work: The Social Movement in Rus-
sia in the Twentieth Century. In August 1909 he published
Dnevnik No. 9, where he called the Mensheviks the accom-
plices of the liquidators, 404 and said about Potresov “he
is no comrade of mine”, and that Potresov had ceased to
be a revolutionary, and so on. Things with us are moving
towards an alignment with the Plekhanovite Mensheviks
with the aim of strengthening the Party.) But the main
thing, in my opinion, is that such a view is theoretically
wrong. The “German line” is possible—without doubt. And
we frankly recognised that as early as the beginning of
1908. But this possibility can become a reality only through
a number of “general-democratic” onsets (or upsurges,
or crises, etc.) just as France came to the end of the “gener-
al-democratic” onsets not after 1789-93, but after 1871
(i.e., after 1830, 1848, and 1871), and Germany not in 1849-
50, but also after 1871, i.e., after the Verfassungsstreit * of
the sixties. Struve, Guchkov and Stolypin are trying their
hardest to “copulate” and produce a Bismarckian Russia—
but nothing comes of it. Nothing. They’re impotent. All
the signs show, and they themselves admit, that nothing
comes of it. Stolypin’s agrarian policy 405 is correct from
the point of view of Bismarckianism. But Stolypin him-
self “asks” for 20 years to make something “come of it”.
But twenty years, and even a shorter time, is impossible
in Russia without 1830-1848-1871 (if in the French style)
and 1863-1865 (if in the German style). It is impossible.
And all these dates (both 1830-1848-1871 and 1863-1865)
are a “general-democratic onset”.
No, we cannot “liquidate” the idea of “a general-demo-
cratic onset”—that would be a cardinal mistake. We should
recognise the possibility of a “German line”, but we should
not forget that so far it does not exist. It simply does not.

* Constitutional conflict.—Ed.
 TO I. I. SKVORTSOV- STEPANOV 409

We should not link the destinies of the proletarian party

with the success or failure of the bourgeois revolution—
that is indisputable. We should organise the work so that,
whatever the turn events take, it will be a stable, un-
alienable achievement—that is true. But we are obliged
to do our duty as leaders of a democratic, “general-demo-
cratic”, movement right to the end, until the Russian 1871,
until the complete turn of the peasantry to the side of an
Ordnungspartei. * And such a turn, as far as Russia is con-
cerned, is still a long way off! We cannot deny the pos-
sibility of a “German”, that is to say, a “rotten”, solution
of “general-democratic” problems, but we are obliged to
do everything, we are obliged to work long and hard in
order that this solution will be not “rotten”, not German,
but French, i.e., that of the 1830-1848-1871 type, and not
of the 1863-65 type (merely a “constitutional” crisis). There
is no guarantee that our 1863-65 will turn out to be “rotten”
or successful, but it is our business, the business of the
working-class party, to do everything to make the “rotten”
develop into the successful, to make the German Verfass-
ungsstreit develop into a real French scrimmage. There
are no historical laws to prevent a rotten crisis from turn-
ing into a real scrimmage. There are no such laws. Every-
thing depends on the circumstances, on the mass of poor peas-
ants (whom Stolypin has suppressed but not satisfied), on
the strength of the workers’ party, on the conditions, fric-
tion and conflicts between Guchkov and the “spheres”, etc.,
etc. We should see to it that we are stronger (and by the
time of our 1863-1865 we shall be stronger than the Germans
were then), and that the peasants then do what we tell
them, and not what the liberals tell them. Only the strug-
gle will decide how far this will be achieved. We shall
demand everything in the sense of a “general-democratic
onset”: if successful we shall gain everything, if unsuccess-
ful—a part; but, in going into battle, we must not confine
ourselves to demanding a part. To build in a new way, to
organise in a new way, to enter the crisis in a new way—
such is the crucial feature of the moment, but all the old

* Party of order.—Ed.
410 V. I. L E N I N

slogans, the demand for “everything”, must be maintained,

developed and strengthened.
All the very, very best. I wish you health and good cheer.

Yours whole-heartedly,
Old Man
Written December 2 , 1 9 0 9
Sent from Paris
to St. Petersburg
First published in 1 9 2 2 Printed from
the typewritten
copy found in
police record
 411

QQP

186
DRAFT OF A LETTER TO THE “TRUSTEES” 406
Letter to the German Trio
To explain the at first glance strange proposal and re-
quest which we and the C.C. are addressing to you, we
must clarify the situation in our Party.
To understand this situation, one must have a clear idea,
firstly, of the violent nature of the counter-revolution
and the appalling chaos in the Social-Democratic organisa-
tion and Social-Democratic work; and, secondly, of the
basic ideological and political trends in our Party.
On the first question, it is sufficient to note the tremen-
dous decline among the organisations everywhere, almost
their cessation in many localities. The wholesale flight
of the intelligentsia. All that is left are workers’ circles
and isolated individuals. The young, inexperienced worker
is making his way forward with difficulty.
On the second question. There were two trends among
the Social-Democrats in the revolution (and two factions,
tatsächlich Spaltung * ): the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks.
Stockholm 1906 and London 1907. 407 An opportunist and
a revolutionary wing.
The 1907-08 break-down gave rise (α ) among the Men-
sheviks—to liquidationism (definition), (β ) among the Bol-
sheviks—to otzovism (and ultimatumism). Definition.
(α) Beginning with March 1908, the Mensheviks took
absolutely no part in the central work of the Party and
even tried to disrupt it (August 1908). Abroad they pre-
dominate (students, immature bourgeois intellectuals, etc.).
A wide-open split abroad (thanks to the Mensheviks) and

* An actual split.—Ed.
412 V. I. L E N I N

their complete non-participation in Party work, plus a

struggle against the Party.
The conference of December 1908 brands this. 408
(β) Otzovism-ultimatumism among the Bolsheviks in
1908-09. The Bolsheviks’ resolute struggle against it and
Kaltstellung * of the otzovists and ultimatumists. Removal.
Chaos in Russia increasing.
Plekhanov’s statement, August 1909 (“What Can We Do
for You?” 4 0 9 , the liquidationism of Golos; liquidationism
declared to be petty-bourgeois opportunism; acknowledge-
ment of the crisis in the Party [frightful disease]; resig-
nation from the editorial board of the Social Movement
which had taken refuge in a bürgerlich-liberalen Verlag ** ).
The significance of Plekhanov’s statement= a feeble echo,
the confirmation by a factional enemy of the Bolsheviks
of all their accusations.
The gravitation of the Mensheviks in Russia towards
the Party (particularly in the case of workers: St. Peters-
burg, Moscow).
Experience of Party unity on this basis, on the recogni-
tion of the struggle on two fronts; against liquidationism
and against otzovism-ultimatumism.
Conditions for unity on our part: unconditional recogni-
tion of the struggle against liquidationism (half-measure
of the C.C.: a personal concession); cessation of factional
struggle (= of the split abroad in particular) and loyal
subordination to the majority of the Party (Bolsheviks&
Poles in particular), which extricated the Party from the
1907-09 crisis and set it on the path of a resolute struggle
on two fronts.
Conditions of the Mensheviks: concealment of a clear
definition of liquidationism (half-measure in the unani-
mous resolution) and equality on the editorial board of the
Central Organ (virtually the leading Party body in view
of the extreme weakness and instability of the C.C. in
Russia).
In the C.C. an extremely unstable compromise is effected:
1) a unanimous resolution deleting the name liquidation-

* Removal.—Ed.
** Bourgeois-liberal publishing house.—Ed.
 DRAFT OF A LETTER TO THE “TRUSTEES” 413

ism 4 1 0 ; 2) three and two in the C.O., in circumstances of

the Menshevik declaration about “mechanical suppression”,
“a state of siege”, etc.; 3) refusal of the Mensheviks resolute-
ly, clearly and irrevocably to renounce their factional
newspaper and factional organisation, and to recognise
loyal subordination to the Majority.
Hence our fears. Having dissolved the Bolshevik faction
and handed over the money to the C.C. (actually 5 powers
in circumstances of an accidental and wavering majority,
marred by otzovism-ultimatumism), we fear (have every
ground for fearing) a split of the Mensheviks abroad and
their dragging in of liquidationism (in the shape of equal-
ity on the editorial board).
We are convinced that in view of attempts at a split,
organised from abroad by the Mensheviks, the C.C. (i.e.,
the Bolsheviks & the nationals) will not be strong enough
to combat liquidationism, and we will have to resume the
factional struggle, reply to the split by a split.
The experience of the “truce”: the Bolsheviks have dis-
armed. The experience of the “Party way of life”.
The conditions to be put to the Mensheviks: (α) complete
disarmament—cessation of the factional newspaper, the
factional funds, the factional split abroad; (β ) loyal imple-
mentation of the resolution on the struggle against liquidat-
ionism; (γ) loyal subordination to the majority in the C.O.;
(δ) loyal assistance to the C.C. in Russia.
Si non—non!
The flirting of the Mensheviks with the otzovists-ultima-
tumists. Trotsky’s impotence and connivance in regard
to the liquidators.
Written in February-early March
1 9 1 0 in Paris
First published in 1 9 3 3 Printed from the original
414

187
TO N. Y. VILONOV
March 27, 1910
Dear Comrade Mikhail,
How is your health? Are you getting better? Write about
this, tell us whether you are putting on weight and how
much.
The fog of conciliatory unity among us is beginning
to disperse. I am sending you a reprint from No. 12 of So-
tsial-Demokrat. 411 You will see from it that there has been
an all-out fight with the Golos group. The question now
boils down to whether there are any Plekhanovites in exist-
ence, whether there are any pro-Party Mensheviks in
existence, or whether all the Mensheviks are Golos support-
ers, and Plekhanov is simply an isolated individual.
Intensified agitation has to be carried on for the with-
drawal of the Plekhanovites from the Golos groups, for
the replacement of the Golos supporter in the Bureau of
the C.C. Abroad by a Plekhanovite and so on—and by
means of such agitation to verify in practice whether Party
unity will result at least in our unity with the Plekhanovites
or whether nothing at all will come of it.
The group of Bolsheviks here is about to start such agi-
tation; when it does, you will receive news of it.
The Vperyodists 412 are holding a sort of meeting here;
it is said that Bogdanov and Stanislav have arrived. What
they intend to do is not known. They are behaving stupidly
and the Central Organ will, probably, have to fight them
as well, after their first press statement. There was a letter
from Russia saying that Alexinsky wrote to the Moscow
Vperyod group about their plan to organise a school of
their own for 50 people (they have raised money, then?)
 TO N. Y. VILONOV 415

but that the Vperyod people in Moscow are said to be in-

clined towards a general party school.
There is no correspondence with Gorky. It is rumoured
that he has become disillusioned with Bogdanov and has
realised the falsity of the latter’s behaviour. Have you
any news from Capri?
There are few forces in Russia. Ah, if only we could send
from here a good Party worker to the C.C. or for convening
a conference! But here everyone is a “has-been”.
Keep well and write,
All the best.
Yours,
Lenin
Sent from Paris to Davos
(Switzerland)
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original
416

188
TO G. V. PLEKHANOV
March 29, 1910
My dear comrade,
Fully sharing your idea, stated in Dnevnik No. 11, about
the need for a close and sincere alignment of all genuinely
Social-Democratic elements in the struggle against liquida-
tionism and otzovism, I should very much like to have
a talk with you personally about the present state of affairs
in the Party. If you, too, find this useful and if your health
permits, be so kind as to write me (or wire) a few words
as to when you could meet me in San Remo. I am ready
to make the journey for that purpose. 413

With comradely greetings,

N. Lenin

Vl. Oulianoff, 4, Rue Marie Rose, Paris, XIV.

Sent from Paris to San Remo
(Italy)
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original
 417

189
TO N. Y. VILONOV
April 7, 1910
Dear Comrade M.,
I am sending you the resolution of our local Plekhanovites,
or, rather, the pro-Party Mensheviks. 414 If it is true that
with you in Davos the pro-Party elements preponderate
among the Mensheviks, it is extremely important that they
should respond immediately, rally together one way or
another and come out openly. Obviously, Bolsheviks should
be very cautious in giving such advice to Mensheviks, for
even among the Plekhanovites there is no accusation more
terrible, horrible and intolerable than that of “aiding the
Bolsheviks” or of working “for the Bolsheviks”, etc.
In the present confused situation there are, in my opin-
ion, only two ways out: either back to our own Bolshevik
faction, or a determined fight together with the Plekhano-
vites for the Party and against the Golos people. The second
alternative is the more desirable, but it does not depend
on us. So long as it is possible, we shall do all we can for
the second way out. Only after trying out all possibilities,
all means for the second way out, shall we return to the first
one.
I am very glad that your acquaintance with pragmatism
has begun to turn you away from Machism. In Russia now
they are intensively translating all this “latest” philosoph-
ical muck: Petzoldt and Co., the pragmatists, etc. This
is good: when our people in Russia, especially the Russian
workers, see the teachers of our Bogdanov and Co., au
naturel—they will quickly turn away from both teachers
and pupils.
418 V. I. L E N I N

To regard truth as an instrument of cognition means,

in effect, to go over to agnosticism, i.e., to abandon materi-
alism. In this and in everything fundamental, the prag-
matists, Machists, empirio-monists are birds of a feather.
With warm greetings and wishing you a speedy and last-
ing recovery.
Yours,
Lenin
Sent from Paris to Davos
(Switzerland)
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original
 419

190
TO MAXIM GORKY
To Al. Max.
April 11, 1910
Dear A. M.,
I did not receive the letter from you and M. F. sent
through M. S. Botkina until today. Before I forget: you can
write to me at my private address (Oulianoff, 4, Rue Marie
Rose, 4, Paris, XIV) and at the address of the Party—in
which case it is safer to use two envelopes, the inner one
marked: for Lenin, private (110, Avenue d’Orléans, Mr.
Kotliarenko, Paris, XIV).
I shall try and send you tomorrow the publications you
ask for.
Did I criticise you, and where? It must have been in
Diskussionny Listok No. 1 * (published as a supplement
to the C.O.). 415 I am sending you a copy. If this is not what
your informants had in mind, then I don’t remember any-
thing else at the moment. I wrote nothing else during
that period.
Now about unity. You ask: is this a fact or an anecdote?
I shall have to go back a long way to tell you about this,
for there is something both “anecdotal” (rather trivial)
about this fact, and something serious, in my view.
There have been deep and serious factors leading to Party
unity: in the ideological field—the need to purge Social-
Democracy from liquidationism and otzovism; in the prac-
tical field—the terribly difficult plight of the Party and of
all Social-Democratic work, and the coming to maturity
of a new type of Social-Democratic worker.
* See “Notes of a Publicist”, Section One, The “Platform” of the
Adherents and Defenders of Otzovism (present edition, Vol. 16).—Ed.
420 V. I. L E N I N

At the C.C. plenum (the “long plenum”—three weeks

of agony, all nerves were on edge, the devil to pay!) to these
serious and deep-lying factors, which were by no means
generally recognised, were added minor, petty factors—
a mood of “conciliation in general” (without any clear idea
with whom, for what, and how); hatred of the Bolshevik
Centre for its implacable ideological struggle; squabbling
on the part of the Mensheviks, who were spoiling for a fight,
and as a result—an infant covered with blisters.
And so we have to suffer. Either—at best—we cut open
the blisters, let out the pus, and cure and rear the infant.
Or, at worst—the infant dies. Then we shall be childless
for a while (that is, we shall re-establish the Bolshevik
faction) and then give birth to a more healthy infant.
Among the Mensheviks, those working for serious unity
are the Plekhanovites (not quite consciously, rather slowly
and waveringly, but they are nevertheless working for it,
and, what is most important, they cannot help working
for it), the pro-Party-ists and the workers. The Golos people,
however, are fencing, causing confusion and making
mischief. They are building up a strong, legal, opportunist
centre in Russia (Potresov & Co. in the press: see Nasha
Zarya 416 No. 2—what a scoundrel this Potresov is!—and
Mikhail, Roman, Yury& the sixteen authors of the “Open
Letter” 417 in No. 19/20 of Golos—in practical, organisa-
tional work).
The C.C. plenum wanted to unite everyone. Now the Golos
people drop out. This abscess must be removed. It can-
not be done without squabbling, rows, nervous strain, mud
and “scum”.
We are just now in the thick of this squabbling. Either
the C.C. in Russia lops off the Golos supporters by removing
them from important bodies (such as the Central Organ,
etc.)—or our faction will have to be re-established.
In No. 11 of Dnevnik, Plekhanov has given an appraisal
of the plenum which clearly shows that the sincere and
serious desire to fight opportunism now prevails with him
over the minor, petty desire to utilise the Golos opportun-
ists against the Bolsheviks. Here, too, things take a com-
plex and protracted course, but the Mensheviks’ legalistic,
liquidationist centre that has been built up in Russia will,
 TO MAXIM GORKY 421

inevitably lead to serious Social-Democrats turning away

from them.
Now about the Vperyodists. At one time it seemed to
me that within this group, too, there were two trends:
towards the Party and Marxism, towards renouncing
Machism and otzovism, and the opposite. As far as the first
trend is concerned, Party unity would enable the patent
absurdities of otzovism, etc., to be corrected in a conve-
nient and unembarrassing Party way. But, apparently,
the second trend is getting the upper hand among them.
Alexinsky (a mere babe-in-arms in politics, but one who
has turned angry and is committing one stupidity after
another) kicked up a row and resigned from both the edito-
rial board of Diskussionny Listok and from the Party’s
School Committee. 418 They will probably organise a school
of their own, again a factional one, again on the side. If
they do, we shall fight again and win the workers away
from them.
And so it works out, that in the matter of unity the “anec-
dotic” predominates at the present time, is brought into
high focus, gives occasion for sniggering and sneering, etc.
It is said that the Socialist-Revolutionary Chernov has
even written a farce about unity among the Social-Demo-
crats entitled “A Storm in a Tea-cup”, and that this farce
will be performed here in a day or two before one of the
groups of the emigrant colony, who are addicted to sensa-
tionalism.
It is sickening to be stuck in the midst of this “anecdotic”
situation, this squabbling and row-making, nervous strain
and “scum”; to observe all this is also sickening. But one
should not allow oneself to succumb to the mood. Life in
exile is now a hundred times harder than it was before the
revolution. Life in exile and squabbling are inseparable.
But the squabbling will pass away; nine-tenths of it
remains abroad; it is an accessory feature. The development
of the Party, the development of the Social-Democratic
movement goes forward despite all the devilish difficulties
of the present situation. The purging of the Social-Demo-
cratic Party from its dangerous “deviations”, from liquida-
tionism and otzovism goes forward steadfastly; within the
framework of unity it has progressed considerably farther
422 V. I. L E N I N

than before. As a matter of fact, we had finished with ot-

zovism ideologically before the plenum. We had not fin-
ished with liquidationism at that time; the Mensheviks
succeeded temporarily in hiding the snake, but now it has
been dragged out into broad daylight, now everyone sees
it, now we shall kill it!
And this purging is by no means only an “ideological”
task, a labour of armchair workers as that fool (or rogue)
Potresov thinks, who stands up for the Machists the way
the Mensheviks at the plenum stood up for the Vperyodists.
No, this purge is inseparably bound up with the mass work-
ing-class movement, which learns how to organise Social-
Democratic work in the present difficult period, learns pre-
cisely by rejection, finds the right path by rejecting liquida-
tionism and otzovism. Only that windbag Trotsky imagines
that this rejection can be avoided, that it is super-
fluous, that it does not concern the workers, that the issues
of liquidationism and otzovism have been posed not by life
itself, but by the wicked polemicists.
I can imagine how distressing the sight of this painful
growth of the new Social-Democratic movement must be
to those who have not seen and lived through its painful
growth in the late eighties and early nineties. At that time
such Social-Democrats were to be counted by the score,
if not in individuals. Now there are hundreds and thou-
sands of them. Hence the crisis and crises. And the Social-
Democratic movement as a whole is coping with them open-
ly and will overcome them honestly.

All the very best.

Yours,
Lenin
Sent from Paris to the Isle
of Capri (Italy)
First published in 1 9 2 4 Printed from the original
 423

191
TO N. A. SEMASHKO 419
October 4, 1910
Dear N. A.,
We must meet as soon as possible to talk about the speed-
iest convocation of a meeting of Bolsheviks (anti-Vperyod-
ists). Yesterday Mark& Lozovsky& Lyova departed with
a protest against a factional newspaper. 420 The funny fel-
ows! I am glad that the muddlers are out of it, but we
must speedily ascertain the attitude of the remaining peo-
ple. If possible come out as quickly as you can and take
steps for an early meeting.

Yours,
Lenin
Sent from Paris to Chatillon
(France)
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original
424

192
TO JULIAN MARCHLEWSKI 421
October, 7, 1910
Dear Comrade,
I received the letter from you and Wurm and your ar-
ticle late yesterday evening. In accordance with your and
Kautsky’s request, lasse ich es bei Ihrem Artikel bewenden. *
I have already written about half of a long article against
both Martov and Trotsky. ** I shall have to leave it and
start on an article against Trotsky. Since you meet Kautsky,
please tell him that I am taking care of the reply to Trotsky.
If the Germans are so afraid of a polemic, I don’t think it
matters much whether the reply comes a week earlier or a
week later?
What a pity that even Kautsky and Wurm do not see
how disgusting and mean such articles as those of Martov
and Trotsky are. I shall try to write at least a private let-
ter to Kautsky to clarify the matter. It is really a down-
right scandal that Martov and Trotsky lie with impunity
and write scurrilous lampoons in the guise of “scientific”
articles!
By the way, could you help me to clear up two practical
questions. First: could a translator from Russian into Ger-
man be found in Berlin (for articles for Neue Zeit)? Or is
this unreliable and expensive, so that it would be better
to look for someone here? I shall look out for someone here
in any case, but I should like to know your opinion, as you
have considerable experience in this respect.
* I shall confine myself to your article.—Ed.
** Reference is to “ The Historical Meaning of the Inner-Party
Struggle in Russia” (see present edition, Vol. 16).—Ed.
 TO JULIAN MARCHLEWSKY 425

Second: what if I were to write a pamphlet (of a size à la

Cherevanin: Das Proletariat in der russischen Revolution)
on the subject of the Russian revolution, its lessons, class
struggle, etc. Could a German party publisher be found or
not? Do the Germans pay for such things, or must payment
be looked for only from the Russians, while the Germans
are served nebenbei?
In connection with the reply to Martov, I have dug into
some very interesting strike statistics of 1905-08 and should
very much like to analyse them. It is a subject more
suitable for a book or pamphlet than for an article. * But
the Germans are disgracefully “unconscious” in questions
concerning the appraisal of the Russian revolution!
I enclose a brief enumeration of what it is desirable to
add against Martov. If you include even a part of it in your
article, it would be very good. 422

Beste Grüsse.
Yours,
Lenin

Here, in my opinion, are the chief (not all, by far) points

of Martov’s lies and falsehood which it is desirable to point
out (if not in full, at least in part):
In saying that Comrade Radek is misquoting, Comrade
Martov casts suspicion without giving proof. We, however,
have full proof that Martov quotes falsely. “So far we have
been speaking French” (Die Neue Zeit, 1910), Martov quotes
Lenin. The quotation is distorted. Lenin said: “During
the revolution we learned to ‘speak French’ ” (Proletary
No. 46) ** . By distorting the quotation, Martov contrives to
conceal the fact that he (like all opportunists) calls on the
workers to unlearn the methods of revolutionary struggle.
“To speak French”—“richtiger gesagt: blanquistisch ” , ***
is Martov’s emendation. We thank him for his frankness.
To call the participation of the French proletariat in the
French revolutions “Blanquism” is precisely the “essence”
of the views of Martov and Quessel.423
* See “Strike Statistics in Russia” (present edition, Vol. 16).—E d .
** See present edition, Vol. 15, p. 458.—Ed.
*** “Or rather: in the Blanqui manner”.—Ed.
426 V. I. L E N I N

“In ganz Westeuropa,” writes Martov, “betrachtet man

die Bauernmassen in dem Masse für bündnisfähig, als sie
die schweren Folgen der kapitalistischen Umwälzung der
Landwirtschaft zu spüren bekommen...; für Russland malte
man sich ein Bild aus, wie mit dem Proletariat sich die 100
Millionen Bauern vereinigen..., die noch nicht von der kapi-
talistischen Bourgeoisie in die Schule genommen worden sind”
(Neue Zeit, Seite 909). Das ist eben russisches Quessel-
tum!*
The Russian Quessel forgot to mention that in the agrar-
ian programme of the Russian Social-Democrats (adopted
in Stockholm, 1906, when the Mensheviks had a majority!)
it is stated “support for the revolutionary actions of the peas-
antry to the extent of confiscation of the landed estates”.
Is there anything like this in “Europe”, O Russian Ques-
sel? There is not, for in Europe the questions of a bourgeois
revolution are no longer revolutionary issues. The “school
of the capitalist bourgeoisie” as far as the Russian peasants
are concerned is a school of betrayals and treachery on
the part of the liberal bourgeoisie (which has been betraying
the peasants to the landowners and absolutism), and only
extreme opportunists are capable of defending such a school.
In scoffing at the “union with the proletariat of 100 mil-
lion peasants”, Martov is scoffing at the whole revolution,
which has demonstrated such a union in practice both in
the arena of the uprising (October, November-December,
1905) and in the arena of both Dumas (1906-1907).
Martov vacillates helplessly between the liberals (they
are against “confiscation of the landed estates”, against
“revolutionary actions of the peasantry”) and the Social-
Democrats, who so far have by no means withdrawn their
support of the peasant uprising or their statement to this
effect contained in their programme.

* “In the whole of Western Europe the peasant masses are con-
sidered suitable for alliance to tho extent that they come to expe-
rience the painful results of the capitalist revolution in agriculture. . . ;
for Russia a picture has been drawn of the union with the proletariat
of 100 million peasants . . . who have not yet been through the school
of the capitalist bourgeoisie” (Neue Zeit, p. 909). That precisely is
Russian Quesselism!—Ed.
 TO JULIAN MARCHLEWSKY 427

Martov believes that during the years of revolution (1905-

07) it was not the question of a republic, but “die Frage
der Unabhängigkeit der Volksvertretung” (S. 918) * that was
on the order of the day. Independence from whom? From
the monarchy which had carried out Staatsstreiche? ** The
Russian opportunists forget at least the connection be-
tween the agrarian and the political revolution (is it pos-
sible to fight for the confiscation of the landed estates
without fighting for a republic?); they forget that the era of
Staatsstreiche, der Aufstände, der Niederwerfungsstreiks, ***
by virtue of its objective conditions and not of our will,
puts the question of a republic on the order of the day.
The “republic” as a slogan of the day in 1905= “romanti-
cism”; “independence” (from the monarchy which carries
out Staatsstreiche and wages den Bürgerkrieg) **** = Real-
politik, is not that so, O Russian Quessel?
Apropos. Rosa Luxemburg argued with Kautsky as to
whether in Germany the moment had arrived for Niederwer-
fungsstrategie, ***** and Kautsky plainly and bluntly stated
that he considered this moment was unavoidable and im-
minent but had not yet arrived. But Martov, “deepening
(verballhornend 1 ) Kautsky, denies the applicability of
the Niederwerfungsstrategie to the year 1905 in Russia!
Martov finds that the uprising in December 1905 was evoked
“künstlich” 2 (Neue Zeit, S. 913). Die Leute, welche so
glauben, können nur künstlich zur Sozialdemokratie ge-
rechnet werden. Natürlich sind sie Nationalliberale.3
Martov ridicules the view that the proletariat is “die
ausschlaggebende Macht” (S. 909) 4 in the revolution.
So far only the liberals have dared (and not always, at that)
* “The question of the independence of the people’s repre-
sentative assembly”.—Ed.
** Coups d’état.—Ed.
*** C o u p s d ’ é t a t , uprisings, strikes for political overthrow.—E d .
**** Civil war.—Ed.
*****1 Strategy of overthrow.—Ed.
Botching.—Ed.
2
Artificially.—Ed.
3
People who think like that can only artificially be reckoned
as Social-Democrats. In effect, they are National-Liberals.—Ed.
4 “The decisive force” (p. 909).—Ed.
428 V. I. L E N I N

to deny the indisputable historical fact that in 1905 the Rus-

sian proletariat actually played the part of “der ausschlag-
gebenden Macht”. And when a theory which denies the
“hegemony of the proletariat in the Russian revolution” gained
the upper hand in the five-volume Social Movement (edited
by Martov and Potresov), Plekhanov resigned from the
editorial board and declared the Social Movement a work
of liquidators. Martov now represents not Menshevism as
a whole but only that kind of Menshevism which Plekhanov,
who has remained a Menshevik, has repudiated and which
he has called opportunism.
Martov contraposes the Russian boycott of 1906 to the
anarchists’ defence of boycott (“political abstention”) “in
ganz Westeuropa”. We have already spoken about the boy-
cott of 1906 (you have already dealt with this). But speak-
ing of boycott in general, why did Martov forget the chief
application of a boycott in the Russian revolution, the boy-
cott of the Bulygin Duma (the law of August 6, 1905)? Against
this boycott were all the liberals, even those of the Left
(Osvobozhdeniye League), in favour of it were the Bolshevik
Social-Democrats. Is it because this boycott was victorious
that Martov is silent about it? Is it because this boycott
was the slogan of a victorious Niederwerfungsstrategie?
All the Mensheviks (especially in Nasha Zarya, Vozrozh-
deniye and Zhizn 424 ) seized on Rosa Luxemburg’s dispute
with Kautsky in order to declare K. Kautsky a “Menshe-
vik”. Martov is trying his hardest, by means of kleinliche
und miserable Diplomatie, to deepen the gulf between Rosa
Luxemburg and K. Kautsky. These elende * devices cannot
succeed. Revolutionary Social-Democrats may argue about
the timing of Niederwerfungsstrategie in Germany, but not
of its appropriateness in Russia in 1905. It has never oc-
curred to Kautsky to deny its appropriateness for Russia
in 1905. Only liberals and German and Russian Quessels
can deny that!
Well then, will not the upshot of the question of the mass
strike in Magdeburg (the acceptance of Rosa’s resolution
and her withdrawal of the second part) make for peace be-

* Pitiful.—Ed.
 TO JULIAN MARCHLEWSKY 429

tween her and Kautsky? and the Vorstand? Or will it not be

soon? 425 ((I wrote to Rosa Luxemburg a couple of weeks
ago from Stockholm.))
My address is: VI. Oulianoff, 4, Rue Marie Rose, 4,
Paris, XIV.
Sent to Leipzig
First published in 1 9 2 5 Printed from the original
430

193
TO G. L. SHKLOVSKY 426
Dear Comrade,
Many thanks for the letter and news of the Plekhanovite
agitation. All such information, which gives us an accurate
idea of the moods prevailing among the Social-Democrats
abroad, is now extremely valuable to us. I too am thinking
of going on a lecture tour in Switzerland (Geneva, Lausanne,
Berne, Zurich 4 2 7 ). I don’t know whether the journey will
be worth it.
Regarding a bloc with Plekhanov, I think you are quite
right that we should be in favour of it. Since 1909 I have
been wholly in favour of a rapprochement with the Plekhano-
vites. And even more so now. We can and should build the
Party only with the Plekhanovites—the Vperyod and Golos
people should have been given up as hopeless long ago. It is
a mistake to think that the Plekhanovites are weak, mere
“ciphers” (as is sometimes said), etc. That is an impression
existing abroad. I am deeply convinced that nine-tenths
of the Menshevik workers in Russia are Plekhanovites. The
whole history of Menshevism in the revolution vouches for
the fact that Plekhanovism is the best (and therefore the most
viable) product of the proletarian stream of Mensheviks.
In Copenhagen, Plekhanov and I talked about publishing
a popular newspaper. It is essential. (Trotsky has clearly
turned to the liquidators, to support of the Golos group,
to disruption of the Party bloc between the Bolsheviks and
Plekhanovites.) Plekhanov and I fully agree that nothing
can be done with Trotsky. We shall either establish a popu-
lar newspaper under the C.O., or separately by the group
of Bolsheviks. Plekhanov has promised to contribute. Money
will be needed—we have exceedingly little. I am hoping
 TO G. L. SHKLOVSKY 431

for every assistance from you. We are struggling hard to

establish a periodical in Russia (à la Vozrozhdeniye or Zhizn).
We can’t get the thing going, there is no secretary, no one
through whom to arrange things—our people are continu-
ally being arrested, worse luck! Yet a periodical is essen-
tial. 428

All the best.

Yours,
Lenin
Written October 1 4 , 1 9 1 0
Sent from Paris to Berne
First published (abridged) in 1 9 2 7
Published in full in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original
432

194
TO MAXIM GORKY
November 14, 1910
Dear A. M.,
There has been no news from you and M. F. for a very
long time. I have been looking forward eagerly to news
from Capri. What’s wrong? Surely you don’t keep count
of letters as some people are said to keep count of visits.
Everything here is as of old. A host of trivial affairs and
all kinds of trouble connected with the struggle of the
various “dominions” inside the Party. Brrr! . . . It must be
nice on Capri....
By way of relaxation from the squabbling we have taken
up the old plan of publishing Rabochaya Gazeta. With dif-
ficulty we raised 400 francs. Yesterday No. 1 came out at
last. I am sending you a copy together with a leaflet and
a subscription list. 429 Members of the Capri-Neapolitan
colony who sympathise with such an enterprise (and with
the “rapprochement” between the Bolsheviks and Plekha-
nov) are invited to afford every assistance. Rabochaya Gazeta
is necessary, but we can’t make a go of it with Trotsky,
who is intriguing in favour of the liquidators and the otzo-
vists and Vperyod supporters. Already in Copenhagen Ple-
khanov and I protested vigorously against Trotsky’s despic-
able article in Vorwärts. And what a disgusting article he
has published in Neue Zeit, too, on the historical signifi-
cance of the struggle among the Russian Social-Democrats 430!
And Lunacharsky’s in the Belgian Le Peuple—have you
seen it?
We are setting up a small legal periodical to combat
Nasha Zarya and Zhizn—this, too, with Plekhanov’s partic-
ipation. We hope to issue No. 1 soon. 431
 TO MAXIM GORKY 433

And so we jog along. Little by little, hard and slowly we

are making headway, extricating ourselves from the squab-
bles.
What is the news with you? Did you write to Stroyev
and what reply did you receive? We wrote a first letter to
him to “make contact”; he received it and replied that he
did not understand who was writing. We wrote again. Not
a word. There’s a terrible shortage of the right people, and
the old ones have dispersed.
Arrangements were on the point of completion in St.
Petersburg for putting out a weekly newspaper together with
the Duma group (the Mensheviks there fortunately incline
not towards the liquidators, but towards Plekhanov), but
the matter has been held up again, the devil knows why. 432
Write how you are getting on. Is your work going well?
Has anything come of the journal we talked about in the
summer? How are things with Znaniye? 433
I have the right to be cross with M. F. She promised
to write. Nothing has come. She promised to find out about
the Paris library on the history of the Russian revolution.
Nothing has come. That’s bad.

All the best.

Yours,
Lenin

Tria’s report will, probably, be published after all. The

editorial board of the C.O. 434 decided this. But the squab-
bling on that editorial board—ye gods!...
Sent from Paris to the Isle
of Capri (Italy)
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from the original
434

195
TO MAXIM GORKY
November 22, 1910
Dear A. M.,
I wrote you a few days ago when sending Rabochaya
Gazeta, and asked what had come of the journal we talked
about in the summer and about which you promised to
write to me.
I see in Rech today a notice about Sovremennik, pub-
lished “with the closest and exclusive [that is what is print-
ed! illiterately, but so much the more pretentiously and
significantly] participation of Amfiteatrov” and with you
as a regular contributor. 435
What is this? How does it happen? A “large monthly”
journal, with sections on “politics, science, history, social
life”—why, this is something quite different from sympo-
sia aiming at a concentration of the best forces of belles-
lettres. Such a journal should either have a perfectly defi-
nite, serious and consistent trend, or it will inevitably dis-
grace itself and those taking part in it. Vestnik Yevropy 436
has a trend—a poor, watery, worthless trend—but one which
serves a definite element, certain sections of the bourgeoisie,
and which also unites definite circles of the professorate and
officialdom, and the so-called intelligentsia from among
the “respectable” (or rather, would-be respectable) liberals.
Russkaya Mysl 437 has a trend, an odious trend, but one
which performs a very good service for the counter-revolu-
tionary liberal bourgeoisie. Russkoye Bogatsvo 438 has a
trend—a Narodnik, Narodnik-Cadet trend—but one which
has kept its line for scores of years, and which serves defi-
nite sections of the population. Sovremenny Mir 439 has a
trend—often Menshevik-Cadet trend (at present with a lean-
ing towards pro-Party Menshevism)—but a trend. A journal
without a trend is an absurdity, a ridiculous, scandalous
and harmful thing. And what sort of trend can there be with
 TO MAXIM GORKY 435

the “exclusive participation” of Amfiteatrov? One cannot

expect G. Lopatin to provide a trend, and if the talk (said
also to have got into the newspapers) is true about Kacho-
rovsky’s participation, than that is a “trend”, but a trend
of the blockheads, a S.R. trend.
During our talk in the summer when I told you that
I had all but written you a disappointed letter about Con-
fessions but did not send it because of the split with the
Machists which had begun at that time, you replied: “it’s a
pity you did not send it”. Then you went on to reproach
me for not going to the Capri school, 440 and you said that,
if matters had taken a different course, the breakaway of
the Machists and otzovists might have cost you less nervous
strain, less waste of energy. Recalling these talks, I have now
decided to write to you without putting it off and without
waiting for any verification, while the impression the news
has made is still fresh.
I think that a political and economic monthly with the
exclusive participation of Amfiteatrov is something many
times worse than a special Machist-otzovist faction. What
was and still is bad about this faction is that the ideological
trend deviated and still deviates from Marxism, from So-
cial-Democracy, without, however, going so far as a break
with Marxism, and only creating confusion.
Amfiteatrov’s journal (his Krasnoye Znamya 441 did well
to die when it did!) is a political act, a political enterprise
in which there is not even a realisation that a general “left-
ism” is not enough for a policy, that after 1905 to talk se-
riously about politics without making clear one’s attitude
towards Marxism and Social-Democracy is out of the ques-
tion, impossible, inconceivable.
Things are turning out bad. It’s saddening.

Yours,
Lenin
To M. F.—salut et fraternité.
Sent from Paris to the Isle
of Capri (Italy)
First published in 1 9 2 4 Printed from the original
436

196
TO N. G. POLETAYEV 442
I have received your two letters, which surprised me.
What could be easier, it would seem, than to write and
tell us simply and clearly what is the matter? We are still
in the dark. It should not be difficult to find a person to
write sensibly, clearly and frankly at least once a week.
Your attempt to detach the liquidators from liquida-
tionism is unfortunate to a degree. We have never approved
this distinction. Only sophists draw it. We earnestly re-
quest you not to believe the sophists and not to make this
distinction. One can reconcile oneself to anything but the
liquidators, and if you do not want the work to be ruined,
keep them out of it.
With great difficulty we obtained from a publisher here
a further thousand rubles and will send them to you tomor-
row. If this publisher approaches you again with ques-
tions, advice, conditions, and so on—don’t answer at all,
or answer as we once advised.
Concerning the little magazine, we have had nothing
from anyone.
So we repeat once more our insistent request: we have
obtained for you what you require, see that you do not let
us down, keep out the liquidators (there is no such thing
as liquidationism without liquidators. And who could have
played such a cruel joke on you by assuring you of a distinc-
tion between liquidationism and the liquidators?) and,
further, see to it that we get a sensible, clear, frank and de-
tailed letter every week. Surely these two requests are not
difficult, not too much; we cannot manage without it.
Yours....
Written December 7 , 1 9 1 0
Sent from Paris to
St. Petersburg
First published in 1 9 3 3 Printed from
the typewritten
copy found in
police record
 437

QQQ

197
TO MAXIM GORKY
January 3, 1911
Dear A. M.,
I have long been intending to reply to your letter but in-
tensification of the squabbling * here (a hundred thousand
devils take it!) distracted me.
But I should like to have a chat with you.
First of all, before I forget: Tria has been arrested together
with Jordania and Ramishvili. It is reported as being true.
A pity, for he is a good chap. A revolutionary.
Regarding Sovremennik. In Rech today I read the contents
of the first issue and I am cursing and swearing. Vodovozov
on Muromtsev . . . Kolosov on Mikhailovsky, Lopatin “Not
ours”, etc. You can’t help swearing. And here are you,
teasing as it were: “realism, democracy, activity”.
Do you think these are good words? They are bad words,
used by all the bourgeois tricksters in the world, from the
Cadets and S.R.s in our country to Briand or Millerand
here, Lloyd George in Britain, etc. The words are bad,
turgid, and they carry a S.R. - Cadet message. It’s not good.
As regards Tolstoy, I fully share your opinion that hyp-
ocrites and rogues will make a saint of him. Plekhanov,
too, was infuriated by all the lying and sycophancy around
Tolstoy, and in here we see eye to eye. He criticises Nasha
Zarya for it in the C.O. (the next issue), 443 and I am doing
so in Mysl ** (No. 1 arrived today. Congratulate us on our
own little journal in Moscow, a Marxist one. This has been
a happy day for us). Zvezda No. 1 (it appeared on December
* That rascal Trotsky is uniting the Golosists and Vperyodists
against us. It is war!
** See “Hero’s of ‘Reservation’ ” (present edition, Vol. 16).—Ed.
438 V. I. L E N I N

16 in St. Petersburg) also contains a good article by Ple-

khanov with a trivial comment, for which we have already
scolded the editors. It was probably concocted by that ninny
Yordansky, together with Bonch! But how come Sovre-
mennik to combat the “legend about Tolstoy and his reli-
gion”. Is it Vodovozov with Lopatin? You must be joking
That they have started hitting out at the students is;
in my opinion, comforting, but Tolstoy must not be allowed
to get away with either “passivism” or anarchism or Na-
rodism or religion.
As regards quixotism in the international policy of So-
cial-Democracy, I think, you are wrong. It is the revision-
ists who have long been asserting that colonial policy is
progressive, that it implants capitalism and that therefore
it is senseless to “accuse it of greed and cruelty”, for “without
these qualities” capitalism is “hamstrung”.
It would be quixotism and whining if Social-Democrats
were to tell the workers that there could be salvation some-
where apart from the development of capitalism, not
through the development of capitalism. But we do not say
this. We say: capital devours you, will devour the Per-
sians, will devour everyone and go on devouring until you
overthrow it. That is the truth. And we do not forget to
add: except through the growth of capitalism there is no
guarantee of victory over it.
Marxists do not defend a single reactionary measure
such as banning trusts, restricting trade, etc. But to each
his own. Let Khomyakov and Co. build railways across
Persia, let them send Lyakhovs, 444 but the job of the Marx-
ists is to expose them to the workers. If it devours, say the
Marxists, if it strangles, fight back.
Resistance to colonial policy and international plunder
by means of organising the proletariat, by means of defend-
ing freedom for the proletarian struggle, does not retard
the development of capitalism but accelerates it, forcing
it to resort to more civilised, technically higher methods
of capitalism. There is capitalism and capitalism. There
is Black-Hundred-Octobrist 445 capitalism and Narodnik
(“realistic, democratic”, full of “activity”) capitalism.
The more we expose capitalism before the workers for its
“greed and cruelty” the more difficult is it for capitalism
 TO MAXIM GORKY 439

of the first order to persist, the more surely is it bound to

pass into capitalism of the second order. And this just suits
us, this just suits the proletariat.
You think I have fallen into a contradiction? In the be-
ginning of the letter I considered the words “realism, de-
mocracy, activity” bad words, and now I find them good?
There is no contradiction here; what is bad for the proletar-
iat is good for the bourgeois.
The Germans have an exemplary journal of the opportun-
ists: Sozialistische Monatshefte. There gentlemen like
Schippel and Bernstein have long been attacking the in-
ternational policy of the revolutionary Social-Democrats
by raising an outcry that this policy resembles the “lamen-
tations of compassionate” people. That, brother, is a trick
of opportunist swindlers. Ask for this journal to be sent
to you from Naples and have their articles translated if
you are interested in international politics. You probably
have such opportunists in Italy too, only there are no Marx-
ists in Italy, that’s what makes her so nasty.
The international proletariat is pressing capitalism in
two ways: by converting Octobrist capitalism into demo-
cratic capitalism and, because it drives Octobrist capitalism
away from itself, by transplanting this capitalism to the
savages. This, however, enlarges the basis of capitalism
and brings its death nearer. There is practically no Octobrist
capitalism left in Western Europe; practically all capital-
ism is democratic. Octobrist capitalism has gone from Brit-
ain and France to Russia and Asia. The Russian revolu-
tion and the revolutions in Asia= the struggle for ousting
Octobrist capitalism and replacing it by democratic capi-
talism. And democratic capitalism= the last of its kind.
It has no next stage to go on to. The next stage is its death.
What do you think of Zvezda and Mysl? The former is
dull, in my opinion. But the latter is all ours and I am de-
lighted with it. I’m afraid they’ll soon close it down, though.
I was wondering whether you could arrange for my book
on the agrarian question to go to Znaniye. Talk it over with
Pyatnitsky, I just can’t find a publisher, not for love or
money.446
Reading your postscript: “my hands are shaking and
freezing” makes me indignant. What wretched houses you
440 V. I. L E N I N

have on Capri! It’s a disgrace, really! Even we here have

central heating; and your “hands are freezing”. You must
revolt.

All the very best.

Yours,
Lenin

I have received from Bologna an invitation to come

to the school there (20 workers). I have turned it down. 447
I don’t want to have anything to do with the Vperyodists.
We’re trying again to get the workers to come here.
Sent from Paris to the Isle
of Capri (Italy)
First published in 1 9 2 4 Printed from the original
 441

198
TO A. RYKOV
Saturday, February 25, 1911
Dear Vlasov,
I have just received your letter and I hasten to reply
at once without waiting for Grigory, who forwarded Samo-
varov’s letter on to you today.
Nadya is writing today to Lyubich. What a pity you didn’t
think of it before. Now you must write to him not about
preparing to leave, but about immediate departure. Write
to him again, insisting emphatically on immediate depar-
ture, otherwise the enemy will have four (the Bundist&
the Lett&two Mensheviks) and we’ll have no more than that
(three, of whom one is doubtful,&one Pole).
Your letter concerning the declaration grieves me very
much, for I see from it how inadequate our agreement still
is and hence (to my extreme regret) how “precarious” it is.
Among the changes proposed by you, there are some
to which no objections can be made. These include: dealing
with the question of affairs abroad in a special resolution;
adding to the declaration a special paragraph on the signific-
ance of the Duma and on the fact that those not assisting
in the elections to the Fourth Duma are traitors; separating
the question of renewing the primary Party cells (although
I do not understand why it should be separated and where it
should be put. It must be dealt with, however! But where?).
But you propose many more changes that are unaccept-
able and harmful.
(“To recognise that the conference is urgent”? Why try
to be cunning? You don’t believe in it yourself! To breed
hypocrisy and self-deception—there is nothing more harm-
ful than that just now!)
442 V. I. L E N I N

“To express satisfaction that otzovism-ultimatumism has

in effect disappeared from the political horizon”....
That is untrue. I have seen workers who support Vperyod,
and even Yevgeny in his speeches refutes this untruth.
“To welcome the decision of the Vperyod group to take
part in the elections”....
There has been no such decision so far. And if it does
appear tomorrow, it is scandalous “to welcome” the split-
ters for doing their duty and to keep silent about the expro
funds. 448
You write: “I know of no otzovist or ultimatumist
statements of Vperyod after the plenum”....
You ought to know better. Just look: (1) The leaflet of
the Vperyod group after the plenum: sheer abuse of the cen-
tral bodies—not a word about renouncing the otzovist-
ultimatumist platform. (2) The symposium No. 1 4 4 9 —dit-
to. Not a single guiding article on the Duma and Duma
activities. (3) Lunacharsky in Le Peuple (it is quoted in
the C.O.—Lunacharsky was officially delegated by the
Vperyod group to the Copenhagen Congress). (4) The leaflet
of the Geneva Vperyod group (it is quoted in part in Golos
S.-D.), which lines up with Lunacharsky.
Vperyod, after the plenum, was in duty bound to issue
a new platform, since the old one (it came out on December
27, 1909, i.e., on the eve of the plenum) is an otzovist-ulti-
matumist platform. Vperyod has not done this!
Your basic mistake is that you believe words and close
your eyes to deeds. A lot of “good words” have been told
you by various people like Domov or Alexinsky and I don’t
know who else, and you believe them. You write: Vperyod
“is on the eve of dissolution or is a possible ally of ours”,
it “is freeing itself from the otzovist-ultimatumist plat-
form”.
This is untrue. They are the lying words of swindlers who
are ready to promise anything so long as they can disguise
the facts, namely, their own special school, their 85,000
rubles of expro money.
What if Domov does move away from Vperyod—Domov
is a high school teacher, a philistine, an ignorant old wom-
an, and not a politician. What if Alexinsky has “quar-
relled” with Bogdanov and Co,—now, after returning from
 TO A. RYKOV 443

Bologna, he has quite made it up again and yesterday de-

livered a lecture on behalf of the Vperyod group!
You put your trust in words and leave yourself helpless
in deeds—which means repeating the fatal error of the
plenum, an error which has weakened the Party for a
year at least. If you now, a year after the idiotic concili-
atory errors of the plenum, repeat these errors, you will
completely ruin all prospects of “unity”. I say this with
the fullest conviction, for I know it thoroughly from exper-
ience. Leave it to Samovarov to shout about my having
wrecked “unity” (this is the catch-phrase of Trotsky and
Yonov!). Samovarov has to shout this nonsense (which he
dares not utter in print and which I have publicly dealt
with and refuted in No. 2 of Diskussionny Listok * ), for he
is ashamed to admit the mistake the conciliators made at
the plenum. Their mistake was that they almost ruined the
prospect of unity with the pro-Party Mensheviks, by believ-
ing the words of the anti-Party Golosists and allowing them
to consolidate themselves in deeds.
Mind you don’t repeat this mistake!
The Vperyodists are very strong. They have a school= a
conference= agents. We (and the C.C.) have not. They
have money—some 80,000 rubles. You think they will give
it to you? Are you really so naïve?
And if not, how can you regard as “allies” factionalists
who are keeping a factional fund against you!
It is the height of naïveté to write: “I do not want to
make it difficult for the Vperyod splinter elements to achieve
a rapprochement.”
They have achieved a rapprochement with the liquidators,
they have organised a school against you, they are pulling
the wool over your eyes, saying: we are all right, we are not
otzovists, and you believe their words and do not combat
their deeds. It’s the limit, really!
You write: “I should not like to have the Vperyodists
expelled from the general Party (not factional) organisation
abroad.”
Either the one or the other: either you encourage a special

* The reference is to “Notes of a Publicist” (see present edition,

Vol. 16).—Ed.
444 V. I. L E N I N

faction and let it keep its money, in which case we shall

publish our statement to the C.C. (demanding a committee
of enquiry) and say: let the Vperyodists help such a C.C.,
we shall not do so.
Or you condemn the factionalism of the Vperyodists,
in which case you have to be consistent. By condemning in
words only, you make yourself ridiculous.
In that case it must be said: so long as the Vperyodists
(1) do not publish a new platform, (2) do not make pro-
Party statements, (3) do not dissolve their factional school,
(4) do not hand over their factional funds to the Party—they
remain an anti-Party faction.
If you do not say this, you will lose our co-operation with-
out gaining that of the Vperyodists. Is that good policy?
As for the splinter elements (future ones!), do not worry
about that. If we are strong, they will all come to us. If we
are weak, if we believe in words, we shall be laughed at,
that’s all. To find the right form is not so difficult: for exam-
ple, after condemning the Vperyod faction, to say that part
of the Vperyodist workers stand for elections, for legal op-
portunities, for the Party principle, and that you call on
such workers, such Vperyodists, to come away from the
faction and to the Party, etc., etc.
In the resolution on unity abroad it should be clearly
specified who the disrupters are: the Golosists and Vperyod-
ists must be named, and it must be explained wherein lies
their “disruption and anti-Partyism”: not in ideas (argue
and write about this in Diskussionny Listok, etc.) but in
the special school, in the special school funds, in the special
organ (Golos), in the special collections for Golos, and in
the special factional groups (which maintain contacts with
Russia against the C.C.).
If the Golosists and Vperyodists are not precisely and
clearly named, the whole resolution= 0. In that case you
will compel us to come out against this playing at unity.
If you name them precisely and say clearly what their
factionalism is, you will immediately and definitely win
over the majority of our people abroad (the Bolsheviks&
the Plekhanovites& pro-Party workers& the bulk of the
groups in the “provinces” and in America, where there are
no leaders of Golosism).
 TO A. RYKOV 445

If the C.C.’s “struggle” against factions consists in its

paying court to the anti-Party factions of Golos and Vperyod,
in hampering our work (in a Party spirit) by multi-storey
formalities (the Pole, a committee, a collegium of people
who are not acquainted with the matter, “invitation” of
Vperyodists, quarrel with Alexinsky, etc., etc.), then you
can count us out.
We have just received a letter from St. Petersburg. Sa-
movarov has proposed to the Social-Democratic Duma group
that it issue an electoral platform!
This—to a majority of Mensheviks! (and not a word to
us). If Samovarov wants to carry on in this fashion, I prom-
ise you that I shall begin a series of leaflets directly against
Samovarov.
If an agreement among us is possible, the Bolsheviks must
rally into a trend and work harmoniously (on the basis of
the agreement), and not carry on intrigues, nor go over
to the Mensheviks.
Write and let me know your opinion as soon as possible.

All the best.

Yours,
Lenin

P. S. Have you seen Nikitich? Has he tried to sell the

story of Vperyod’s peace-loving nature? He’s a great hand
at making promises and throwing dust in people’s eyes.
Sent from Paris to Berlin
First published in 1 9 3 1 Printed from the original
446

199
TO MAXIM GORKY
May 27, 1911
Dear A. M.,
A few days ago I received a letter from Poletayev. He
writes, inter alia: “We have received a letter from Gorky.
He is proposing that N. I. should come abroad to work
out a plan for unity around some organ, and adds that he
has spoken to you about this and to the Menshevik M”
(Martov, I assume).
Poletayev adds that N. I. is hardly suitable for this plan
and that if somebody must come, it should be somebody else.
It is hardly likely that Pokrovsky will make the journey.
Reading this in Poletayev’s letter frightened me—no,
really.
Our uniting with Mensheviks like Martov is absolutely
hopeless, as I told you here. If we start arranging a meeting
for such a hopeless plan—the result will be nothing but
a disgrace (personally I would not go even to a meeting
with Martov).
Judging from Poletayev’s letter, the participation of
the Duma group is planned. Is this necessary? If it is a ques-
tion of a journal, then the Duma group has nothing to do
with it. If it is a question of a newspaper, it should be borne
in mind that we have had plenty of discord as it is with
Zvezda: they have no line, they are afraid of going with us,
afraid of going with the liquidators, they play hot and
cold, they give themselves airs, they vacillate.
Besides, a union of the Plekhanovites&our people&the
Duma group threatens to give Plekhanov a preponderance,
for Mensheviks predominate in the Duma group. Is it de-
sirable and reasonable to give Plekhanov a preponderance?
I very much fear that Yordansky is unsuitable for such
plans (for he has “his” own journal and he will either raise
 TO MAXIM GORKY 447

obstacles or try to impose “his” journal, leaving it as his,

that is, a semi-liberal organ).
To avoid disappointments and hopeless squabbles, I
think we should be very careful as regards “unity”. Upon
my word, we should be not uniting now, but dissociating!
If a publisher can be found for a journal or a newspaper,
you should conclude an agreement with him off your own
bat (or take money from him without an agreement, if pos-
sible), but the arrangement of a meeting will only make a
mess. Truly, the result will be a mess.
I am writing to you because I do not want to see you of
all people wasting your time, nervous energy, etc., on a
mess. I know from my own bitter experience of 1908-11 that
it is impossible to “unite” now. In our Mysl, for example,
Plekhanov more than once behaved temperamentally—he
was dissatisfied, for example, with my article on strikes and
on Potresov, * saying that I was abusing “him”! We managed
to smooth things over and for the time being we can and
must work with Plekhanov, but formal unions and meetings
are premature and could spoil everything.
Don’t hurry with the meeting!
It is said positively among us that there exists a govern-
ment circular of Stolypin’s for closing down all Social-
Democratic publications. It sounds like the truth. Before
the Fourth Duma they will probably put the screw on ten
times tighter.
Legal opportunities will evidently diminish in the im-
mediate future. We must push on with illegal work.
M. F. wrote that you have completely withdrawn from
Znaniye. That means a complete break with Pyatnitsky
and my last letter came too late?
All the best.
Yours,
Lenin
P. S. Sovremennaya Zhizn 450 in Baku has also been raided
and suppressed!
Sent from Paris to the Isle
of Capri (Italy)
First published in 1 9 2 4 Printed from the original

* “Strike Statistics in Russia”, “Those Who Would Liquidate Us”

(see present edition, Vol. 16, and Vol. 17).—Ed.
448

200
TO ANTONIN N:MEC 451
Paris, November 1, 1911
Dear Comrade,
You will be doing me a great service if you can help me
with advice and action in the following matter. A number
of organisations of our Party intend to call a conference
(abroad—of course). The number of members of the con-
ference will be about 20-25. Is there a possibility of organis-
ing this conference in Prague (to last about a week)? 452
The most important thing for us is the possibility of or-
ganising it in extreme secrecy. No person, no organisation,
should know about it. (It is a Social-Democratic conference,
hence legal according to European laws, but the majority
of the delegates do not have passports and cannot use their
own names.)
I earnestly beg you, dear comrade, if it is at all possible,
to help us and tell me as quickly as possible the address of
a comrade in Prague who (in the event of an affirmative
reply) could make all the practical arrangements. It would
be best if this comrade understood Russian—if this is im-
possible we can also reach agreement with him in German.
I hope, dear comrade, that you will pardon me for troubl-
ing you with this request. I send you my thanks in an-
ticipation.

With Party greetings. N. Lenin

My address is:
VI. Oulianoff
4, Rue Marie Rose, 4,
Paris, XIV.
Sent to Prague
First published in 1 9 3 0 Printed from
in a Russian translation the original
German text
NOTES
 451

1
Axelrod, Pavel Borisovich (1850-1928)—in the seventies a Narod-
nik, later a Marxist. In 1883 took part in founding the Emanci-
pation of Labour group. From 1900 a member of the editorial board
of Iskra and Zarya. After the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.
(1903), a Menshevik leader.
During the period of reaction (1907-10) one of the leading
liquidators. Adopted a hostile attitude towards the October So-
cialist Revolution. p. 20
2
This footnote was given by Lenin in view of the fact that the names
of towns were ciphered in the letter for purposes of secrecy. p. 20
3
This refers to the preparations for publishing abroad a non-periodi-
cal Miscellany entitled Rabotnik. It was published in 1896-99 by
the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad and edited by the
Emancipation of Labour group. The publication was sponsored
by Lenin. In May 1895, during his stay in Switzerland, Lenin
made arrangements for its publication with G. V. Plekhanov,
P. B. Axelrod and other members of the Emancipation of Labour
group. On his return to Russia in September 1895 Lenin developed
extensive activities aimed at supplying articles and correspondence
from Russia for the Miscellany and organising financial support
for the publication. During his trips to Vilna, Moscow and Orekho-
vo-Zuyevo Lenin made arrangements with the local Social-Demo-
crats for assistance to be rendered this publication.
Altogether 6 issues of Rabotnik in three volumes and 10 issues
of Listok Rabotnika were published. p. 20
4
This refers to the arrests made among the Social-Democrats in
Moscow and Moscow Gubernia. p. 20
5
Vorwärts—a daily, central organ of the German Social-Democratic
Party, published in Berlin from 1891. In the late nineties, after
the death of Engels, the paper was controlled by the Party’s Right
wing and systematically published articles of the opportunists.
Vorwärts tendentiously reported the struggle against opportunism
and revisionism within the R.S.D.L.P. and supported the Econo-
mists, and later, after the split in the Party, the Mensheviks. p. 21
452 NOTES

6
This refers to the report of the Breslau Congress of the German
Social-Democratic Party held in 1895. The correspondence from
abroad was sent in the binding of a book. p. 23
7
This refers to the illegal printing-press of the young Narodnaya
Volya group, organised in January 1895. Lenin negotiated with
this group for the purpose of using the press for the publication of
literature for the workers. In November 1895 Lenin’s pamphlet
Explanation of the Law on Fines Imposed on Factory Workers (see
present edition, Vol. 2) was handed over to this group for printing.
This is the fourth thing (“one of ours”) which Lenin refers to. p. 23
8
This refers to Rabocheye Dyelo (Workers’ Cause), which was being
prepared by the St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emanci-
pation of the Working Class. The first number of this newspaper
was compiled and edited by Lenin, who also wrote all the main
articles: the editorial “To the Russian Workers”, “What Are Our
Ministers Thinking About?”, “Frederick Engels” (see present edi-
tion, Vol. 2). In addition the newspaper contained articles by other
members of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle, such as
G. M. Krzhizhanovsky, A. A. Vaneyev, P. K. Zaporozhets, L. Mar-
tov (Y. O. Tsederbaum) and M. A. Silvin.
In his book What Is To be Done? Lenin wrote: “This issue was
ready to go to press when it was seized by the gendarmes, on the
night of December 8, 1895, in a raid on the house of one of the
members of the group, Anatoly Alexeyevich Vaneyev, so that the
first edition of Rabocheye Dyelo was not destined to see the light
of day” (see present edition, Vol. 5, p. 376). p. 23
9
While in exile Lenin sent most of his letters to P. B. Axelrod con-
cealed in the inside of book-covers. Passing through several hands,
these letters eventually found their way abroad to A. I. Ulyanova-
Yelizarova, Lenin’s sister, who lived in Berlin at the time, and she
forwarded them on to Axelrod. This particular letter was copied
out by her and inserted in the middle of the text of her own letter
to Axelrod. p. 24
10
Meaning Anna Ilyinichna Ulyanova-Yelizarova, Lenin’s sister. p. 24
11
This refers to the journal Novoye Slovo in which two articles of
Lenin’s were published in 1897: “A Characterisation of Economic
Romanticism” and “About a Certain Newspaper Article” (see
Vol. 2 of this edition).
Novoye Slovo (New Word)—a scientific, literary and political
monthly published in St. Petersburg from 1894 by the liberal
Narodniks, and from the spring of 1897 by the “legal Marxists”.
The journal was closed down by the government in December
1897. p. 24
12
Potresov, Alexander Nikolayevich (1869-1934)—joined the Marxists
in the nineties of the 19th century. For participating in the St.
 NOTES 453

Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working

Class, was exiled. In 1900 went abroad, where he took part in
founding Iskra and Zarya. After the Second Congress of the
R.S.D.L.P. (1903) joined the Mensheviks. During the years of
reaction (1907-10) was an ideologist of liquidationism; played a
leading role in the Menshevik publications Vozrozhdeniye, Nasha
Zarya, and others.
After the October Revolution he emigrated. p. 25
13
Archiv für soziale Gesetzgebung und Statistik (Archive of Social
Legislation and Statistics)—a journal, published from 1888 to
1933 in Berlin—Thüringen—Leipzig.
Lenin here refers to Vol. XII of this journal published in
1898 and containing an article by an anonymous author (probably
P. B. Struve) entitled “New Factory Legislation in Russia ” . p. 25
14
Struve, Pyotr Bernhardovich (1870-1944)—a bourgeois economist
and publicist. In the nineties a leading spokesman of “legal Marx-
ism”, “supplemented” and criticised the economic and philosophic-
al theories of Marx, and tried to adapt Marxism and the working-
class movement to the interests of the bourgeoisie; contributor to
and editor of the journals Novoye Slovo, Nachalo and Zhizn. Struve
was one of the theoreticians and organisers of the liberal-monarchist
Osvobozhdeniye League (1903-05). With the formation of the Cadet
Party in 1905—a member of its Central Committee. After the
October Revolution—a white émigré. p. 25
15
Disciples—followers of Marx and Engels. This term was used in
the nineties as a legal designation for Marxists. p. 25
16
Russkoye Bogatstvo (Russian Wealth)—a monthly journal published
from 1876 to 1918 in St. Petersburg. In the early nineties it passed
into the hands of the liberal Narodniks beaded by N. K. Mikhai-
lovsky. The journal advocated a conciliatory attitude towards the
tsarist government and conducted a bitter fight against Marxism
and the Russian Marxists. In 1906 it became the organ of the semi-
Cadet Trudovik Popular Socialist Party. p. 25
17
Bulgakov, Sergei Nikolayevich (1871-1944)—bourgeois economist
and idealist philosopher. In the nineties a “legal Marxist”. Advo-
cated a revision of Marx’s doctrine on the agrarian question. After
the Revolution of 1905-07 joined the Cadets, preached philosophical
mysticism, participated in the counter-revolutionary miscellany
Vekhi.
In 1922 he was deported for counter-revolutionary activities.
p. 26
18
Lenin refers to the polemic between Bulgakov and Struve over the
book Wirtschaft und Recht nach der materialistischen Geschichtsauff-
assung by the German Kantian Stammler. p. 26
454 NOTES

19
Lenin refers to Plekhanov’s articles “Bernstein and Materialism”
in Die Neue Zeit No. 44 (1897-98. Band II) and “Conrad Schmidt
against Marx and Engels” in the same journal, issue No. 5 (1898-99.
Band I).
Die Neue Zeit—a theoretical journal of the German Social-
Democratic Party, published in Stuttgart from 1883 to 1923.
Up to October 1917 it was edited by K. Kautsky, and after him
by Heinrich Cunow. p. 26

20
The reference is to Plekhanov’s article “The Sixtieth Anniversary
of Hegel’s Death” in the journal Die Neue Zeit Nos. 7, 8, 9 (1891-
92. Band I).
Lenin’s reference to “the 30th anniversary” is obviously a slip
of the pen. p. 26

21
The reference is to Axelrod’s articles “Die historische Berechtigung
der russischen Sozialdemokratie” (later issued in Russia as a sepa-
rate pamphlet under the title The Historical Position and the Mutual
Relations between the Liberal and Socialist Democracy in Russia),
published in the journal Die Neue Zeit No. 30 and No. 31 (1897-98.
Band II).
Lenin’s comments on Axelrod’s articles will be found on
pp. 29-31 of this volume. p. 26

22
The reference is to Economism, an opportunist trend in Russian
Social-Democracy at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of
the twentieth centuries. The Economists held that the political
struggle against tsarism was mainly the business of the liberal
bourgeoisie, while the workers were to confine themselves to an
economic struggle for better working conditions, higher wages,
etc. They denied the leading role of the party of the working class
and the significance of revolutionary theory in the labour move-
ment, and maintained that that movement could only develop
spontaneously. Lenin gave a devastating criticism of Economism
in his book What Is To Be Done? p. 26
23
Narodism—a petty-bourgeois trend in the Russian revolutionary
movement, which arose between the 1860s and 1870s. The Narodniks
were out to abolish the autocracy and hand over the landowners’
land to the peasantry. At the same time they denied the develop-
ment of capitalist relations in Russia to be a natural tendency,
and accordingly regarded the peasantry, and not the proletariat,
as the main revolutionary force, and the village commune as the
embryo of socialism. With the object of rousing the peasants to the
struggle against the autocracy the Narodniks went into the country,
“among the people”, but gained no support there.
In the eighties and nineties the Narodniks took a conciliatory
stand towards tsarism, expressed the interests of the kulaks, and
waged a bitter fight against Marxism. p. 27
 NOTES 455
24
Lenin refers to the heated disputes between the Marxists and the
Narodniks that raged among the exiles. It was of one such clash
in Orlov, Vyatka Gubernia, that Potresov wrote to Lenin about.
p. 27
25
Nachalo (The Beginning)—a scientific literary and political month-
ly, organ of the “legal Marxists”, published in St. Petersburg in
the early months of 1899 under the editorship of P. B. Struve,
M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky and others. G. V. Plekhanov, V. I. Zasu-
lich and others contributed to it. Lenin wrote a number of book
reviews for the journal (see present edition Vol. 4, pp. 65-73 and
94-103) which also published the first six paragraphs of Chapter III
of his book The Development of Capitalism in Russia (see Vol. 3
of this edition). p. 28
26
The reference is to Lenin’s article “The Heritage We Renounce”
(see Vol. 2, pp. 491-534, of this edition).
Skaldin (Yelenev, Fyodor Pavlovich) (1828-1902)—a Russian
publicist and author; in the sixties of the 19th century a spokesman
of bourgeois liberalism, contributed to the journal Otechestvenniye
Zapiski. Subsequently Slaldin sided with the extreme reactiona-
ries. p. 28
27
Chernyshevsky, Nikolai Gavrilovich (1828-1889)—great Russian
revolutionary democrat, materialist philosopher, author and lit-
erary critic, leader of the revolutionary-democratic movement of
the sixties in Russia. p. 28
28
Soziale Praxis—a German monthly, published from 1895 to 1910,
after which it came out under another name. p. 31
29
Meaning the journal Nachalo (see Note 25). p. 32
30
Mir Bozhy (God’s World)—a monthly literary and popular science
journal of a liberal trend published in St. Petersburg from 1892
to 1906. From 1906 to 1918 it was issued under the name of Sovre-
menny Mir (The Contemporary World). p. 33
31
Nauchnoye Obozreniye (Scientific Review)—a journal, published
in St. Petersburg from 1894 to 1903, accepted contributions from
publicists and scientists of all schools and trends; widely used by
liberals and “legal Marxists”. The journal published occasional
articles by Marxists. p. 33
32
See Note 11. p. 33
33
Tugan-Baranovsky, Mikhail Ivanovich (1865-1919)—Russian bour-
geois economist, in the nineties a prominent spokesman of “legal
Marxism”, contributed to the journals Novoye Slovo, Nachalo,
and others. p. 34
456 NOTES

34
This refers to Anna Ilyinichna Ulyanova-Yelizarova. p. 34
35
This refers to a miscellany of Lenin’s, Economic Studies and Essays,
published in October 1898 (the cover and title-page bore the date
1899). p. 34
36
Frankfurter Zeitung—a daily newspaper, mouthpiece of the Ger-
man merchants of Change. Published in Frankfurt am Main from
1856 to 1943. p. 35
37
Zhizn (Life)—a literary, scientific and political journal published
in St. Petersburg from 1897 to 1901.
Publication was resumed abroad in April 1902 by the Zhizn
Social-Democratic group (V. D. Bonch-Bruyevich, V. A. Posse,
V. M. Velichkina and others); six issues of the journal, twelve of
Listok Zhizni and several volumes of the Zhizn Library series were
published.
The group ceased to exist in December 1902 and the publish-
ing-house was liquidated. p. 35
38
Apparently this refers to Plekhanov, with whom Lenin had talks
in 1895 during his visit to Switzerland. p. 35
39
This refers to the split that took place at the First
Conference of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad held
in Zurich (Switzerland) in November 1898.
The Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad was founded
in Geneva in 1894 on the initiative of the Emancipation of Labour
group (see Note 58). It had its own press where it printed revolu-
tionary literature and published the non-periodic miscellany Rabot-
nik. At first the Emancipation of Labour group controlled the
Union and edited its publications. Eventually control passed to the
opportunist elements—the Economists or the so-called “young”
group. At the First Conference of the Union held in November 1898
the Emancipation of Labour group announced their refusal to edit
the Union publications. The Group finally broke with the Union
and left its ranks in April 1900 at the Second Conference of the
Union, when the Emancipation of Labour group and its supporters
walked out and established their own Sotsial-Demokrat organi-
sation.
At the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. held in 1903 the
Union’s representatives took an extremely opportunist stand and
walked out after the Congress declared the League of Russian
Revolutionary Social-Democracy Abroad to be the only organi-
sation of the Party abroad. The Second Congress declared the
Union dissolved. p. 36
40
Mikhailovsky, Nikolai Konstantinovich (1842-1904)—a prominent
theoretician of liberal Narodism, publicist and literary critic; a
representative of the subjective school in sociology; editor of the
journals Otechestvenniye Zapiski and Russkoye Bogatstvo. Lenin cri-
 NOTES 457

ticised Mikhailovsky’s views in his book What the “Friends of the

People” Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats (see Vol. 1
of this edition) and other writings. p. 36
41
Lenin refers to the miscellany Material for a Characterisation of
Our Economic Development containing his article (over the pen-
name K. Tulin) “The Economic Content of Narodism and the
Criticism of It in Mr. Struve’s Book. (The Reflection of Marxism
in Bourgeois Literature)” directed against legal Marxism (see
Vol. 1 of this edition). p. 37
42
This refers to Die Neue Zeit (see Note 19). p. 37
43
Gvozdyov (Zimmerman, Roman Emilievich) (1866-1900)—author,
whose short stories and economic articles were published in Russkoye
Bogatstvo, Zhizn and Nauchnoye Obozreniye. p. 37
44
(N.—on)—Danielson, Nikolai Frantsevich (1844-1918)—Russian
writer and economist, an ideologue of liberal Narodism of the
eighties and nineties; in his political activities he reflected the
evolution of the Narodniks away from revolutionary action against
tsarism towards a conciliatory attitude to it. Completed the trans-
lation of Marx’s Capital into Russian, which was begun by G. A. Lo-
patin. While working on this translation he carried on a corres-
pondence with Marx and Engels in which he touched on the prob-
lems of Russia’s economic development. Danielson, however, failed
to grasp the essence of Marxism and subsequently came out against
it.
Lenin here refers to Danielson’s book Sketches of Our Post Re-
form Social Economy in which its author elaborates Narodnik
views on the development of post-reform national economy in
Russia. The German edition appeared in 1899 in Munich. The
French edition was published in 1902. p. 38
45
Russkiye Vedomosti (Russian Recorder)—a newspaper published
in Moscow from 1863 onwards; it expressed the views of the moder-
ate liberal intelligentsia. In 1905 it became the organ of the Right-
wing of the bourgeois Cadet Party. It was closed down in 1918
together with other counter-revolutionary newspapers. p. 38
46
Lenin refers to Plekhanov’s article “Konrad Schmidt gegen Karl
Marx und Friedrich Engels” published in Die Neue Zeit No. 5 for
1898-99. p. 40
47
Nezhdanov’s article mentioned here is entitled “Markets under
Capitalist Production (Apropos of Ratner’s, Ilyin’s and Struve’s
Articles)”. Lenin replied to this in his article “Reply to Mr.
P. Nezhdanov” (see Vol. 4 of this edition). p. 41
48
This refers to the review of A. Bogdanov’s book Fundamentals of
the Historic View on Nature, which came out in St. Petersburg in
1899. The first book by the same author A Short Course of Economic
458 NOTES

Science was reviewed by Lenin in Mir Bozhy No. 4 for April 1898
(see Vol. 4 of this edition, pp. 46-54).
Bogdanov, A. (Malinovsky, Alexander Alexandrovich) (1873-
1928)—philosopher, sociologist and economist, by education a
physician. During the nineties took part in the work of the Social-
Democratic circles. After the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.
(1903) joined the Bolsheviks. During the years of reaction (1907-
10) he became the leader of the otzovists and of the Vperyod group,
which came out against Lenin and the Party. In questions of philos-
ophy he attempted to set up a system of his own, known as “em-
pirio-monism”, a species of subjective-idealist Machian philosophy,
which was sharply criticised by Lenin in his book Materialism and
Empirio-criticism (1909) (see Vol. 14 of this edition). p. 41
49
The remarks referring to the end of Lenin’s article “Capitalism in
Agriculture” were taken into consideration by Lenin when publish-
ing the article (see Vol. 4 of this edition). p. 43
50
Krupskaya, Nadezhda Konstantinovna (1869-1939)—a professional
revolutionary and outstanding member of the Communist Party
and the Soviet Government; the wife of V. I. Lenin. Joined the
revolutionary movement in 1890. In 1895 was one of the organisers
of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of
the Working Class. In 1901 emigrated and worked as secretary of
the Iskra editorial board . Took an active part in preparing the
Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. which she attended as a non-
voting delegate. After the Congress she was secretary of the editorial
boards of the Bolshevik newspapers Vperyod and Proletary. During
the first Russian revolution (1905-07) worked as secretary to the
Central Committee of the Party in Russia. Took an active part in
preparing and carrying out the October Socialist Revolution. p. 44
51
Apparently this refers to A. N. Potresov. p. 44
52
This refers to the announcement concerning the resumption of
publications by the Emancipation of Labour group issued at the
end of 1899. The date given by Lenin is a slip of the pen. p. 46
53
(V. I—n) Ivanshin, Vladimir Pavlovich (1869-1904)—one of the
editors of the journal Rabocheye Dyelo, organ of the Union of
Russian Social-Democrats Abroad; maintained close contact also
with Rabochaya Mysl, the newspaper of the St. Petersburg Econo-
mists. In his articles he drew a line between the immediate econom-
ic interests of the workers and the political tasks of Social-De-
mocracy.
After the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (1903) he joined
the Mensheviks. p. 46
54
On September 6 Lenin left Nuremberg for Munich, which was chosen
as the residence for the members of the editorial board of the all-
Russia illegal Marxist newspaper Iskra. p. 48
 NOTES 459
55
This refers to the group consisting of V. I. Lenin, Y. O. Martov
and A. N. Potresov formed on Lenin’s initiative upon his return
from exile at the beginning of 1900 with the object of setting up
abroad an all-Russia illegal Marxist newspaper. p. 48
56
This refers to the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad
(see Note 39). p. 48
57
Here and elsewhere the reference is to Lenin’s talks with Ts. Kopel-
son (“Grishin”), a member of the Union of Russian Social-Demo-
crats Abroad. p. 48
58
This refers to the Emancipation of Labour group, the first Russian
Marxist group, founded by Plekhanov in Geneva in 1883. Other
members of the group were P. B. Axelrod, L. G. Deutsch, V. I. Za-
sulich and V. N. Ignatov. The E. L. group did a great deal to dis-
seminate Marxism in Russia. It translated into Russian, published
abroad and distributed in Russia the works of the founders of
Marxism: Manifesto of the Communist Party by Marx and Engels;
Wage-Labour and Capital by Marx; Socialism: Utopian and Scien-
tific by Engels and other works. Plekhanov and his group dealt a
severe blow to Narodism. The two drafts of a programme for Rus-
sian Social-Democrats written by Plekhanov in 1883 and 1885
and published by the E. L. group were an important step towards
preparing the ground for and establishing a Social-Democratic
Party in Russia. An important part in spreading Marxist views in
Russia was played by Plekhanov’s essays: Socialism and the Polit-
ical Struggle (1883), Our Differences (1885) and The Development
of the Monist View of History (1895). The E. L. group, however,
committed serious errors; they clung to remnants of the Narodnik
views, underestimated the revolutionary capacity of the peasantry
and overestimated the role of the liberal bourgeoisie. These errors
were the embryo of the future Menshevik views held by Plekhanov
and other members of the group.
Lenin pointed out that the E. L. group “only laid the theoretical
foundations for the Social-Democratic movement and took the
first step towards the working-class movement” (see Vol. 20,
p. 278 of this edition).
At the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. in August 1903 the
E. L. group announced that it had ceased its activities as a group.
p. 48
59
The rumour refers to the forthcoming publication of the newspaper
Iskra.
Iskra (The Spark) was the first all-Russia illegal Marxist news-
paper, it was founded by Lenin in 1900 and played an important
role in building the Marxist revolutionary party of the working
class in Russia.
As it was impossible to publish a revolutionary newspaper in
Russia on account of police persecution, Lenin, while still in exile
in Siberia, evolved a detailed plan for its publication aboard.
460 NOTES

When his exile ended (in January 1900) Lenin immediately set
about putting his plan into effect.
The first issue of Lenin’s Iskra was published in Leipzig in
December 1900, later issues were published in Munich; from July
1902 the paper was published in London, and from the spring of
1903 in Geneva. Considerable help in getting the newspaper going
(the organisation of secret printing-presses, the acquisition of
Russian type, etc.) was rendered by the German Social-Democrats
Clara Zetkin, Adolf Braun and others, as well as by Julian March-
lewski, a Polish revolutionary residing at Munich at the time, and
by Harry Quelch, one of the leaders of the English Social-Demo-
cratic Federation.
The editorial board of Iskra consisted of V. I. Lenin, G. V. Ple-
khanov, Y. O. Martov, P. B. Axelrod, A. N. Potresov and V. I. Za-
sulich. The first secretary of the board was I. G. Smidovich-Leman;
in the spring of 1901 this post was taken over by N. K. Krupskaya,
who also conducted the correspondence between Iskra and the
Social-Democratic organisations in Russia. Lenin was virtually
Editor-in-Chief and the leading figure in Iskra, in which he pub-
lished his articles on all fundamental issues of Party organisation
and the class struggle of the proletariat in Russia, and dealt with
the most important international events.
Iskra became the centre for the unification of Party forces, for
the gathering and training of Party cadres. R.S.D.L.P. groups
and committees of a Leninist Iskra trend were set up in a number of
Russian cities (St. Petersburg, Moscow, Samara and others). Iskrist
organisations sprang up and worked under the direct leadership of
Lenin’s disciples and associates N. E. Bauman, I. V. Babushkin
S. I. Gusev, M. I. Kalinin, P. A. Krasikov, G. M. Krzhizhanovsky,
F. V. Lengnik, P. N. Lepeshinsky, I. I. Radchenko, and others.
On the initiative and with the direct participation of Lenin
the Iskra editorial board drew up a draft programme of the Party
(published in Iskra No. 21), and prepared the Second Congress of
the R.S.D.L.P., which was held in July-August 1903. By the
time the Congress was convened most of the local Social-Democratic
organisations in Russia had adopted the Iskra position, approved
its tactics, programme and plan of organisation, and recognised
the newspaper as their leading organ. A special resolution of the
Congress noted Iskra’s exceptional role in the struggle to build the
Party and adopted the newspaper as the Central Organ of the
R.S.D.L.P. The Second Congress approved an editorial board con-
sisting of Lenin, Plekhanov and Martov. Despite the Congress
decision Martov refused to participate, and issues Nos. 46-51
of Iskra were edited by Lenin and Plekhanov. Later Plekhanov
adopted a Menshevik stand and demanded that all the old Menshe-
vik editors be included in the editorial board of Iskra, although
they had been rejected by the Congress. Lenin could not agree to
this, and on October 19 (November 1), 1903, he resigned from the
Iskra editorial board. He was co-opted to the Central Committee
from where he conducted a struggle against the Menshevik oppor-
tunists. Issue 52 was edited by Plekhanov alone. On November
 NOTES 461

13 (26), 1903, Plekhanov, on his own initiative and in defiance

of the will of the Congress, co-opted all the old Menshevik editors
to the editorial board. Beginning with issue 52 the Mensheviks
turned Iskra into their own organ. p. 48
60
Meaning the newspaper Iskra. p. 49
61
In August 1899, upon receiving from A. I. Ulyanova-Yelizarova
in St. Petersburg the manifesto of the Economists which she called
“the Credo of the ‘young’ group”, Lenin wrote his Anti-Credo—
“A Protest by Russian Social-Democrats” (see Vol. 4, pp. 167-82
of this edition). The author of the Credo was Y. D. Kuskova, then
a member of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad. The
manifesto of the Economists was not intended for the press, and,
as Lenin pointed out, was published “without the consent and per-
haps even against the will of its authors”, because the Economists
feared public criticism of their opportunist views (see Vol. 5,
p. 364 of this edition). p. 50
62
Vademecum for the Editors of Rabocheye Dyelo. A Collection of
Material Published by the Emancipation of Labour Group, with a
Preface by G. V. Plekhanov (Geneva, February 1900) was directed
against opportunism in the ranks of the R.S.D.L.P., chiefly against
Economism of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad
and of its organ, the journal Rabocheye Dyelo. p. 50
63
Rabocheye Dyelo (Workers’ Cause)—a journal, organ of the Union
of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad, published in Geneva from
April 1899 to February 1902. Twelve numbers (nine books) were
issued in all. The editorial board of Rabocheye Dyelo was the centre
of the Economists abroad. Rabocheye Dyelo supported Bernstein’s
slogan of “freedom of criticism” of Marxism, and took an opportun-
ist stand on questions of the tactics and organisational tasks of
the Russian Social-Democrats. Its supporters propagated opportun-
ist ideas making the proletariat’s political struggle subservient
to the economic struggle; they exalted spontaneity in the working-
class movement and denied the leading role of the Party. V. P. Ivan-
shin, one of the journal’s editors, also took part in editing Rabo-
chaya Mysl, organ of the outspoken Economists, which Rabocheye
Dyelo supported. At the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. the
Rabocheye Dyelo group represented the extreme Right, opportunist
wing of the Party. p. 50
64
Yakubova, Apollinaria Alexandrovna (1870-1917)—a participant
in the Social-Democratic movement from 1893, prominent exponent
of Economism. A member of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle
for the Emancipation of the Working Class; in 1897-98 was one of
the organisers of the St. Petersburg publication of the Economists’
newspaper Rabochaya Mysl. In 1898 was exiled to Siberia for a
term of four years and emigrated in the summer of 1899. Assisted
in the organisation of the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.
462 NOTES

which she attended as a non-voting delegate. After the split in

the Party, she sympathised with the Mensheviks. Retired from
political activities after 1905. p. 51
65
The reference is to Plekhanov. p. 51
66
The reference is to Lenin’s reply to Plekhanov, who asked Lenin’s
advice concerning the Economists’ invitation to contribute to
their newspaper Rabochaya Mysl. p. 51
67
Rabochaya Mysl (Workers’ Thought)—a newspaper, organ of the
Economists, published from October 1897 to December 1902. Six-
teen issues were published (St. Petersburg—Berlin—Warsaw—
Geneva). Edited by K. M. Takhtarev and others. A criticism of
Rabochaya Mysl views, described as the Russian variety of inter-
national opportunism, was given by Lenin in his article “A Retro-
grade Trend in Russian Social-Democracy” (see Vol. 4 of this
edition) and in articles published in Iskra and in his book What
Is To Be Done? (see Vol. 5 of this edition). p. 52
68
This apparently refers to Y. O. Martov. p. 52
69
Bernsteinism—an opportunist anti-Marxist trend in the interna-
tional Social-Democratic movement, which originated in Germany
at the end of the nineteenth century and was named after Eduard
Bernstein, the German Social-Democrat. Bernstein tried to revise
Marx’s revolutionary doctrine in the spirit of bourgeois liberalism
and to turn the Social-Democratic Party into a petty-bourgeois
party of social reform. In Russia this trend found support among
the “legal Marxists” and the Economists. p. 53
70
Plekhanov, Georgi Valentinovich (1856-1918)—an outstanding leader
of the Russian and international labour movement, the first pro-
pagandist of Marxism in Russia, founder of the first Russian Marx-
ist group, the Emancipation of Labour group (Geneva 1883). At the
beginning of the twentieth century Plekhanov, together with Lenin,
edited the newspaper Iskra and the journal Zarya, took part in
drafting the Party Programme and preparing the Second Congress
of the R.S.D.L.P. After this Congress he stood for a conciliatory
attitude towards opportunism and eventually joined the Men-
sheviks. In 1908-12 Plekhanov came out against the liquidators
and headed the pro-Party Mensheviks. During the First World
War (1914-18) he adopted a social-chauvinist stand. His attitude
to the October Socialist Revolution was hostile, but he took no
part in anti-Soviet activities.
Lenin thought highly of Plekhanov’s philosophical works and
his role in disseminating Marxism in Russia; at the same time he
sharply criticised Plekhanov for his deviations from Marxism and
the serious mistakes in his political activities. p. 55
 NOTES 463
71
This refers to the negotiations between the editorial board of Iskra
and the liberals concerning the publication of a supplement Sov-
remennoye Obozreniye to the journal Zarya. The talks, in which
Lenin, Zasulich, Potresov, and Struve took part, started on Decem-
ber 29, 1900, and continued through January 1901. Struve rejected
Point 7 of the draft agreement proposed by the Iskra and Zarya
group concerning full freedom for the editors of Iskra to use all the
political material received by Sovremennoye Obozreniye. State-
ments concerning the issue of Sovremennoye Obozreniye were written
by Plekhanov on behalf of Iskra and Zarya and by Struve on behalf
of the “democratic opposition” group. The publication, however,
did not materialise in view of Dietz’s refusal to publish the state-
ments, which did not fulfil censorship requirements. The talks
between Iskra representatives and Struve were broken off and not
resumed. p. 55
72
Zarya (Dawn)—a Marxist scientific and political journal, published
in Stuttgart in 1901-02 by the Iskra editorial board. Only four
numbers (three books) were issued. Zarya criticised international
and Russian revisionism, came out in defence of the theoretical
premises of Marxism; it published the following writings of Lenin
dealing with this question: “The Persecutors of the Zemstvo and the
Hannibals of Liberalism” (see Vol. 5, pp. 31-80, of this edition),
the first four chapters of “The Agrarian Question and the ‘Critics
of Marx’” (see Vol. 5 of this edition) and “The Agrarian Programme
of Russian Social-Democracy” (see present edition, Vol. 6, pp. 105-
48), as well as Plekhanov’s “Criticism of Our Critics. Part 1.
Mr. Struve as Critic of Marx’s Theory of Social Development”,
“Cant versus Kant, or Herr Bernstein’s Spiritual Testament” and
others. p. 56
73
The reference is to Dobrogeanu-Gherea (Kats, K. A.) (1855-1920)
—leader of the opportunist wing of the Rumanian Social-Demo-
crats. p. 58
74
Rittmeyer, G.—a Munich Social-Democrat at whose place Lenin
lived in 1900-01 under the name of Meyer. Letters to Lenin were
sent to his address from December 1900 to the end of July 1901.
p. 58
75
Dietz—owner of a Stuttgart printing-house at which Zarya, the
Marxist scientific and political journal, was printed. G.m.b.H.—
Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung. p. 58
76
This refers to an article of Axelrod’s intended as an editorial for
the first issue of Zarya. In the phrase that was to appear on the cover
of the journal “Published in close co-operation with G. V. Plekha-
nov, V. I. Zasulich, P. B. Axelrod and several Russian Social-
Democrats”, Dietz crossed out the last five words. p. 58
464 NOTES

77
This refers to D. Zhukovsky, a publisher of books on philosophy.
p. 58
78
The secret memorandum of tsarist minister S. Y. Witte under the
heading “The Autocracy and the Zemstvo”, with a preface by
P. B. Struve (using the pseudonym R.N.S.), was published illegally
by Zarya in 1901. Both the memorandum and the preface were
sharply criticised by Lenin in his article “The Persecutors of the
Zemstvo and the Hannibals of Liberalism” (see Vol. 5 of this
edition). p. 59
79
Referring to Maria Ulyanova and M. T. Yelizarov. p. 59
80
This refers to Y. O. Martov. p. 59
81
The pseudonym of Blumenfeld, Yosif Solomonovich (born 1865)—
a Social-Democrat, active member of the Emancipation of Labour
group, later a member of the Iskra organisation, by trade a compos-
itor. In the E. L. group and Iskra was in charge of printing and
shipping arrangements. In March 1902 was arrested with a parcel
of Iskra publications and imprisoned in a Kiev jail, whence he
escaped abroad in August 1902. After the split at the Second Con-
gress of the R.S.D.L.P. he joined the Mensheviks. In December 1903
became secretary of the editorial board of the Menshevik Iskra and
subsequently worked in the Menshevik organisations in Russia and
abroad. p. 59
82
This refers to the Iskra leaflet “First of May” issued in April 1901.
p. 59
83
Parisians—the Borba (Struggle) literary group abroad who con-
sidered themselves affiliated to the R.S.D.L.P. The group was dis-
solved by decision of the Second Congress of the Party (see Note 93).
Zurichers—Lettish Social-Democrat students living in Zurich
who handled the shipment of illegal publications to Russia. p. 60
84
This refers to the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad (see
Note 39). p. 60
85
The author of “Comments” was D. Ryazanov.
Ryazanov, David Borisovich (1870-1938)—participant in the
Social-Democratic movement of the nineties. In 1900 went abroad
and was one of the organisers of the Borba literary group, which
opposed the Party programme worked out by Iskra and Lenin’s
principles of Party organisation. The Second Congress of the
R.S.D.L.P. declared against the participation of the Borba group
in the Congress proceedings and rejected a motion inviting Ryaza-
nov to the Congress in the capacity of its representative.
In 1909 he was lecturer at the Capri school of the Vperyod
faction. p. 60
 NOTES 465
86
Listok Rabochevo Dyela (Rabocheye Dyelo Supplement)—a non-
periodic publication of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats
Abroad; appeared in Geneva in 1900-01. p. 60
87
This refers to members of the Iskra promotion group in Berlin. p. 61
88
See Note 57. p. 61
89
The revolutionary organisation Sotsial-Demokrat was formed by
members of the Emancipation of Labour group and their followers
in May 1900 after the split in the Union of Russian Social-Demo-
crats Abroad which took place at its Second Conference. In October
1901 Sotsial-Demokrat, on Lenin’s proposal, united with the
foreign section of the Iskra organisation into the League of Russian
Revolutionary Social-Democracy Abroad. p. 61
90
Lenin’s plan was carried out in October 1901, when the League of
Russian Revolutionary Social-Democracy Abroad was founded.
Affiliated to the League were the foreign section of the Iskra orga-
nisation, and the Sotsial-Demokrat organisation. The task of the
League was to disseminate the ideas of revolutionary Social-
Democracy and promote the building up of a militant Social-
Democratic organisation. The League was the representative abroad
of the Iskra organisation. It issued several bulletins and pamphlets
including Lenin’s To the Rural Poor (see Vol. 6 of this edition).
The R.S.D.L.P.’s Second Congress endorsed the League as the
only Party organisation abroad having the status of a committee
and working under the guidance and control of the Central Com-
mittee of the R.S.D.L.P. After the Second Congress the Menshe-
viks entrenched themselves in the League and launched a struggle
against the Bolsheviks. At the League’s second congress in October
1903 the Mensheviks slandered the Bolsheviks, upon which Lenin
and his followers walked out. The Mensheviks got new Rules
adopted, directed against the Party Rules approved by the Second
Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. From then on the League became a
stronghold of Menshevism. It existed until 1905. p. 61
91
Bauman, Nikolai Ernestovich (1873-1905)—a professional revo-
lutionary, prominent leader of the Bolshevik Party. Began his
revolutionary activities in the early nineties. In 1900 was one of
the founders of the Iskra organisation and worked in Moscow as
its agent in 1901-02. At the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.
joined the Bolsheviks. p. 65
92
The pseudonym “Leopold” has not been deciphered. Apparently
it was the code name given to the shipping group associated with
N. E. Bauman. p. 66
93
The Borba group was formed in Paris in the summer of 1900 and
consisted of D. B. Ryazanov, Y. M. Steklov and E. L. Gurevich.
466 NOTES

The name Borba (Struggle) was adopted by the group in May

1901. In an attempt to reconcile the revolutionary and opportunist
trends in Russian Social-Democracy, the Borba group took the
initiative in convening (in June 1901) the Geneva conference of
representatives of the Social-Democratic organisations abroad—
the Iskra and Zarya editorial board, the Sotsial-Demokrat organi-
sation, the Foreign Committee of the Bund and the Union of
Russian Social-Democrats Abroad—and took part in the “unity”
conference of the R.S.D.L.P.’s organisations abroad at Zurich
(September 21-22 [October 4-5], 1901). In November 1901 the
group issued a programmatic “Advertisement of the Publications
of the Social-Democratic Borba Group”. In its publications the
group distorted the revolutionary theory of Marxism, interpreted
it in a doctrinaire scholastic spirit and was hostile to Lenin’s
organisational principles for building up the Party. Owing to its
deviations from Social-Democratic views and tactics, its disruptive
activities and lack of contact with the Social-Democratic organi-
sations in Russia, the group was refused admission to the Second
Congress, by whose decision it was dissolved. p. 67
94
The Bund—the General Jewish Workers’ Union of Lithuania,
Poland and Russia—was organised at an inaugural congress of
Jewish Social-Democratic groups held in Vilna in 1897; it united
mostly semi-proletarian elements of the Jewish artisans in the
Western regions of Russia. At the First Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.
(1898) the Bund joined the Party “as an autonomous organisation,
independent only as far as questions affecting the Jewish proletariat
are concerned” (K.P.S.S. v rezolutsiyakh i resheniyakh syezdov,
konferentsii i plenumov TsK [The C.P.S.U. in the Resolutions and
Decisions of Its Congresses, Conferences and Plenums of the Central
Committee], Part I, 1954, p. 14).
The Bund brought nationalism and separatism into the Russian
working-class movement and took an opportunist stand on the
most important issues of the Social-Democratic movement. After
the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. rejected the Bund’s demand
that it be recognised as the sole representative of the Jewish pro-
letariat, the Bund left the Party, rejoining it in 1906 on the basis
of a decision of the Fourth (Unity) Congress.
Within the R.S.D.L.P. the Bundists constantly supported its
opportunist wing (the Economists, Mensheviks and liquidators)
and waged a struggle against the Bolsheviks and Bolshevism. To
the Bolshevik programme’s demand for the right of nations to self-
determination the Bund opposed the demand for autonomy of the
national culture. During the years of reaction (1907-10) the Bund
adopted a liquidators’ stand and took an active part in forming
the anti-Party August bloc. During the First World War (1914-18)
the Bundists took a social-chauvinist stand. In 1917 the Bund
supported the counter-revolutionary Provisional Government and
fought on the side of the enemies of the October Socialist Revolution,
its leaders joining forces with the counter-revolution during the
years of foreign military intervention and civil war. At the same
 NOTES 467

time a swing towards co-operation with the Soviet government was

to be observed among the Bund’s rank and file. In March 1921 the
Bund dissolved itself. p. 67
95
This letter is a postscript to N. K. Krupskaya’s letter.
Knipovich, Lydia Mikhailovna (1856-1920)—a professional rev-
olutionary, started her revolutionary activities in the seventies,
carried on extensive cultural and educational work among the
workers and played a prominent part in establishing Iskra’s con-
tacts with the local organisations in Russia. After the Second Con-
gress of the R.S.D.L.P. adhered to the Bolsheviks. p. 70
96
Lenin proposed setting up Iskra abroad, having a matrix made from
the type-setting and the matrix sent to Russia to be stereotyped
and printed. p. 70
97
This letter is a postscript to that of N. K. Krupskaya. p. 71
98
Calperin, L. Y. (1872-1951)—a Social-Democrat, joined the revo-
lutionary movement in 1898. While in exile, in Astrakhan Guber-
nia, he established contact with the Iskra organisation and was
sent to Baku as its agent in the spring of 1901, where he worked
at setting up the Baku Committee of the R.S.D.L.P., and an illegal
printing-press, and at organising the transportation of illegal lit-
erature from abroad and its distribution in Russia.
After the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. he joined the
Bolsheviks and for a time represented the editorial board of the
Party’s Central Organ on the Party Council and was afterwards
co-optated to the Central Committee. Adopted a conciliatory at-
titude towards Menshevism and was against convening the Third
Congress of the Party. Retired from active political work in 1906.
p. 72
99
Lenin refers to his visit to the Moscow Art Theatre with I. Lalay-
ants, of which he wrote to his mother M. A. Ulyanova in his letter
dated February 20, 1901. p. 72
100
Berdayev, Nikolai Alexandrovich (1874-1948)—a reactionary idealist
philosopher and publicist.
The reference here is to his article “The Fight for Idealism”,
published in the journal Mir Bozhy No. 6, for 1901. p. 74
101
Struvefreundliche Partei—the name by which Potresov and Zasulich
were jokingly called among the editorial staff of Iskra. p. 74
102
The reference is to the books: N. Shakhovskoi, Agricultural Outside
Employments, Moscow, 1896; N. I. Tezyakov, Agricultural Workers
and the Organisation of Sanitary Supervision Over Them in Kherson
Gubernia, Kherson, 1896. p. 74
103
The preface to Witte’s “memorandum” was written by P. B. Struve. Lenin
“trounced” Struve’s preface in Chapter V of his article “The
468 NOTES

Persecutors of the Zemstvo and the Hannibals of Liberalism” (see

Vol. 5 of this edition). p. 75
104
This refers to Nevzorov’s (Y. M. Steklov’s) article “And So, Where
Do We Begin?” directed against Lenin’s article “Where To Begin”
(see Vol. 5 of this edition). p. 75
105
Tsederbaum, Sergei Osipovich (1879-1939)—joined the Social-
Democratic movement in 1898. Worked on the organisation of
transport facilities for Iskra publications. After the Second Congress
of the R.S.D.L.P. became an active Menshevik. After the October
Socialist Revolution retired from political activities. p. 76
106
Yuzhny Rabochy (Southern Worker)—a Social-Democratic illegal
newspaper, published from January 1900 to April 1903 by a group
of this name. At the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. the group’s
delegates adopted a “Centre” position (that of “middling opportun-
ists”, as Lenin called the representatives of the Centre). The
Second Congress decided to dissolve the Yuzhny Rabochy group as
well as all separate Social-Democratic groups and organisations.
p. 76
107
The Sotsialist group was organised in St. Petersburg in the summer
of 1900. It was one of the groups that were dissatisfied with the
Economist tendency of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle, and
gave prominence to the political struggle. In January 1901 it
amalgamated with the Rabocheye Znamya group. The group broke
up after the arrests in the spring of 1901. p. 79
108
The Rabocheye Znamya group (Workers’ Banner) came into being
during the second half of 1897. It disapproved of Economism and
set itself the aim of conducting political propaganda among the
workers. It published the newspaper Rabocheye Znamya (three
issues were put out) and several pamphlets and leaflets. In January
1901 the St. Petersburg Rabocheye Znamya group amalgamated
with the Sotsialist group, but in the course of January-April the
members of the united group who were in Russia were arrested.
Most of the members of the St. Petersburg Rabocheye Znamya group
joined the Iskra organisation. p. 79
109
Volnoye Slovo (Free Word)—a weekly, and from issue No. 37 a
fortnightly publication which appeared in Geneva from 1881 to
1883; altogether 62 issues were put out. Founded for provocative
purposes with the knowledge of the Russian secret political police
by members of the Svyashchennaya Druzhina (Holy Squad)—a
secret organisation of the landed gentry and tsarist dignitaries
headed by Prince P. Shuvalov. Edited by the police agent A. P. Mal-
shinsky. p. 81
110
The reference is to Der Sozialdemokrat, Central Organ of the German
Social-Democrats, published illegally in Zurich and London from
1879 to 1890. p. 82
 NOTES 469
111
Die Neue Rheinische Zeitung—a daily, published in Cologne from
July 1, 1848, to May 19, 1849, edited by K. Marx. “No German
newspaper, before or since,” wrote Engels, “has ever had the same
power and influence or been able to electrify the proletarian masses
as effectively as the Neue Rheinische Zeitung” (Marx and Engels,
Selected Works, Vol. II, Moscow, 1962, pp. 336-37). In his article
“Karl Marx” Lenin called this newspaper “the finest and unsurpas-
sed organ of the revolutionary proletariat” (see present edition,
Vol. 21, p. 81). p. 82
112
This is a reply to Axelrod’s remarks on Lenin’s article “The Per-
secutors of the Zemstvo and the Hannibals of Liberalism” (see
Vol. 5 of this edition). p. 83
113
See Note 102. p. 85
114
This refers to Kalmykova’s bookstore in St. Petersburg, which was
used as a secret rendezvous by Social-Democrats. p. 85
115
This refers to V. Kuleman’s book The Trade Union Movement, an
Essay on the Trade Union Organisation of the Workers and Asso-
ciations of Employers in All Countries, St. P., 1901. p. 85
116
Dragomanov, Mikhail Petrovich (1841-1895)—Ukrainian historian,
ethnographer and publicist, a bourgeois liberal. He was assistant
professor at Kiev University; contributed to liberal journals. p. 85
117
The reference is to Engels’s article “Zur Kritik des sozialdemokra-
tischen Programmentwurfes 1891”. p. 87
118
Lenin refers to his trip to Zurich to attend the “unity” conference
of the R.S.D.L.P.’s organisations abroad: Iskra-Zarya, Sotsial-
Demokrat (including the Emancipation of Labour group), the
Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad, the Bund and the
Borba group. The conference was held on September 21-22 (October
4-5), 1901. p. 87
119
The articles referred to were: F. Engels “Zur Kritik des sozialde-
mokratischen Programmentwurfes 1891” (Die Neue Zeit No. 1
for October 2, 1901); K. Kautsky “Die Revision des Programms der
Sozialdemocratie in Oesterreich” (Die Neue Zeit No. 3 for October
16, 1901). p. 88
120
This refers to the review of the book Aus dem literarischen Nachlass
von Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels und Ferdinand Lassalle. Heraus-
gegeben von Franz Mehring. I. Gesammelte Schriften von Karl
Marx und Friedrich Engels. Von März 1841 bis März 1844. Stutt-
gart, Verlag von I.H.W. Dietz Nachfolger 1902. p. 88
121
See Note 162. p. 88
122
The five points indicate where this letter was to be sent. Point 4
refers to the Tver Social-Democratic organisation, the letter for
which was forwarded to the address of A. Bakunin. Point 5, given
470 NOTES

in quotes, is the title of a letter received from an Iskra represen-

tative in Russia. This letter was published by Lenin in full in his
article “A Talk with Defenders of Economism” (see Vol. 5 of this
edition). Under this point Lenin meant the Iskra representative
from whom the letter had been received. p. 90
123
By the “conflict abroad” Lenin meant the incident at the “unity”
conference of R.S.D.L.P.’s organisations abroad, which the mem-
bers of Iskra, Zarya and Sotsial-Demokrat walked out. p. 90
124
Smidovich, Inna Germogenovna—a Social-Democrat. From the
first day of Iskra’s organisation until the arrival of N. K. Krupskaya
in Geneva in April 1901 she discharged the duties of secretary of
the Editorial board, and afterwards handled literature shipments
across the frontier. p. 92
125
Vperyod—a newspaper of an Economist trend, published in Kiev
in 1896-1900. p. 92
126
Goldman, L. I. (1877-1939)—joined the revolutionary movement
in 1893. In 1900 went abroad, where he joined the Iskra organisa-
tion. In May 1901 organised an illegal printing-press in Kishinev,
where Iskra and other Social-Democratic publications were printed.
Was arrested in 1902 and escaped from exile in 1905; was secretary
of the Menshevik Iskra editorial board.
After the October Socialist Revolution he worked as business
executive and engaged in publishing activities. p. 93
127
An Iskra illegal printing-press, organised at Kishinev, printed
various issues of the newspaper for distribution in Russia. Lenin’s
letter refers to the report about the Kishinev press having printed
issue No. 10 of Iskra. p. 93
128
This apparently refers to I. B. Basovsky, who organised a dispatch
office in Kiev in August 1901 to handle Iskra literature arriving
from abroad; this office also distributed all the literature printed
in Kishinev. p. 93
129
Iskra No. 13 for December 20, 1901, featured Lenin’s article “Dem-
onstrations Have Begun” (see Vol. 5 of this edition). p. 93
130
See Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. II, Moscow, 1962,
p. 35. p. 94
131
Conrad’s Jahrbücher—Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statis-
tik—a periodical published in Jena from 1863 by the bourgeois
economist J. Conrad. p. 94
132
Torgovo-Promyshlennaya Gazeta (Commercial Industrial Gazette)—
a daily supplement to Vestnik Finansov, Promyshlennosti i Torgovli
(Finance, Industry and Trade Herald); published in St. Petersburg
 NOTES 471

from 1893 to 1918. From 1894 onward was issued as an independent

publication. p. 94
133
Erfurt programme—the programme of the German Social-Democr-
atic Party adopted at the Congress in Erfurt in October 1891.
See Engels’s article, Note 117. p. 96
134
The text of the commission’s draft programme was the result of
the work of the co-ordinating commission appointed by the Iskra
editorial board to draft up a unified draft programme of the
R.S.D.L.P. on the basis of Lenin’s and Plekhanov’s previous drafts.
The members of the Iskra editorial board were to give their com-
ments on the commission’s draft, and the co-ordinating commission
was to draw up a final draft programme. The commission’s draft
was endorsed by the members of the Iskra editorial board in Zurich
on April 14, 1902, in Lenin’s absence. p. 98
135
Lenin here refers to Iskra’s removal from Munich to London. p. 100
136
Pridneprovsky Krai (Dnieper Region)—a scientific, literary, political
and economic daily, published in Ekaterinoslav from 1901. p. 100
137
Krzhizhanovsky, Gleb Maximilianovich (1872-1959)—veteran lead-
ing member of the Communist Party, well-known Soviet scientist,
power engineer, joined the revolutionary movement in 1893. In
December 1895 he was arrested and exiled to Siberia for three
years. Upon his return in 1901 he settled in Samara, where he hel-
ped to organise an Iskra centre. In the autumn of 1902 he was elect-
ed to the Organising Committee for convening the Second Congress
of the R.S.D.L.P. At the Congress, in his absence, he was elected
to the Central Committee. Took an active part in t h e r e v o l u t i o n
of 1905-07. p. 101
138
Sasha—name used to denote the Conference of R.S.D.L.P. Com-
mittees held at Byelostok on March 23-28 (April 5-10), 1902. The
Conference set up an Organising Committee for convening the
Second Congress of the Party. p. 101
139
Lenin refers to the preparations for the Second Congress of the
Party. p. 102
140
Lenin refers to the beginning of the disagreements in connection
with the drafting of the Party programme, the first discussion of
which took place at a meeting of the Iskra editorial board in Munich
on January 21, 1902. At this meeting Lenin sharply criticised the
first draft of the programme drawn up by Plekhanov and submitted
his own amendments and proposals. p. 104
141
Socialist-Revolutionaries (S.R.s)—a petty-bourgeois party in Rus-
sia, formed at the end of 1901 and beginning of 1902 through the
amalgamation of various Narodnik groups and circles. The S.R.s
472 NOTES

saw no class distinctions between the proletariat and the peasantry,

glossed over the class differentiation and antagonism within the
peasantry and denied the leading role of the proletariat in the
revolution. The tactics of individual terrorism which the S.R.s
advocated as the principal method of fighting the autocracy caused
great harm to the revolutionary movement and made it difficult
to organise the masses for revolutionary struggle.
The agrarian programme of the S.R.s envisaged the abolition
of private ownership of the land and its transfer to the village com-
munes on the basis of equalised tenure, as well as the development
of all forms of co-operation. There was nothing socialistic in this
programme, which the S.R.s sought to present as a programme for
“socialising the land”, since abolition of private ownership of the
land alone, as Lenin pointed out, cannot abolish the domination of
capital and the poverty of the masses.
The Bolsheviks exposed the S.R.s’ attempts to pose as socialists,
fought hard with them for influence over the peasantry and showed
how harmful their tactics of individual terrorism were to the work-
ing-class movement. At the same time, they were prepared, on
certain conditions, to make temporary agreements with the S.R.s
in the struggle against tsarism.
The absence of class homogeneousness among the peasantry was
responsible for the political and ideological instability and the
organisational confusion in the S.R. party, and for its constant
vacillation between the liberal bourgeoisie and the proletariat .There
had been a split in the Socialist-Revolutionary Party during the
first Russian revolution, its Right wing forming the legal Trudovik
Popular Socialist Party, which held views close to those of the
Cadets, and the Left wing taking shape as the semi-anarchist
league of Maximalists. During the years of reaction (1907-10) the
S.R. party suffered a complete ideological and organisational
break-down, and the First World War found most of the S.R.s
taking a social-chauvinist stand.
After the victory of the February bourgeois-democratic revo-
lution in 1917 the S.R.s, together with the Mensheviks and Cadets,
were the mainstay of the counter-revolutionary Provisional Gov-
ernment of the bourgeoisie and landowners (the party’s leaders
Kerensky, Avksentyev and Chernov were members of that govern-
ment). The Left wing of the S.R.s founded an independent party
of Left Socialist-Revolutionaries at the end of November 1917.
In an effort to maintain their influence among the peasant masses,
the Left S.R.s formally recognised the Soviet power and entered
into an agreement with the Bolsheviks, but shortly afterwards
turned against the Soviet power.
During the foreign military intervention and civil war the
S.R.s carried on subversive counter-revolutionary activities,
strongly supported the interventionists and whiteguards, took part
in counter-revolutionary plots, and organised terrorist acts against
leaders of the Soviet state and the Communist Party. After the
civil war, the S.R.s continued their hostile activity against the
Soviet state. p. 105
 NOTES 473
142
Lenin met his mother in France, and not in Germany. From the
second half of June to July 25, 1902, Lenin lived at Loguivy (North-
ern coast of France) with his mother and his sister A. I. Ulyanova-
Yelizarova. p. 105
143
Leiteisen, Gavriil Davidovich (1874-1919)--a Social-Democrat
contributor to Iskra and Zarya. Started revolutionary activities
in the nineties, at the beginning of the twentieth century emigrated
abroad, where he joined the Emancipation of Labour group and
then became a member of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats
Abroad. After the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. joined the
Bolsheviks, and contributed to the newspapers Vperyod, Proletary
and other Bolshevik organs. p. 106
144
Smidovich, Pyotr Germogenovich (1874-1935)—Social-Democrat,
Iskrist; after the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.—a Bolshevik.
By profession an electrical engineer. Started his revolutionary
activities in St. Petersburg in the late nineties; at first was inclined
towards Economism, and then joined Iskra. At the end of 1900 was
arrested and in 1901 deported abroad; was a member of the League
of Russian Revolutionary Social-Democracy Abroad. In 1905
worked in the Moscow District Committee of the Party. After
the October Socialist Revolution occupied important administra-
tive and business posts. p. 108
145
Noskov, Vladimir Alexandrovich (1878-1913)—a Social-Democrat.
In the late nineties joined the St. Petersburg League of Struggle
for the Emancipation of the Working Class. In April 1902 attended
the Zurich meeting of the Iskra editorial board where the Party’s
draft programme was discussed. In 1902-03 organised the transpor-
tation of illegal Social-Democratic literature to Russia and took
part in organising the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. At the
Second Congress joined the Bolsheviks and was elected to the
Central Committee; after the Congress adopted a conciliatory atti-
tude towards the Mensheviks, came out against the convocation of
the Third Congress. p. 110
146
Osvobozhdeniye (Emancipation)—a fortnightly, published abroad
from June 18 (July 1), 1902 to October 5 (18), 1905, edited by
P. B. Struve. The journal was the organ of the Russian liberal
bourgeoisie and expounded the ideas of moderate-monarchist
liberalism. In 1903 the Osvobozhdeniye League formed around the
journal (officially it came into existence in January 1904). The
League existed up till October 1905. p. 112
147
Lenin here refers to the members of the Borba group (see Note 93).
p. 112
148
Semyon Semyonovich—a code name for the Northern League of the
R.S.D.L.P. (or the Northern Labour League), which arose in
1900-01. The League united the Social-Democratic organisations
474 NOTES

of the Vladimir, Yaroslavl and Kostroma gubernias. From the

outset the Northern League was linked with Iskra and supported
the latter’s political line and plan of organisation.
After the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. the Northern
Labour League was reconstituted as the Northern Committee of
the R.S.D.L.P., the local committees becoming groups of the
Northern Committee. At the conference of Northern organisations
of the R.S.D.L.P. held in Kostroma in July 1905 the Northern
Committee was liquidated and separate committees were formed
in Ivanovo-Voznesensk, Yaroslavl and Kostroma. p. 113
149
Levin, E. Y. (born 1873)—a Social-Democrat, one of the leaders of
the Yuzhny Rabochy group, a member of Yuzhny Rabochy editorial
board. At the Pskov meeting of the Organising Committee for
convening the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (November 1902)
was elected a member of the O.C. At the Second Congress adopted
a centrist stand; after the Congress joined the Mensheviks. In Sep-
tember 1903 he was arrested and subsequently retired from political
activity. p. 114
150
This refers to the members of the group and editorial board of the
newspaper Yuzhny Rabochy who remained at large after the mass
arrests in the spring of 1902. In August 1902 they entered into
negotiations with the editorial board of Iskra for joint work to
restore the unity of Russian Social-Democracy. The declaration of
solidarity with Iskra by members of the Yuzhny Rabochy group
(published in Iskra No. 27, for November 1, 1902 and in Yuzhny
Rabochy No. 10, for December 1902) was of great importance in
consolidating the ranks of Social-Democracy in Russia. In Novem-
ber 1902 the Yuzhny Rabochy group, together with the Iskra orga-
nisation in Russia, the St. Petersburg Committee of the R.S.D.L.P.
and the Northern League of the R.S.D.L.P., took part in setting
up the Organising Committee for convening the Second Congress
of the R.S.D.L.P. and participated in its activities. p. 114
151
Chernyshev, I. V.—a Social-Democrat, wavering between the
Economists and Iskrists, member of the Yuzhny Rabochy group.
In August 1902 he went abroad, where he negotiated with the Iskra
editorial board for joint work in uniting the Party. In April 1903
joined the Economists and declared himself an adherent of the
Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad. p. 114
152
The League of Southern Committees and Organisations of the
R.S.D.L.P. was formed in December 1901 at a conference of
representatives of the Social-Democratic committees and organi-
sations in the South of Russia (Ekaterinoslav, Nikolayev, Odessa,
Kharkov and Kishinev) on the initiative of the Yuzhny Rabochy
group. The conference elected a Central Committee of the League
and declared the newspaper Yuzhny Rabochy to be its central organ.
The group’s attempt (in opposition to the Iskra plan of creating in
Russia a centralised Marxist party with the aid of an all-Russia
 NOTES 475

political newspaper) to restore the R.S.D.L.P. by setting up region-

al Social-Democratic associations proved impracticable, and after
the mass police raids in the spring of 1902 the League disintegrated.
p. 114
153
Krasnukha, V. P. (1868-1913)—a Social-Democrat, an Iskrist;
since 1899 worked in the St. Petersburg Social-Democratic organi-
sation; at the beginning of April 1902 represented the St. Petersburg
League of Struggle at the Byelostok Conference. In November 1902
attended the Pskov meeting of the Organising Committee for con-
vening the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. at which he was
elected a member.
Stasova, Yelena Dmitrievna (born 1873)—veteran of the revo-
lutionary movement, member of the Bolshevik Party since 1898.
In 1902-03 a member of the St. Petersburg Committee. From August
1905 to January 1906 carried out Party assignments in Geneva.
p. 116
154
Bouncer (Vyshibalo)—pseudonym of Tokarev, leader of the St.
Petersburg Economists. As a member of the St. Petersburg League
of Struggle, Tokarev protested against the July declaration of the
St. Petersburg Committee recognising Iskra and Zarya as the leading
organs of Russian Social-Democracy. He also demanded that the
representative of the Iskra organisation be expelled from the com-
mittee of the St. Petersburg League of Struggle. p. 116
155
This refers to the July declaration of the R.S.D.L.P.’s St. Peters-
burg Committee announcing solidarity with the newspaper Iskra
and the journal Zarya and recognising them as the leading organs
of Russian Social-Democracy. This declaration was issued in July
1902 in the form of a separate leaflet and subsequently printed in
Iskra No. 26 for October 15, 1902. p. 117
156
Krasikov, Pyotr Ananievich (1870-1939)—professional revolution-
ary, Bolshevik. Started his revolutionary activities in 1892 and
joined the Iskra organisation in 1900. At the Pskov meeting of the
Organising Committee for convening the Second Congress of the
R.S.D.L.P. (November 1902) he was elected a member of the O.C.
At the Second Congress (1903) joined the Bolsheviks. After the
Congress took an active part in the fight against the Mensheviks.
In August 1904 attended the meeting of the 22 Bolsheviks in
Geneva. Took an active part in the revolution of 1905-07. p. 118
157
This refers to the meeting of the Iskra editorial board with repre-
sentatives of the St. Petersburg Committee of the R.S.D.L.P.,
the Iskra organisation in Russia and the Northern League of the
R.S.D.L.P. held on August 15, 1902. At this meeting an Iskrist
nucleus of the Organising Committee for convening the Second
Congress of the Party was set up. p. 118
158
Meaning Krasnukha and Krasikov. p. 118
476 NOTES

159
The Organising Committee (O.C.) for convening the Second Congress
of the R.S.D.L.P. was set up on Lenin’s initiative at a meeting of
S.D. committees in Pskov on November 2-3, 1902. The Iskrists
formed a preponderant majority on the new committee. P. A. Kra-
sikov, F. V. Lengnik, P. N. Lepeshinsky and G. M. Krzhizhanovsky
were co-opted to the O.C. on behalf of the Iskra organisation in
Russia, and A. M. Stopani on behalf of the Northern League of
the R.S.D.L.P. p. 118
160
Fyokla—secret code name for the Iskra editorial board. p. 120
161
Meaning the Bund (see Note 94). p. 120
162
The Svoboda group, calling themselves the “revolutionary-socialist”
group, was founded by E. O. Zelensky (Nadezhdin) in May 1901.
Lenin described this group as one of those “small and rootless groups”
which “had no stable or serious principles, programme, tactics
organisation, and no roots among the masses” (see Vol. 20, pp. 356
and 357, of this edition). The group published a journal Svoboda
(Freedom) in Switzerland (two numbers were issued: No. 1 in 1901
and No. 2 in 1902). The Svoboda group advocated the ideas of
terrorism and Economism, and in a bloc with the St. Petersburg
Economists came out against Iskra and the St. Petersburg Com-
mittee of the R.S.D.L.P. The group ceased to exist in 1903. p. 121
163
This refers to the Amsterdam Congress of the Second International
planned to be held in 1903. It was held in August 1904. p. 121
164
This refers to Plekhanov’s article against the article by K. Tarasov
(pseudonym of N. S. Rusanov, a Narodnik publicist) published in
the Socialist-Revolutionary journal Vestnik Russkoi Revolutsii
p. 123
165
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya (Revolutionary Russia)—an illegal news-
paper of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, published in Russia from
the end of 1900. From January 1902 to December 1905 it came out
abroad (Geneva) as the official organ of the S.R. party. p. 124
166
This refers to the forthcoming meeting of the International Socialist
Bureau, which was held in Brussels on December 29, 1902. Plekha-
nov did not attend the meeting. p. 124
167
Lenin probably refers to his London lecture of November 29, 1902,
on the subject of S.R. programme and tactics. p. 124
168
Zhiznites members of the Zhizn Social-Democratic group (see Note
37). p. 124
169
Krasnoye Znamya (Red Banner)—a journal, organ of the Econo-
mists published in Geneva by the Union of Russian Social-Demo-
 NOTES 477

crats Abroad from November 1902 to January 1903 in place of

Rabocheye Dyelo. Three numbers of the journal were published.
p. 124
170
Lavrov, V. I.—a Social-Democrat, Iskrist; from November 1902
was stand-in to Y. D. Stasova on the St. Petersburg Committee
in case of her arrest. In 1903 was in charge of technical arrangements
for the St. Petersburg Committee; conducted correspondence with
Iskra.
Re: Stasova, see Note 153. p. 126
171
This refers to the St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Eman-
cipation of the Working Class organised by Lenin in the autumn
of 1895. In December 1895 the tsarist government dealt the League
a severe blow by arresting a considerable number of its leading
members, Lenin included. The long absence of the League’s foun-
ders, who were exiled to Siberia, facilitated the prosecution of an
opportunist policy on the part of the “young” members and the
Economists, who, from 1897, through the newspaper Rabochaya
Mysl, implanted on Russian soil the ideas of trade-unionism and
Bernsteinism. In the second half of 1898 control of the League
passed to the most outspoken of the Economists—the Rabochaya
Mysl adherents. The old surviving members of the League took part
in preparing and holding the First Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.
In the autumn of 1900 the League of Struggle amalgamated with
the St. Petersburg Workers’ Organisation, and was recognised as
the St. Petersburg Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. The struggle
between the Iskrists and Economists in the St. Petersburg Organi-
sation ended in the summer of 1902 with the St. Petersburg Com-
mittee of the R.S.D.L.P. adopting an Iskra stand. p. 126
172
Workers’ Organisation—an organisation of supporters of Economism
which arose in St. Petersburg in the summer of 1900. In the autumn
of the same year it amalgamated with the League of Struggle for
the Emancipation of the Working Class, and the St. Petersburg
Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. was formed, consisting of two parts:
the Committee proper, and the Committee of the Workers’ Orga-
nisation. With the Iskra trend gaining the ascendancy in the
St. Petersburg Social-Democratic organisation (1902) the group of
Economist-minded Social-Democrats broke away from the St.
Petersburg Committee and again set up an independent Workers’
Organisation, which existed until the beginning of 1904. p. 126
173
Lengnik, Friedrich Wilhelmovich (1873-1936)—a professional revo-
lutionary Bolshevik, joined the Social-Democratic movement in
1893. In 1896 was arrested in connection with the activities of the
St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the
Working Class and exiled to Eastern Siberia. On his return from
exile joined the Iskra organisation; at the Pskov meeting of the
Organising Committee for convening the Second Congress of the
R.S.D.L.P. (November 1902) was elected a member of the O.C.
478 NOTES

At the Congress was elected, in his absence, to the Central Com-

mittee and Council of the Party. In 1903-04 took an active part
in the fight against the Mensheviks abroad. p. 128
174
Babushkin, Ivan Vasilyevich (1873-1906)—a professional revolution-
ary, started revolutionary activities in 1893. An active member
of the St. Petersburg and Ekaterinoslav Leagues of Struggle for
the Emancipation of the Working Class. Took an active part in
organising the Leninist newspaper Iskra (1900). An active partic-
ipant in the revolution of 1905-07. p. 129
175
Lenin received a letter from Babushkin asking him to make out
a question paper for “examining” members of the propagandist group,
that is, to ascertain their position in regard to Iskra principles.
p. 129
176
Zubatov organisation pursued a policy of “police socialism” initiated
by S. V. Zubatov, a Colonel of the Gendarmes and Chief of the
Moscow Secret Political Police, under which legal workers’ orga-
nisations were set up during 1901-03 for the purpose of diverting
the workers from the political struggle against the autocracy. p. 129
177
Lenin refers to the two leaflets (that of September and October)
of the Workers’ Organisation Committee quoted in the article
“The St. Petersburg Split” published in Iskra No. 30, for December
15, 1902.
The September leaflet was previously published in the “Sup-
plement” to Otkliki (Comments) No. 1, December 1902, issued by
the Svoboda group in Geneva. p. 131
178
Krasnukha, V. P., the St. Petersburg member of the O.C., was
arrested in November 1902. p. 132
179
The reference is to the pamphlet Listok Rabochikh Kass (Issue 2
published by the organised workers of Kharkov) and the hecto-
graphed journal Kharkovsky Proletary published in October 1901.
p. 134
180
Issue No. 16 of Rabochaya Mysl for November-December 1902
contained “A Protest of the Workers’ Organisation Committee”
against the statement of the St. Petersburg Committee of the
R.S.D.L.P. recognising the newspaper Iskra and the journal Zarya
as the leading organs of the Party. The same issue published a
letter of the Workers’ Organisation Committee to the Svoboda
group and the Otkliki editorial board expressing gratitude for their
sympathy and readiness to give support. The Rabochaya Mysl
Listki were issued by the Iskrist St. Petersburg Committee in
December 1902 and January 1903 in place of the newspaper Rabo-
chaya Mysl. Listok No. 1 was destroyed by decision of the Com-
mittee in view of its unhappy wording. p. 135
 NOTES 479
181
The secret code name for Iskra’s Baku group. p. 137
182
Meaning N. K. Krupskaya. p. 137
183
This refers to the Bureau of the Organising Committee for con-
vening the Second Congress of the Party. p. 138
184
Simultaneously with this letter Lenin wrote the “Draft Appeal
of the Russian Organising Committee to the League of Russian
Revolutionary Social-Democracy, the Union of Russian Social-
Democrats Abroad and the Foreign Committee of the Bund” (see
Vol. 6 of this edition) and sent it on February 5 to Martov in Paris
to be discussed with the members of the Russian Organising Com-
mittee P. A. Krasikov and V. A. Noskov, who had arrived there
(see p. 141 of this volume). p. 139
185
Martov, L. —pseudonym of Tsederbaum, Y. O. (1873-1923)—
joined the Social-Democratic movement in the nineties. In 1895
took part in organising the St. Petersburg League of Struggle for
the Emancipation of the Working Class. In 1900 helped to prepare
the publication of Iskra as a member of its editorial board. At the
Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (1903) became minority (Men-
shevik) leader, and from then on was one of the leaders of the Men-
sheviks’ central bodies and an editor of their publications. After
the October Socialist Revolution opposed the Soviet power. Emi-
grated to Germany in 1920. p. 141
186
The Foreign Section of the Organising Committee consisted of
L. G. Deutsch, representing the Iskra editorial board, A. I. Kremer
representing the Bund, and N. N. Lokhov (Olkhin) representing
the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad. p. 141
187
Meaning the Yuzhny Rabochy group. (See Note 106.) p. 142
188
The Nizhni-Novgorod Committee decided not to appeal against the
sentence passed on the workers of Sormovo and Nizhni-Novgorod
in connection with the May Day demonstration of 1902. p. 144
189
The leaflet “To All Nizhni-Novgorodians issued by the Nizhni-
Novgorod Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. was disseminated in the
city two days before the trial of the workers, which was held on
October 29-31, 1902. p. 145
190
Lenin refers to the dispute following his lecture in Paris on March
3-6, 1903, on the agrarian programme of the Socialist-Revolution-
aries and the Russian Social-Democrats. Nevzorov (Y. M. Steklov)
was one of Lenin’s opponents in this dispute. p. 147
191
This refers to P. Maslov’s book The Agrarian Question in Russia,
Vol. I, the first edition of which appeared in 1903. p. 150
480 NOTES

192
Lenin is referring to his lectures at the Russian School of Social
Sciences and at the meeting of Russian political emigrants, which
he read in Paris in February 1903. p. 150
193
This refers to the book Sozialismus und Landwirtschaft by E. David.
The reference to Kautsky concerns his article “Sozialismus und
Landwirtschaft” (Die Neue Zeit Nos. 22-26 for February and March
1903) in which he examines this book. p. 150
194
The Polish Social-Democrats’ statement of solidarity with the
R.S.D.L.P. did not appear in Iskra. Representatives of the Polish
Social-Democratic Party attended the Second Congress as non-
voting delegates. p. 152
195
The Bund’s attack on the Ekaterinoslav Committee of the
R.S.D.L.P. is fully dealt with in Lenin’s article “Does the Jewish
Proletariat Need an ‘Independent Political Party’?” (see Vol. 6
of this edition). p. 153
196
See Note 186. p. 154
197
Alexandrova, Yekaterina Mikhailovna (1864-1943)—joined the
revolutionary movement in 1890. In 1902, during her residence
abroad, joined the Iskra organisation, then worked as its agent in
Russia. At the Orel meeting of the O.C. for convening the Second
Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (February 1903) was elected to the
O.C.; at the Congress she joined the Mensheviks; after the Congress
became an active Menshevik. After the October Socialist Revolu-
tion worked in cultural and educational institutions. p. 156
198
The “den” was the common room in the London flat shared by
V. I. Zasulich, Y. O. Martov and I. S. Blumenfeld, so called on
account of its constantly disorderly state. p. 156
199
Meaning the Yuzhny Rabochy group. (See Note 106.) p. 156
200
P.P.S. (Polska Partia Socjalistyczna)—the Polish Socialist Party,
a reformist nationalist party founded in 1892. p. 156
201
Kalmykova, Alexandra Mikhailovna (1849-1926)—a progressive
public worker; ran a bookstore in 1889-1902, which served as a
rendezvous for Social-Democrats; rendered financial aid to Iskra
and Zarya. In 1902 she was deported abroad for three years; after
the split in the Party she gave financial aid to the Bolsheviks.
p. 160
202
By “Californian” sources Lenin is apparently referring to the finan-
cial aid which Iskra had been regularly receiving. These sources
have not been ascertained. p. 163
203
This refers to the financial aid for Iskra. p. 163
 NOTES 481
204
Meaning the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. held on July
17 (30)-August 10 (23), 1903, first in Brussels, then in London. p. 164
205
This refers to P. B. Axelrod. p. 165
206
Yegors, Yegor’s countries—Martov’s followers, Mensheviks living
in Geneva. p. 167
207
This refers to the appointment of two representatives of the Central
Committee to the Party Council, in accordance with the Rules
adopted at the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. p. 167
208
The law on factory stewards was passed on June 10, 1903. Lenin
dealt in detail with this law in his article “An Era of Reforms”
(see Vol. 6 of this edition). p. 171
209
Manifesto of Rabochaya Volya—a declaration by the Odessa Social-
Democratic Union Rabochaya Volya recognising the correctness of
Iskra views and tactics, announcing adherence to the Odessa Com-
mittee of the R.S.D.L.P. and closing the Union as a result of it.
The Manifesto was published in Iskra No. 50 for October 15, 1903.
p. 172
210
This letter was sent also to P. B. Axelrod, V. I. Zasulich, A. N. Pot-
resov (Old Believer) and L. D. Trotsky with the omission of the
second and sixth (last) paragraphs.
Lenin wrote on the envelope “Very important. Copy of my and
Plekhanov’s letter to Martov & Co. dated October 6, 1903 and
Martov’s reply”. p. 174
211
The state of affairs in the Caucasus in connection with the behav-
iour of the Tiflis delegate Topuridze (Isari), who deserted to the
Mensheviks after the Second Congress, is fully dealt with in Lenin’s
letter to the Caucasian Union Committee (see pp. 179-80 of this
volume). p. 177
212
This refers to the Central Committee’s announcement (report)
concerning the Party’s Second Congress which had been held; the
draft announcement had been sent to Russia. p. 178
213
The three persons mentioned here by their pseudonyms were dele-
gates of the Caucasian union committees at the Second Congress
of the R.S.D.L.P.: B. M. Knunyants, representing the Baku Com-
mittee, A. G. Zurabov, representing the Batum Committee and
Topuridze, representing the Tiflis Committee. The first two adhered
to the Majority (Bolsheviks) at the Congress and after it, while the
latter wavered at the Congress and afterwards supported the
Minority (Mensheviks). p. 179
214
This refers to the resolution adopted by the Don Committee on the
results of the Party’s Second Congress. p. 181
482 NOTES

215
This refers to the resolution adopted by the Committee of the
Mining and Metallurgical Workers’ Union on the results of
Party’s Second Congress. p. 182
216
See Note 90. p. 186
217
This refers to Lenin’s statement of resignation from the Party
Council and from the editorial board of the Central Organ (see
Vol. 7 of this edition, p. 91). p. 189
218
This refers to the report concerning the Second Congress of the
Party. See Note 212. p. 190
219
Lyadov, Martyn Nikolayevich (1872-1947)—professional revolution-
ary. Began revolutionary activities in 1891. At the Second Congress
of the R.S.D.L.P.—a Bolshevik, afterwards carried on an active
struggle against the Mensheviks in Russia and abroad. Took an
active part in the revolution of 1905-07. p. 193
220
This refers to I. I. and L. I. Axelrod. p. 195
221
Schweitzer, J . B . (1833-1875)—leader of the Lassalleans in the
German labour movement in the sixties; dictatorially ruled the
General German Workers’ Union and strongly opposed the Eisen-
achers, headed by Bebel and Liebknecht. p. 200
222
Lenin wrote this letter for F. V. Lengnik, the representative of the
Central Committee abroad. p. 202
223
This refers to the C.C.’s negotiations with the Mensheviks con-
cerning the situation which arose within the Party after the Second
Congress. p. 202
224
Moskovskiye Vedomosti (Moscow Recorder)—one of the oldest Rus-
sian newspapers, originally issued (in 1756) as a small sheet by
Moscow University. In 1863 it became a monarcho-nationalist
mouthpiece reflecting the views of the most reactionary sections
of the landowners and the clergy. From 1905 onwards was one of
the leading organs of the Black Hundreds. Continued to appear
until the October Socialist Revolution in 1917. p. 202
225
The reference is to the Central Committee’s ultimatum presented
to the Mensheviks on November 25, 1903, the chief points of which
were set forth by Lenin in his letter to the C.C. dated November 4,
1903 (see p. 187 of this volume). With strong support from Plekha-
nov, who, the very next day after the ultimatum, co-opted all the
old editors to the editorial board of the Central Organ, the Men-
sheviks rejected the C.C.’s ultimatum and declared open war against
the Majority of the Party.
An appraisal of the C.C.’s ultimatum was given by Lenin in his
book One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (see Vol. 7 of this edition).
p. 202
 NOTES 483
226
The C.C.’s Executive Committee was set up in the second half
of October 1903 and consisted of three C.C. members—G. M. Krzhi-
zhanovsky, L. B. Krasin and F. V. Gusarov. p. 204
227
This refers to the publication of material concerning the C.C.’s
negotiations with the Menshevik (Geneva) opposition abroad.
p. 205
228
Vilonov, Nikifor Yefremovich (1883-1910)—professional revolution-
ary. Began his revolutionary activities in 1901. In 1902 joined the
Kiev Social-Democratic organisation, became a supporter of
Iskra. After the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (1903)—a Bol-
shevik. Took an active part in the revolution of 1905-07. p. 207
229
Vilonov’s letter, slightly abridged, was published by Lenin in his
“Postscript to the Pamphlet A Letter to a Comrade on Our Organisa-
tional Tasks” (see Vol. 7 of this edition). p. 207
230
The three persons were G. M. Krzhizhanovsky, F. V. Lengnik and
V. A. Noskov. p. 209
231
On Krzhizhanovsky’s return from abroad and on the basis of his
report concerning the results of the negotiations with the Menshe-
viks, the C.C. circulated a letter to the local committees which
played down the acute Party struggle and advocated a conciliatory
policy towards the Mensheviks. p. 211
232
Lenin wrote this letter for Lengnik, the C.C.’s representative
abroad. p. 213
233
This refers to the resolution passed by the editorial board of the
new, Menshevik, Iskra concerning the publication as a separate
sheet of Lenin’s letter “Why I Resigned from the Iskra Editorial
Board” (see Vol. 7 of this edition). p. 213
234
This letter is a postscript to the previous letter of December 30,
1903, both being dispatched on January 5, 1904. p. 218
235
This refers to Axelrod’s article “The Unity of Russian Social-
Democracy and Its Tasks”, published in Iskra Nos. 55 and 57.
Lenin here refers to the first part of this article published in issue
No. 55 under the sub-heading “Liquidation of Primitivism Summed
Up”. p. 218
236
Meaning the publication of material concerning the C.C.’s nego-
tiations with the Menshevik (Geneva) opposition. p. 222
237
This letter was an insertion to the rough copy of Lengnik’s letter
sent in reply to that of Y. O. Martov. p. 223
238
This and the next letter were written for Lengnik, the C.C.’s rep-
resentative abroad. p. 224
484 NOTES

239
This letter is an addition to the letter of N. K. Krupskaya on the
subject of Stake’s (Lengnik’s) non-withdrawal from the C.C. p. 237
240
This refers to Lenin’s agreement with Noskov, who had arrived
in the capacity of the C.C.’s representative abroad and its second
member on the Party Council to replace Lengnik, who had returned
to Russia; the agreement covered joint action by Noskov and Lenin
abroad on behalf of the C.C. and was signed on May 13 (26) in the
presence of a third member of the C.C., M. M. Essen, who was abroad
at the time (see Vol. 7, pp. 430-31, of this edition). p. 238
241
Krasin, Leonid Borisovich (1870-1926)—prominent Soviet states-
man, joined the Social-Democratic movement in the nineties. After
the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (1903)—a Bolshevik; co-
opted to the C.C. of the Party, where he adopted a conciliatory
attitude towards the Mensheviks and helped to co-optate three of
their representatives on the C.C. Shortly afterwards, however, he
broke with the Mensheviks. An active participant in the first
Russian revolution. p. 240
242
The reference is to D. S. Postolovsky, Russian Social-Democrat,
agent of the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P. from the spring of 1904. A con-
ciliator. p. 240
243
Soft members—C.C. members, conciliators: V. A. Noskov, L. Y. Gal-
perin and L. B. Krasin. p. 242
244
This refers to the Party Council’s decision of May 31 (June 13),
1904, concerning representation at the forthcoming Amsterdam
Congress of the Second International. p. 244
245
Vladimirov, Miron Konstantinovich (1879-1925)—Social-Democrat,
Bolshevik, joined the R.S.D.L.P. in 1903. Carried on Party work
in St. Petersburg, Gomel, Odessa, Lugansk and Ekaterinoslav.
Delegate to the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. Participant in
the revolution of 1905-07. After the October Socialist Revolution
occupied various important posts. p. 245
246
This refers to the decision adopted in July 1904 on behalf of the
C.C. by C.C. conciliator members Krasin, Noskov and Galperin.
In this decision the conciliators recognised the validity of the
Iskra Menshevik editorial board co-opted by Plekhanov. They
co-opted three more conciliators on to the C.C. The conciliators
were against convening the Third Congress of the Party and
adopted a decision dissolving the Southern Bureau of the C.C.
which agitated for the convocation of this Congress. They deprived
Lenin of the right to represent the C.C. abroad and attempted to
ban publication of his writings which did not have the permission
of the C.C.’s collegium.
The adoption of the “July Declaration” was a complete betrayal
of the decisions of the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. on the
 NOTES 485

part of the conciliator members of the C.C. who openly sided with
the Mensheviks. p. 248
247
V. A. Noskov informed Lenin of the C.C.’s decision to co-optate
three new members on to the C.C., namely, L. Y. Karpov,
A. I. Lyubimov, and I. F. Dubrovinsky, and asked Lenin to give
his vote for or against the nominated candidates within a week.
p. 251
248
Lenin did not attend the Amsterdam Congress and transferred his
mandate to M. N. Lyadov and P. A. Krasikov, who were included
in the delegation of the R.S.D.L.P. to the Congress. p. 256
249
Three conferences of local Bolshevik committees—the Southern,
Caucasian and Northern conferences—were held in September-
December 1904. (1) The Southern Regional Conference (three com-
mittees: those of Odessa, Ekaterinoslav and Nikolayev) was held
in September 1904. The conference declared in favour of convening
the Third Congress of the Party and proposed that an Organising
Committee for convening the congress be set up, consisting of
R. S. Zemlyachka, M. N. Lyadov and A. Bogdanov. The conference
instructed Lenin to constitute the full Organising Committee.
(2) The Regional Conference of the Caucasian Union Committee
(four committees: those of Baku, Batum, Tiflis and Imeretia and
Mingrelia) was held in November 1904 in Tiflis. The conference
declared in favour of immediately convening the Third Congress
of the Party and elected a bureau to make preparations for the
congress.
(3) The Northern Regional Conference (six committees: those
of St. Petersburg, Moscow, Tver, Riga, Northern and Nizhni-
Novgorod) was held in December 1904. The conference passed a
vote of non-confidence in the Party’s central bodies seized by the
Mensheviks, declared strongly in favour of convening the Third
Congress of the Party, and set up a special bureau for organising
the congress. p. 257
250
This refers to the meeting held in the neighbourhood of Geneva
on Lenin’s initiative during the early part of August 1904. The
meeting was attended by 19 members of the R.S.D.L.P., including
Lenin, Krupskaya, Olminsky, Lyadov, and Lepeshinsky. The
initial variant of the appeal “To the Party”, written by Lenin, was
adopted (see Vol. 7 of this edition). Shortly afterwards three more
Bolsheviks added their votes to the decisions of this meeting, and
the appeal “To the Party” was issued on behalf of 22 Bolsheviks.
The appeal became the Bolsheviks’ programme of struggle
for convening the Third Congress of the Party. p. 257
251
The Bonch-Bruyevich and Lenin publishing house of Social-Demo-
cratic party literature was set up by the Bolsheviks after the Menshe-
vik editorial board of Iskra refused to publish the statements of
486 NOTES

organisations and Party members supporting the decisions of the

Second Congress and demanding the convocation of the Third
Congress of the Party. p. 258
252
The decisions of the Council of the R.S.D.L.P. were published in
a separate supplements to Nos. 73 and 74 of Iskra. The first of these
decisions dealing with the procedure for convening the Third
Congress listed a number of measures aimed at obstructing agitation
in favour of the congress and preventing its being convened in the
immediate future. p. 258
253
This refers to the pamphlet To the Party, in which the appeal under
the same heading written by Lenin was published (see Vol. 7 of
this edition), and N. Shakhov’s pamphlet The Fight for a Congress,
to which Lenin wrote a preface (see Vol. 7, p. 488, of this edition).
p. 261
254
The question of representation at the Amsterdam Congress was this:
The Party Council, in its September decision, accused Lenin
Lyadov and Krasikov of a breach of Party discipline, expressed
in their applying directly to the International Socialist Bureau on
the question of Lenin transferring his mandate to the Congress. The
Council further maintained that Lenin demanded for himself, as
a representative of the C.C., the right to attend the Congress “at a time
when he was already in antagonism with the Central Committee”.
Actually, Lenin sent representatives to the Congress early in
August, that is, before his conflict with the conciliator section of
the C.C., which took place towards the end of August. p. 261
255
This refers to the Report of the Delegation of the Russian Social-Dem-
ocratic Labour Party to the Amsterdam International Socialist
Congress (August 14-20, 1904), Geneva, 1904. p. 261
256
The Caucasian S.D. Union united the working-class organisations
of the Caucasus (Tiflis, Baku, Batum, Kutais, Guria, etc.). At the
first Congress of the Caucasian Union held in March 1903 a leading
Party organ was set up—the Caucasian Union Committee of the
R.S.D.L.P.
Lenin and the Caucasian Union Committee were in constant and
close contact. In September 1904 the C.U.C. supported the resolu-
tion of the meeting of the “22” and started agitation in favour of the
immediate convocation of the Party’s Third Congress. p. 262
257
Stopani, Alexander Mitrofanovich (1871-1932)—professional revo-
lutionary, joined the revolutionary movement in 1892. At the
Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (1903) and after it—a Bolshevik.
After the Congress, on the instructions of the C.C., he worked in
Yaroslavl, where he organised an illegal printing-plant; left for
Baku in the summer of 1904 after the plant was raided by the police;
was one of the organisers of the Baku Bolshevik Committee. After
the October Socialist Revolution occupied leading Party posts.
p. 264
 NOTES 487
258
The manuscript contains Lenin’s note: “(quote in full)” followed
by dots and special marks indicating that the text of the corre-
sponding resolution of the Conference of the Southern Committees
was to be quoted here. The text of the resolution was not quoted in
the letter, nor was the reply of the “22” (see p. 257 of this volume).
p. 265
259
Lenin speaks of the need for creating the illegal Bolshevik news-
paper Vperyod, the first issue of which came out on January 4,
1905 (December 22, 1904). p. 267
260
Meaning the statement of the Caucasian Union Committee and the
Caucasian representative of the C.C. protesting against the deci-
sions of the Party Council published in a supplement to Nos. 73
and 74 of Iskra. p. 268
261
Lenin was on a lecture tour (on the subject of the situation within
the Party) in Paris (up to December 5), Zurich (December 6-7)
and Berne (December 8). p. 269
262
Zemlyachka, Rozalia Samoilovna (1876-1947)—a leading member
of the Communist Party and the Soviet Government. Joined the
revolutionary movement in 1893; upon her return from abroad
in 1896 became a member of the Kiev Committee of the R.S.D.L.P.
From 1901 an agent of Iskra, carried on work in Odessa and Eka-
terinoslav. At the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (1903) an
Iskrist of the Majority. After the Congress she was co-opted on to
the Central Committee from the Bolsheviks, took an active part
in the fight against the Mensheviks. In August 1904 participated
in the meeting of the 22 Bolsheviks in Geneva, was elected to the
Bureau of the Majority Committees. Worked as secretary of the
St. Petersburg Party organisation and was its delegate to the
Third Congress of the Party.
Litvinov, Maxim Maximovich (1876-1951)—prominent Party
member and statesman, distinguished Soviet diplomat. Started
revolutionary work in 1898 as a propagandist in workers’ circles.
In 1900 worked in the Kiev Committee; in 1901 was arrested, in
prison joined the Iskrists. In August 1902 escaped from prison with
ten other Iskrists and emigrated. Took an active part in dissem-
inating Iskra, was a delegate at the Second Congress of the League.
p. 271
263
Lenin intended to enlist the services of A. Bogdanov (Rakhmetov)
for work on the newspaper Vperyod, the mouthpiece of the Bol-
sheviks, which was being organised (see Note 265). p. 273
264
This refers to the resolutions of the Regional Conference of the
Caucasian Union Committee held in Tiflis in November 1904.
On the basis of the previous resolutions of the Caucasian com-
mittees giving support to the resolution of the “22” and to the idea
of convening an emergency congress of the Party the Conference
adopted a resolution calling for the organisation of broad agitation
488 NOTES

and struggle for the Third Congress, for which purpose it elected
a special bureau with instructions to contact the Bolshevik group
of 22”. In the postscript to this letter Lenin wishes to be in-
formed as to what organisational forms of relationship existed
between the Bureau of the Majority Committees and the bureau set
up by the Conference of the Caucasian committees, and asks them
to send a delegate. p. 280
265
Vperyod (Forward)—an illegal Bolshevik newspaper published
in Geneva from December 22, 1904 (January 4, 1905) to May 5 (18),
1905. Eighteen issues were put out. Lenin was the newspaper’s
organiser, manager and ideological guide. Other members of the
editorial board were V. V. Vorovsky, M. S. Olminsky, and A. V. Lu-
nacharsky. The outstanding role which the newspaper played in
combating Menshevism and highlighting the tactical issues posed
by the revolutionary movement was acknowledged in a special
resolution of the Third Party Congress (1905), which recorded a
vote of thanks to the editorial board. p. 280
266
Borba Proletariata (Struggle of the Proletariat)—an illegal Bol-
shevik newspaper, organ of the Caucasian Union of the R.S.D.L.P.,
founded by decision of the First Congress of the Caucasian Union
of the R.S.D.L.P. Published from April-May 1903 to October
1905; 12 numbers were issued. The newspaper was published in
three languages—Georgian, Armenian and Russian. The editors
maintained close contact with Lenin and the Bolshevik centre
abroad. p. 281
267
Essen, Maria Moiseyevna (1872 - 1956)—a Social-Democrat. Joined
the revolutionary movement in the early nineties. After the Second
Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. a Bolshevik; was co-opted on to the
Central Committee at the end of 1903. In 1906 a member of the
Moscow Committee. During the period of reaction (1907-10) re-
tired from active political life. p. 282
268
The Northern Regional Conference (six committees: St. Peters-
burg, Moscow, Tver, Riga, Northern and Nizhni-Novgorod) was
held in December 1904 (see Note 249). p. 283
269
This refers to the committees, at the conferences of which the
Bureau of the Majority Committees was elected. p. 284
270
Yeramasov, A . I . (died 1927)—a Social-Democrat, Iskrist. From
the time of Iskra up to the October Socialist Revolution gave
financial assistance to the Bolshevik Party. p. 285
271
This refers to the second Mensheviks’ “Letter to Party Organisa-
tions” published in leaflet form in December 1904 over the signa-
ture of the Iskra editorial board. A critical analysis of Iskra’s
first letter mentioned by Lenin lower down was given by him in
 NOTES 489

the pamphlet The Zemstvo Campaign and Iskra’s Plan (see. Vol. 7
of this edition). Lenin also deals with these letters in his article
“Two Tactics” (see Vol. 8 of this edition). p. 287
272
The editorial “Democrats at the Parting of the Ways” in No. 77
of the Menshevik Iskra was criticised by Lenin in his article “Work-
ing-Class and Bourgeois Democracy” published in Vperyod No. 3,
for January 24 (11), 1905 (see Vol. 8 of this edition). p. 288
273
On January 6, 1905 (December 24, 1904), Lenin read a lecture on
working-class and bourgeois democracy to an audience of political
emigrants in Geneva. p. 290
274
Issue No. 1 of Vperyod was dated January 4, 1905 (December 22,
1904). p. 290
275
This refers to the three conferences of the Bolshevik local commit-
tees (the Southern the Caucasian and the Northern) held in Sep-
tember-December 1904, which went on record for the immediate
convocation of the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (see Note 249).
p. 291
276
This refers to Fyodorova-Shtremer, N. I.—secretary of the St. Pe-
tersburg Committee. In December 1904 she adopted a conciliatory
stand in regard to the Mensheviks. p. 291
277
This refers to the election of the Bureau of the Majority Committees
for convening the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. p. 292
278
See Note 146. p. 293
279
Gapon, Georgi Apollonovich (1870-1906)—a priest, agent provocateur
in the service of the tsarist secret political police. On the eve of
the revolution of 1905-07, acting on the instructions of the Depart-
ment of the Police, he organised the Association of Russian Fac-
tory Workers of St. Petersburg, which was subsidised by the De-
partment of the Police and the St. Petersburg secret political
police. Provoked the procession of St. Petersburg workers to pre-
sent a petition to the tsar on the Ninth of January, 1905 (see Note
281). Escaped abroad, where he had close ties with the Socialist-
Revolutionaries. He returned to Russia and resumed contact with
the secret political police. Exposed as an agent provocateur, Gapon
was killed in accordance with a sentence passed on him by the
Socialist-Revolutionary Party. p. 293
280
The tables of correspondence with Russia were compiled by N. K.
Krupskaya, who kept a record of all the correspondence. p. 293
281
The Ninth of January 1905—”Bloody Sunday”, the day on which,
by order of the tsar, a peaceful procession of St. Petersburg work-
490 NOTES

ers was shot down. The workers, led by the priest Gapon, were
marching to the Winter Palace to present a petition to the tsar.
This cold-blooded massacre of unarmed workers started a wave
of mass political strikes and demonstrations all over Russia under
the slogan of “Down with the autocracy!”. The events of January
9th precipitated the revolution of 1905-07. p. 293
282
The reference is to the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., prepa-
rations for which were in hand. p. 293
283
In his letter of February 3, 1905, August Bebel notified Lenin
that in order to liquidate the split in the R.S.D.L.P. the Executive
Committee of the German Social-Democratic Party had instruct-
ed him to preside at a court of arbitration in which representa-
tives of the Bolsheviks (Vperyod) and the Mensheviks (Iskra) were
to be included. Bebel asked the Bolsheviks to confirm their read-
iness, in the event of their agreeing to a court of arbitration and
election of their representatives to such a court, to accept the court’s
award. It was stipulated that the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks
were to cease all polemics from the moment they submitted to
the court. p. 295
284
Bebel’s proposal was reported in Vperyod No. 8 for February
28 (15), 1905, in a note to the editors comment following the text
of the announcement of the Bureau of the Majority Committees
concerning the convocation of the Third Congress of the Party (see
Vol. 8, p. 178, of this edition). p. 295
285
Gusev, Sergei Ivanovich (1874-1933)—Social-Democrat, Bolshevik.
From December 1904 to May 1905 secretary of the Bureau of the
Majority Committees and the St. Petersburg Committee of the
Party, then a leader of the Bolshevik organisation in Odessa.
From January 1906 a member of the Moscow Committee of the
R.S.D.L.P. During the years of reaction (1907-10), came out
against liquidationism and otzovism.
After the October Socialist Revolution, held positions of trust.
p. 296
286
A paragraph from Moscow reporting that a representative of the
Central Committee had made a statement at a meeting to the effect
that all the members of the C.C. agreed to the convening of the
Third Congress was published in Vperyod No. 8, for February
28 (15), 1905. It was accompanied by an afterword “From the
Editors ” written by M. S. Olminsky. The afterword stated that
the C.C. for some months had resisted a congress and dismissed the
committees that had declared for it, and that now that its tactics
had failed it was declaring its agreement to have a congress con-
vened immediately, obviously with the intention of wrecking it.
Lenin added to Olminsky’s text the following words: “We hope
that neither the Bureau nor the local committees will let them-
selves be deceived by the subterfuges of the Party’s ‘Shidlovsky
Commission’.” p. 298
 NOTES 491
287
The Shidlovsky Commission—a special government commission
set up by royal Ukase of January 29 (February 11), 1905, “to en-
quire into the causes of the discontent among the workers of the
city of St. Petersburg and its environs” in connection with the
mounting strike movement following the events of Bloody Sunday
(January 9). The Commission, headed by Senator Shidlovsky
was made up of government officials, managers of state factories
and manufacturers. The Commission was to include representatives
of the workers elected by two-stage elections. The Bolsheviks
launched a campaign in connection with these elections, exposing
the true designs of tsarism, which had organised this Commission
in order to draw the workers away from the revolutionary struggle.
When the electors presented their demands to the government,
namely, freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, etc.
Shidlovsky stated on February 18 (March 3), 1905 that these de-
mands could not be granted. After this the majority of the electors
withdrew from the elections and appealed to the workers of St. Pe-
tersburg, who supported them by going on strike. The Commission
was dismissed on February 20 (March 5), 1905, without having
started work. p. 299
288
The leaflets of the Bureau of the Majority Committees: the first,
“Vital Issues” (concerning the uprising), was published in the
newspaper Vperyod No. 9, for March 8 (February 23), 1905; the
second, “The Attitude of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour
Party to the Liberals”, in Issue No. 10 for March 15 (2), 1905.
p. 300
289
A quotation from Virgil’s Aeneid: “I fear the Danaans, though
their hands proffer gifts”. p. 302
290
In regard to the conference of socialist organisations of Russia
see Lenin’s article “A Militant Agreement for the Uprising” (Vol. 8,
pp. 158-66, of this edition) and “Speech on an Agreement with the
Socialist-Revolutionaries” delivered on April 23 (May 6), 1905,
at the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (Vol. 8, pp. 416-21). p. 303
291
Icons abroad—an ironical name for the Menshevik leaders. p. 303
292
This refers to a conference of representatives of the C.C. of the
R.S.D.L.P., the Bund, the Lettish S.D.L.P., and the Revolution-
ary Ukrainian Party held abroad in January 1905. It was conve-
ned on the initiative of the Bund with the object of uniting all
the Social-Democratic organisations. The conference adopted a
resolution on agreements with the liberal and democratic parties
and on a “bloc” of the revolutionary and opposition organisations
in Russia. p. 303
293
Posledniye Izvestia—the bulletin of the Bund Committee Abroad,
published in London and Geneva in 1901-06. p. 303
492 NOTES

294
In reply to this letter, Lydia Knipovich, a member of the Odessa
Committee of the R.S.D.L.P., informed Lenin that the mandate
to the congress previously issued to V. V. Vorovsky in the name
of the Odessa Committee was being transferred to Lenin and that
Vorovsky would receive his mandate from the Nikolaev Commit-
tee. p. 307
295
This refers to the agreement between the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P.
and the Bureau of the Majority Committees concluded on March
12 (25), 1905, on the question of setting up an Organising Com-
mittee for convening the Third Congress of the Party. p. 309
296
Vinogradova, Olga (1881-1913)—joined the revolutionary move-
ment in 1901. In 1903 carried on propaganda and agitation in
Nizhni-Novgorod. In 1903-04—a member of the Bolshevik group
in Berlin. In the spring of 1905 worked in the Odessa organisation.
Was a correspondent of the newspapers Vperyod and Proletary.
In 1905-07 worked in St. Petersburg, was a member of the agita-
tors’ collegium under the St. Petersburg Committee. Afterwards
worked in Saratov. p. 310
297
This letter was a reply to that of Olga Vinogradova dated Feb-
ruary 18, 1905, from Odessa, in which she wrote to Lenin: “In
your letter to Comrade T. you mention my promise to write about
Nizhni-Novgorod.” p. 310
298
This refers to the Geneva Conference of the Mensheviks held simul-
taneously with the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. in April
1905. p. 312
299
The Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. was held in London from
April 12 to 27 (April 25-May 10), 1905, and was attended by 24 vot-
ing delegates and 14 delegates with a consultative voice. It was
the first Bolshevik congress.
All the Congress proceedings were guided by Lenin. He wrote
the drafts of all the basic resolutions adopted by the Congress and
spoke on the question of the armed uprising, on the participation
of Social-Democrats in the provisional revolutionary government,
on the attitude towards the peasant movement, on the Party Rules
and on a number of other questions. The Minutes of the Congress
record over a hundred speeches and motions made by Lenin.
The Congress condemned the actions of the Mensheviks, their
opportunism in organisational and tactical questions; it laid
down the tactical line of the Bolsheviks aimed at the complete
victory of the bourgeois-democratic revolution and its development
into a socialist revolution. The resolutions of the Congress outlined
the tasks of the proletariat as the leader of the revolution and the
strategic plan of the Party in the bourgeois-democratic revolution
namely, the proletariat in alliance with the peasantry, and with
the liberal bourgeoisie isolated, was to fight for the victory of the
revolution.
 NOTES 493

The Congress amended the Party Rules: a) it adopted Lenin’s

wording of Clause One; b) it defined precisely the rights of the
Central Committee and its relations with the local committees;
c) it modified the organisational structure of the Party’s central
bodies: in place of the two centres (the Central Committee, the
Central Organ) the Congress established a single competent Party
centre—the Central Committee. p. 312
300
Proletary (The Proletarian)—underground Bolshevik weekly,
Central Organ of the R.S.D.L.P., founded in accordance with a
resolution of the Third Party Congress. By a decision of the ple-
nary meeting of the Party C.C. of April 27 (May 10), 1905, Lenin
was appointed Editor-in-Chief.
Proletary was published in Geneva from May 14 (27) to Novem-
ber 12 (25), 1905. Twenty-six numbers were put out. The news-
paper carried on the line of the old, Leninist, Iskra, and main-
tained complete continuity with the Bolshevik newspaper Vperyod.
Lenin wrote over sixty articles and paragraphs for the newspaper.
His articles were reprinted in the local Bolshevik periodicals and
published in leaflet form. p. 312
301
The question of the R.S.D.L.P.’s representation in the Interna-
tional Socialist Bureau was discussed in the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P.
on May 7 (20), 1905. Plekhanov’s appointment as representative
of the R.S.D.L.P. in the I.S.B. was signed by Krasin, Lenin and
Postolovsky with a reservation to the effect that Lenin was instruct-
ed to implement this decision in the event of a satisfactory con-
clusion of the negotiations started with Plekhanov. Lenin consi-
dered recognition of the validity of the Third Congress, membership
of the Party and acceptance of its decisions to be obligatory on
the part of Plekhanov.
The Mensheviks nominated Plekhanov to the I.S.B. at their
conference. On June 16, 1905, Plekhanov notified the I.S.B. that
he had been authorised to represent the Party by both splinter
groups and gave a tendentious account of the split in which he
denied the necessity and validity of the Party’s Third Congress. p. 313
302
The Report on the Third Congress and the major resolutions were
published in Proletary No. 1, for May 14 (27), 1905. p. 315
303
Lenin is here referring to the decision of the plenary meeting of
the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P. (the first plenum after the Third Con-
gress), held on April 27 (May 10), 1905, concerning the next ple-
nary meeting to be held in Geneva on September 1 (14). This deci-
sion was not carried out. p. 315
304
Bebel’s offer to mediate in uniting the Bolsheviks and Menshe-
viks was addressed to the International Socialist Bureau after he
had received a negative reply to a similar proposal addressed direct-
ly to Lenin on January 21 (February 3), 1905. (See Lenin’s reply,
p. 295 of this volume.) p. 318
494 NOTES

305
The Report on the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. and the res-
olutions of the Congress were published in the pamphlet Bericht
über den III Parteitag der S.D.A.P.R., München. K. Kautsky
wrote an article “Die Spaltung der russischen Sozialdemokratie”
(“The Split in Russian Social-Democracy”) in Leipziger Volkszeitung,
the mouthpiece of the German Left Social-Democrats (No. 135
for June 15, 1905), against the circulation of this pamphlet. In
reply to Kautsky’s article Lenin wrote his “Open Letter to the
Editorial Board of the Leipziger Volkszeitung” (see Vol. 8 of this
edition), which the editors did not publish. p. 318
306
The Open Letter of the C.C. to the Organisation Committee of the
Mensheviks, written by A. A. Bogdanov, was published in Pro-
letary on August 9 (July 27), 1905, issue No. 11.
The C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P. proposed to the Menshevik centre
—the Organisation Committee—to enter into negotiations for
unity on the following terms, with the Bolsheviks and the Men-
sheviks preserving ideological independence:
( 1 ) the local committees unite on the basis outlined by the
Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.
(2) the central bodies come to an arrangement for joint activi-
ties aimed at re-establishing unity;
(3) the parallel existence of the Party organs to be preserved.
This plan was criticised by Lenin in his letter to the C.C. of
the R.S.D.L.P. dated August 14, 1905 (see pp. 326-27 of this vol-
ume). p. 319
307
In the “Open Letter” the tactical differences between the Bol-
sheviks and the Mensheviks were recognised as “insignificant”.
The pamphlet here referred to by Lenin is Two Tactics of Social-
Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, on which he worked in
the course of June-July 1905 (see Vol. 9 of this edition). p. 319
308
The decision appointing Plekhanov Editor-in-Chief of the Party’s
scientific organ was adopted by the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P. on
May 7 (20), 1905; Lenin was instructed to implement this decision
in the event of the negotiations with Plekhanov being satisfactorily
concluded. p. 321
309
The Social-Democratic Federation, founded in 1884, included
within its ranks representatives of reformism (Hyndman and
others), anarchists, and Marxists representing the Left wing of
the British socialist movement. In 1907 it was renamed the So-
cial-Democratic Party; in 1911 this Party and the Left elements
of the Independent Labour Party formed the British Socialist
Party, which, in 1920, together with the Socialist Unity group,
played the chief role in establishing the Communist Party of Great
Britain. p. 321
310
A secret resolution of the Third Congress on the question of “pre-
paring the terms of unification with the Mensheviks” stated that
 NOTES 495

the Congress “instructs the C.C. to take steps towards preparing

and working out the terms of unification with the breakaway sec-
tion of the R.S.D.L.P., which terms are to be submitted for final
endorsement to a new Party congress” (see The C.P.S.U. in the
Resolutions and Decisions of Its Congresses, Conferences and Plenums
of the Central Committee, Part I, 1954, p. 90). p. 321
311
Lunacharsky, Anatoly Vasilievich (1875-1933)—joined the revolu-
tionary movement in the early nineties. After the Second Congress
of the R.S.D.L.P. (1903) a Bolshevik. Member of the editorial
boards of the Bolshevik newspapers Vperyod, Proletary and later
Novaya Zhizn. During the reaction deviated from Marxism and
participated in the anti-Party Vperyod group. Advocated the
combination of Marxism with religion. Lenin sharply criticised
Lunacharsky’s views in his book Materialism and Empirio-criticism
(1909). In 1917 Lunacharsky was enrolled in the Party at the
Sixth Congress.
After the October Socialist Revolution a prominent Soviet
statesman. p. 323
312
Meaning the participants in the mutiny aboard the armoured
cruiser Potemkin. p. 324
313
The Menshevik Iskra published the minutes of the meeting between
the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P. and the Mensheviks’ centre—the Orga-
nisation Committee—held on July 12, 1905, to discuss unification
of the Party. The Mensheviks proposed a plan, which, considering
the impossibility of convening a congress, called for unification of
the Party “by means of sufficient mutual concessions by both
sections of the Party”. The plan set forth in the minutes provided
for the organisation of a Central Committee consisting of repre-
sentatives of both sections of the Party, and for retaining Iskra
and Proletary as the official organs of the Party. The representa-
tives of the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P. found the point concerning the
formation of a Central Committee consisting of representatives
of both sections of the Party acceptable, the question of the func-
tioning of two organs was postponed pending clarification of the
attitude towards this on the part of the editorial boards concerned;
as to the terms in general, the representatives of the C.C. of the
R.S.D.L.P. considered that, although they did not conflict with
the basic principles of the Party Rules, not all of them were prac-
ticable. p. 326
314
This refers to the agreement concluded by member of the C.C.
of the R.S.D.L.P. Leonid Krasin and the Social-Democrat
V. L. Kopp (Frockcoat) arranging for illegal transportation to
and from Russia. On the basis of this agreement V. L. Kopp at-
tempted not only to monopolise the business of illegal communica-
tion with Russia, but to seize some of the property and literature
belonging to the Bolsheviks. p. 327
496 NOTES

315
This refers to the publication of the minutes of the Third Congress.
of the R.S.D.L.P. p. 327
316
The Orel-Bryansk Committee, having heard the report on the
Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., did not “consider it possible
to take one or another stand” and recommended the Minority,
not represented at the Third Congress, “to amalgamate with the
Party”, declaring that “in the area of its revolutionary work it
would make no distinction between the comrades of the Minority
and those of the Majority, both of which it considered members.
of a single Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party”. p. 327
317
“Black-Hundred Literature”—articles of Kostrov (N. Jordania)
published first in Sotsial-Demokrat (organ of the Georgian Menshe-
viks), Nos. 1-3, and subsequently in pamphlet form under the
title Majority or Minority? p. 328
318
Dnevnik Sotsial-Demokrata (Diary of a Social-Democrat) No. 2
for August 1905 published Plekhanov’s article “Selected Pas-
sages From Correspondence With Friends (A Letter to the Editors
of Proletary)” in which the author answered Lenin’s article “On
the Provisional Revolutionary Government. Article One. Ple-
khanov’s Reference to History” (see Vol. 8 of this edition), and
accused Lenin and the Bolsheviks of Blanquism. p. 329
319
A plan of the pamphlet The Working Class and Revolution was
drawn up by Lenin (see Vol. 9 of this edition), but the pamphlet
on this subject was not written. p. 329
320
The manifesto concerning the Bulygin Duma was published on
August 6 (19), 1905. On August 29 (16) Proletary published an
article of Lenin’s on this subject entitled “Oneness of the Tsar and
the People, and of the People and the Tsar” (Vol. 9, pp. 191-99,
of this edition). p. 329
321
Lepeshinsky, Panteleimon Nikolayevich (1868-1944)—a prominent
member of the Communist Party. Joined the Social-Democratic
movement in the early nineties. In 1900 he took an active part in
organising the promulgation of Iskra. In 1903 he emigrated to
Switzerland; took part in preparing the Third Congress of the
R.S.D.L.P. During the revolution of 1905-07 carried on revolu-
tionary work in Ekaterinoslav and St. Petersburg. p. 330
322
This letter of Lenin’s (Decision of the C.C. representative abroad)
was written in connection with the conflict that had arisen between
various members of the Bolshevik Geneva group. p. 330
323
The Conference of Social-Democratic Organisations in Russia
was held in Riga on September 7-9 (20-22), 1905. It was attend-
ed by representatives of the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P., of the Orga-
 NOTES 497

nisation Committee of the Mensheviks, of the Bund, of the Lettish

Social-Democrats, of the Social-Democrats of Poland and Lithua-
nia and the Revolutionary Ukrainian Party. The Conference ap-
proved the Bolshevik tactics of active boycott of the Bulygin
Duma. The Conference decisions were assessed by Lenin in his
articles “The First Results of the Political Alignment” and “The
Hysterics of the Defeated” (see Vol. 9 of this edition). The Men-
sheviks refused to sign the resolutions of the Conference. p. 336
324
The Armenian Social-Democratic Federation—a nationalist orga-
nisation formed in 1903, shortly after the Second Congress of the
R.S.D.L.P., which proclaimed itself the sole representative of
the Armenian proletariat; like the Bundists, it recognised only
the federative principle of party organisation. p. 337
325
Letuchie Listki (Leaflets) of the Central Committee of the
R.S.D.L.P.—a non-periodical publication dealing with current
tactical and organisational questions in keeping with the deci-
sions of the Third Congress of the Party. Altogether four numbers
were put out. Listok No. 1 was printed in June 1905 at the print-
shop of the St. Petersburg Committee of the Party and reprinted
in abridged form in July by the Moscow Committee of the Party.
Rabochy (The Worker)—an illegal popular Social-Democratic
newspaper, published in pursuance of the decision of the Third
Congress of the Party by the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P.
in Moscow in August-October 1905. The de facto editor of the
paper was A. A. Bogdanov. p. 338
326
“Financier”—L. B Krasin (see Note 241). p. 338
327
The report of the Menshevik Iskra published in the French social-
ist newspaper Le Socialiste No. 11, dealt with the attitude of the
local Party organisations to the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.
Iskra declared that the Congress was recognised as lawful by only
eight organisations of the R.S.D.L.P. (Tver, Tula, Ivanovo-Vozne-
sensk, Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Orel, Kursk and Minsk) uniting
2,000,000-2,500,000 workers; 25 organisations according to Iskra,
did not recognise the Congress; in four organisations the Congress
was recognised by a minority, and the attitude to the Congress on
the part of nine organisations was unascertained. Since this false
information was not given by Iskra to the press in Russia, Lenin
published in Proletary No. 9, for July 26 (13), 1905, under the
heading “Our Khlestakovs” a full translation of the article printed
in Le Socialiste with his introductory and concluding comments.
The statistics concerning the committees of the R.S.D.L.P.
which allegedly “refused to recognise” the Third Congress of the
Party were also dealt with by Lenin in his article “Keeping Inter-
national Social-Democracy Informed of Our Party Affairs” pub-
lished in Proletary No. 15, for September 5 (August 23), 1905 (see
Vol. 9 of this edition). p. 339
498 NOTES

328
Issue No. 5 of the Marxist journal Zarya was being prepared for
the press but did not appear. p. 341
329
S. I. Gusev, who worked as secretary of the Odessa Committee
of the R.S.D.L.P. during the latter half of 1905, wrote to Lenin
about the tactics of the Bolsheviks in the revolution of 1905,
reported what educative work the Odessa Committee was doing
among the masses, and criticised the resolutions of the Geneva
Conference of the Mensheviks. Excerpts from Gusev’s letter were
published in Proletary No. 20, for October 10 (September 27),
1905, with an editor’s preface written by Lenin (see Vol. 9, p. 335
of this edition). p. 342
330
A. A. Bogdanov’s article “Fundamentals of Party Organisation”
was not published in Proletary. p. 344
331
This refers to Lenin’s trip to Finland to attend a meeting of the
C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P. In a letter dated October 17 (30) he was
given the address for a rendezvous in Stockholm. p. 345
332
This refers to representation in the I.S.B. By a decision of the
C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P. Lenin was appointed representative. p. 345
333
Malykh, Maria—publisher of legal Social-Democratic literature
in 1905. p. 345
334
The Fourth (Unity) Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. was held in Stock-
holm on April 10-25 (April 23-May 8), 1906.
It was attended by 112 voting delegates representing 57 local
organisations and 22 delegates with a consultative voice. There
were, in addition, three representatives each from the Social-
Democratic Party of Poland and Lithuania, the Bund, and the
Lettish S.D.L.P. and one each from the Ukrainian S.D.L.P. and
the Labour Party of Finland, and a representative of the Bulgarian
Social-Democratic Labour Party. The Bolshevik delegates includ-
ed, among others, V. I. Lenin, F. A. Artyom (Sergeyev), M. V. Frun-
ze, M. I. Kalinin, S. G. Shahumyan, and V. V. Vorovsky. The
principal items on the agenda were the agrarian question, the
current situation, the class tasks of the proletariat, the attitude
to the Duma, and organisational questions. On all issues a sharp
struggle was waged between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks.
Lenin made reports and speeches on the agrarian question, the
current situation, on the question of tactics in regard to the Duma
elections, on the armed uprising and other questions.
The Mensheviks’ numerical preponderance at the Congress
though slight, determined the character of the Congress decisions.
On a number of questions the Congress adopted Menshevik resolu-
tions (the agrarian programme, the attitude towards the Duma,
etc.). The Congress adopted Lenin’s formulation of Clause One
of the Party Rules concerning membership of the Party. The Con-
gress admitted into the R.S.D.L.P. the non-Russian Social-Demo-
 NOTES 499

cratic organisations of Poland and Lithuania and the Lettish

Social-Democratic Labour Party, and made arrangements for
the Bund to join the R.S.D.L.P.
The Central Committee elected at the Congress consisted of
three Bolsheviks and seven Mensheviks. Only Mensheviks were
elected to the editorial board of the Central Organ.
An analysis of the Congress is given in Lenin’s pamphlet Report
on the Unity Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (see Vol. 10 of this edi-
tion). p. 346
335
The steamship John Grafton carrying weapons for revolutionary
purposes ran aground off the coast of Finland on August 26 (Sep-
tember 8), 1905. Some of the weapons were put ashore, after which
the vessel was blown up by its crew. p. 348
336
The South-Russian Inaugural Conference of the Mensheviks was
held in Kiev in August 1905. It was attended by twelve delegates
from Menshevik groups and committees. The Conference adopted
resolutions on the following questions: amalgamation of both
sections of the Party; the Duma; the composition of Iskra edi-
torial board; representation of the R.S.D.L.P. in the International
Socialist Bureau; the Articles of Association, and others.
Lenin sharply criticised the decisions of the Conference in his
articles “A New Menshevik Conference” and “The Latest in Iskra
Tactics, or Mock Elections as a New Incentive to an Uprising”
(see Vol. 9 of this edition). p. 350
337
The reference is to Lunacharsky’s article published, apparently,
after Lenin’s suggested revision, under the heading “Parliament
and Its Significance” in Proletary No. 25, for November 16 (3),
1905. p. 352
338
Leipziger Volkszeitung—organ of the Left wing of German Social-
Democracy. The newspaper was published daily from 1894 to
1933; for a number of years it was edited by Franz Mehring and
Rosa Luxemburg. From 1917 to 1922 the paper was the mouthpiece
of the German “Independents”. After 1922 it was the organ of the
Right Social-Democrats. p. 352
339
Lenin is referring to Rudolph Hilferding’s article “Parlamenta-
rismus und Massenstreik” published in Die Neue Zeit No. 51, for
September 13, 1905. p. 352
340
The Moscow events—the strikes and demonstrations started by the
Moscow workers, which Lenin dealt with in his articles “The Polit-
ical Strike and the Street Fighting in Moscow” and “The Lessons
of the Moscow Events” (see Vol. 9 of this edition). The strike move-
ment spread to St. Petersburg and was followed by a general polit-
ical strike all over the country (see Lenin’s article “The All-
Russia Political Strike”, Vol. 9 of this edition). p. 352
500 NOTES

341
Cadets—abbreviated name for members of the Constitutional-
Democratic Party, the chief party of the liberal-monarchist bour-
geoisie in Russia. Founded in October 1905, its membership was
made up of representatives of the bourgeoisie, Zemstvo leaders
of the landowning class and bourgeois intellectuals. The Cadets
called themselves the “party of people’s freedom”. Actually they
strove towards a deal with the autocracy in order to preserve tsar-
ism in the form of a constitutional monarchy. Their watchword
from the beginning of the imperialist war was “war to a victorious
finish. After the February revolution of 1917, as a result of a deal
with the S.R. and Menshevik leaders of the Petrograd Soviet, they
occupied key positions in the bourgeois Provisional Government
and pursued a counter-revolutionary policy opposed to the interests
of the people.
After the victory of the October Revolution the Cadets came
out as implacable enemies of the Soviet power. They took part
in all the counter-revolutionary armed actions and campaigns of
the interventionists. Living abroad as émigrés after the defeat of
the interventionists and whiteguards, the Cadets did not cease
their anti-Soviet activities. p. 352
342
Karl Marx, “The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850” (see
Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 1, Moscow 1962, pp. 139-
242). p. 353
343
Lenin refers to his translation of the preface to the pamphlet The
Peasant War in Germany quoted in his book What Is To Be Done?
(see Vol. 5, pp. 371-72, of this edition). p. 356
344
Novaya Zhizn (New Life)—the first legal Bolshevik daily published
in St. Petersburg from October 27 (November 9) to December 3 (16),
1905. Lenin took over the editorship upon his return to Russia early
in November 1905. Novaya Zhizn was, in effect, the Central Organ
of the R.S.D.L.P. Closely associated with the paper were V. V. Vo-
rovsky, M. S. Olminsky and A. V. Lunacharsky. Maxim Gorky
contributed articles and gave the paper financial aid. The paper’s
circulation reached 80,000.
Novaya Zhizn was constantly persecuted. Fifteen of its twenty-
seven issues were confiscated and destroyed. It was banned after
the publication of No. 27. The last issue No. 28 came out ille-
gally. p. 362
345
The events of the last few days apply to the general political strike
in Russia in October 1905. p. 363
346
The three persons were A. Bogdanov, V. Bazarov and A. Luna-
charsky. p. 364
347
In a note from the editorial board published in Proletary No. 20
for October 10 (September 27), 1905, Lenin wrote about the neces-
sity of convening “two congresses”, that of the Majority and the
 NOTES 501

Minority, “at the same time and in the same place” (see “On the
Question of Party Unity”, Vol. 9, pp. 327-28, of this edition). p. 368
348
Lenin and Meshkovsky (I. P. Goldenberg) were delegates to the
International Socialist Congress in Stuttgart (August 18-24, 1907).
This letter was apparently written in Berlin. p. 369
349
Gorky did not attend the Stuttgart Congress. p. 369
350
Maria Fyodorovna Andreyeva, the well-known Russian actress
and public figure, was the wife and assistant of A. M. Gorky. p. 369
351
This refers to the pamphlet by A. V. Lunacharsky (Voinov) on the
attitude of the Party towards the trade unions, which was written
in connection with the discussion of this question at the Seventh,
Stuttgart, Congress of the Second International. Lunacharsky
attended the Congress as a member of the Russian delegation and
a representative of the Bolsheviks. He was elected to the com-
mittee that drafted a resolution on the question of “the relations
between political parties and the trade unions”.
Lunacharsky’s pamphlet was not published owing to the tight-
ening of the censorship in 1908. See Lenin’s preface to the pamphlet
in Vol. 13 of this edition. p. 370
352
This refers to the Essen Congress of the German Social-Democratic
Party, held on September 21-23, 1907, at which Bebel came out
against Karl Liebknecht, who had criticised Noske’s chauvin-
ist stand and the whole behaviour of the German delegation at
the Stuttgart Congress. Bebel also came out against Rosa Luxem-
burg and all the German Left wingers for the “methods” (i.e.,
for their bloc with the Bolsheviks) which they adopted at the
Congress in their struggle against the social-chauvinists and social-
imperialists. p. 371
353
Proletary—a Bolshevik illegal newspaper, edited by Lenin, pub-
lished from August 21 (September 3), 1906 to November 28 (De-
cember 11), 1909. Altogether 50 issues were put out. Proletary,
in effect, was the Central Organ of the Bolsheviks. The paper devot-
ed a good deal of space to tactical and general political questions,
and published reports on the activities of the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P.,
the decisions of conferences and C.C. plenary meetings, C.C. let-
ters on various questions of Party activity, and a number of other
documents. The paper was in close touch with the local Party orga-
nisations.
During the years of the Stolypin reaction Proletary played an
important role in preserving and strengthening the Bolshevik
organisations and combating the liquidators, otzovists, ultima-
tumists and god-builders.
By a decision of the plenary meeting of the Party’s C.C. of
January 1910 the paper was closed down.
Zarnitsy (Summer Lightning)—a Bolshevik legal symposium,
published in St. Petersburg in 1907. p. 371
502 NOTES

354
Gorky toured Italy in October-December 1907 and met Lunachars-
ky in Florence. p. 372
355
This refers to the first volume of Lenin’s writings entitled Twelve
Years published in St. Petersburg in November 1907 (the cover
bore the date 1908). See Lenin’s “Preface to the Collection Twelve
Years”, Vol. 13 of this edition. p. 372
356
Arrangements for delivering Proletary to Russia through Gorky
and Andreyeva were made in the early months of 1908, but hitches
occurred owing to police interference. In a letter to Morgari, social-
ist M.P., editor of Avanti!, Gorky wrote at the beginning of May
1908 that two parcels containing the newspaper Proletary had
been sequestered in Genoa and asked for an explanation of this
“strange misunderstanding”. Gorky’s letter was published in Avan-
ti! on May 5 (18), and on May 25 the newspaper reported that the
ban on Proletary had been lifted. p. 374
357
Rothstein, Theodore Aronovich (1871-1953)—a Social-Democrat.
In 1890 he was compelled to emigrate from Russia. Settled in
England, joined the English Social-Democratic Federation where
he adhered to its Left wing. Joined the R.S.D.L.P. in 1901. Con-
tributed to the Russian and foreign socialist press. Took part in
founding the Communist Party of Great Britain. Returned home
in 1920. From 1921 to 1930 engaged in diplomatic work, afterwards
Director of the Institute of World Economy and World Politics.
From 1939 an Academician. p. 375
358
During the Fifth (London) Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (April
30-May 19 [May 13-June 1], 1907), owing to the Party’s extremely
difficult financial position, a loan was raised with the help of
Maxim Gorky and George Lansbury, the money being advanced
by an English soap manufacturer and was to be repaid by January 1,
1908. The loan not being repaid in time, the lender wrote to Theo-
dore Rothstein, reminding him about it, and the latter, then a
member of the English Social-Democratic Party, wrote to Lenin
about it.
After the October Revolution the Soviet Government, through
L. B. Krasin, repaid the debt to the lender’s heirs who returned
the letter acknowledging the debt signed by all the participants
of the Congress. p. 375
359
N. A. Semashko was arrested in Geneva at the end of January 1908.
Lenin’s statement was published in the newspaper Berner Tagwacht
No. 29, for February 5, 1908. p. 377
360
The announcement concerning the resumption of Proletary abroad
was issued as a separate leaflet, stating that the publication
had been transferred from Russia to Geneva and giving publica-
tion dates, the names of contributors and subscription rates.
p. 377
 NOTES 503
361
Gorky’s Notes on Philistinism were published in the legal Bolshe-
vik newspaper Novaya Zhizn in October-November 1905. p. 378
362
Berner Tagwacht—a daily, organ of the Swiss Social-Democratic
Party, founded in Berne in 1893. At the beginning of World War I
the paper published articles by Karl Liebknecht, Franz Mehring
and other Left Social-Democrats. From 1917 the paper openly
supported the social-chauvinists. p. 378
363
This refers to Gorky’s statement for the press in connection with
the arrest of Semashko. p. 379
364
The article “On Cynicism” was written by Gorky for the French
magazine Les Documents du Progrès and was first published in
the symposium Literaturny Raspad (Zerno Publishers, St. Peters-
burg, which appeared in 1908) and afterwards in the March issue
of the French magazine. The article contained erroneous ideas
of a god-building nature. p. 379
365
Gorky’s letter of January 30, 1908, to Henryk Sienkiewicz was
an answer to the opinion poll organised by the latter on the attitude
to the seizure of the Poznan landowners’ estates by the Prussian
government.
Gorky’s letter was an accusatory document directed against
Sienkiewicz’s defence of big private landownership in Poznan.
Gorky wrote to Sienkiewicz that, while he appreciated his gift
as an artist, he protested against Sienkiewicz appealing to Wil-
helm II with such arguments as the “peaceful” behaviour of the
Poles, who were “not kindling the fire of revolution”, were punctually
paying their taxes and providing soldiers for the Prussian army.
These words give me reason to doubt the strength of your love
for the Polish people,” Gorky wrote in conclusion.
The 252 replies to Sienkiewicz’s questionnaire were published
by him in book form in Paris, but Gorky’s reply was left out.
p. 379
366
Lenin was engaged in the work of issuing the newspaper Prole-
tary, publication of which had been transferred from Finland
to Geneva at the end of 1907. p. 379
367
Kwakalla—a jocular name for the village Kuokkala, in Finland,
where Lenin lived during May-November 1907. p. 380
368
The Bolshevik symposia were published after the coup of June
3rd when the legal newspapers and periodicals were obliged to
close down owing to censorship persecution. The year 1907 and
beginning of 1908 saw the publication of the symposia Golos Zhizni
(The Voice of Life), Zarnitsy (Summer Lightning), Kalendar dlya
vsekh (Popular Calendar) for 1908, Tyemi Dnya (Topics of the
Day), Tekushchaya Zhizn (Current Life), O Veyaniakh Vremeni
(Spirit of the Times). p. 380
504 NOTES

369
This refers to the refusal of E. Ferri, leader of the centrist majority
of the Italian Socialist Party, to edit the Party’s Central Organ
Avanti!. Lunacharsky’s article “The Crisis in the Italian Workers
Party” was published in Proletary No. 23, for March 11 (Febru-
ary 27), 1908. p. 384
370
The reference is to a meeting on Capri, sponsored by Gorky, which
was to have been attended by Lenin, Bogdanov, Bazarov, Luna-
charsky and Skvortsov-Stepanov to discuss questions of publish-
ing activities and theoretical questions. The meeting took place
in April 1908 (Skvortsov-Stepanov did not attend; he came to
Geneva for a week to meet Lenin). Lenin mentions it in his “A Let-
ter to Students at the Capri Party School” dated August 30, 1909
(see Vol. 15 of this edition). p. 384
371
The Fifth Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. was held in London on April
30-May 19 (May 13-June 1), 1907. It was attended by 336 dele-
gates, of whom 105 were Bolsheviks, 97 Mensheviks, 57 Bundists,
44 Polish Social-Democrats, 29 Lettish Social-Democrats and
4 non-factionalists. The Poles and Letts supported the Bolshe-
viks, who had a solid majority at the Congress. One of the main
questions discussed was that of the attitude to the bourgeois par-
ties. Lenin delivered the report on this question. On all funda-
mental issues the Congress adopted Bolshevik resolutions. A Cen-
tral Committee was elected consisting of 5 Bolsheviks, 4 Menshe-
viks, 2 Polish and 1 Lettish Social-Democrats. Among the alternate
members elected to the C.C. were 10 Bolsheviks, 7 Mensheviks,
3 Polish and 2 Lettish Social-Democrats.
The Fifth Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. marked the victory of
Bolshevism in the Russian working-class movement. The deci-
sions of the Congress summed up the struggle of the Bolsheviks
against the opportunist, Menshevik wing of the Party in the period
of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. The Bolsheviks’ tactics
were approved by the Congress and accepted as the tactics of the
whole Party. p. 386
372
Golos Sotsial-Demokrata (Voice of a Social-Democrat)—a news-
paper, the organ of the Mensheviks, published from February
1908 to December 1911, first in Geneva, then in Paris. The news-
paper coming out in open support of the liquidators, Plekhanov
resigned from the editorial board in May 1909, after which the
paper took definite shape as the ideological centre of the liquida-
tors. p. 386
373
Lenin is referring to the group of empirio-critics and empirio-
monists, adherents of the reactionary idealist philosophy of Mach
and Avenarius, namely, Bogdanov, Bazarov and Lunacharsky. p. 386
374
This refers to an invitation to Lenin to attend the meeting of the
International Socialist Bureau. p. 387
 NOTES 505
375
A journal which was to have been published by Gorky. The plan
for its publication did not materialise. p. 389
376
Gorky’s article on Tolstoy did not appear in Proletary. Asked in
1927 whether he had written such an article, Gorky answered:
“I wrote something about Tolstoy for Proletary. I don’t remember
what the title was. Possibly, ‘A Great Man’.” p. 391
377
“Notebooks”—“Notes of an Ordinary Marxist on Philosophy”—
was written by Lenin in 1906 in connection with Bogdanov’s book
Empirio-monism (Issue III). Lenin deals with these “Notes” in
greater detail in his letter to Gorky dated February 25, 1908 (see
Vol. 13 of this edition). p. 393
378
The Bolshevik Centre was elected by the Bolshevik group of the
Fifth (London) Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. in 1907. p. 393
379
Lenin is referring to his article “Marxism and Revisionism” published
in the symposium Karl Marx—1818-1883, in which he stated
for the first time in print that he would shortly write a number of
articles or a separate book against the neo-Humist and neo-Berke-
leyian revisionists—Bogdanov, Bazarov and others (see Vol. 15,
pp. 29-39, of this edition). p. 393
380
This letter has not been found. p. 394
381
Vorovsky, Vatslav Vatslavovich (1871-1923)—a prominent member
of the Bolshevik Party, journalist and literary critic. Joined the
revolutionary movement in 1890. In 1902 he emigrated abroad
and became a contributor to Lenin’s Iskra. In 1905 co-editor with
Lenin on the newspapers Vperyod and Proletary, delegate to the
Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. From the end of 1905 worked
in the St. Petersburg organisation of the Bolsheviks and on the
Bolshevik newspaper Novaya Zhizn. In 1906 a delegate to the
Fourth (Unity) Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. In 1907 headed the
Bolshevik organisation in Odessa. Was arrested and exiled for
his revolutionary activities.
After the October Revolution held leading diplomatic posts. p. 395
382
Lenin is referring to his book Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.
Critical Comments on a Reactionary Philosophy (see Vol. 14 of
this edition). p. 395
383
This letter was written in reply to that of the Menshevik Machist
Yushkovich offering Lenin to contribute to literary-philosophical
symposia. p. 396
384
Luxemburg, Rosa (1871-1919)—a prominent member of the inter-
national labour movement, one of the leaders of the Left wing
of the Second International. Started revolutionary activities in
the late eighties, was one of the founders and leaders of the Social-
506 NOTES

Democratic Party of Poland. From 1897 took an active part in

the German Social-Democratic movement.
After the revolution of November 1918 in Germany took a lead-
ing part in the Inaugural Congress of the Communist Party of
Germany. In January 1919 she was arrested and killed by order of
the Scheidemann government.
Lenin, who thought highly of Rosa Luxemburg, often criti-
cised her mistakes, thus helping her to adopt a correct stand. p. 397
385
Lenin and Krupskaya visited Rosa Luxemburg early in January
1908 when they stopped over in Berlin on their way to Geneva
from Stockholm. p. 397
386
The notice (note) concerning the appearance of Lenin’s book Mate-
rialism and Empirio-Criticism was published in the journal Die
Neue Zeit, I. Band, No. 2, October 8, 1909. p. 397
387
Otzovists (from the Russian word otozvat—recall)—the name given
to some of the Bolsheviks (Bogdanov, Pokrovsky, Lunacharsky,
Bubnov and others) who demanded that the Social-Democratic
deputies in the Third Duma should be recalled and that work in
the legal organisations should be stopped. In 1908 the otzovists
formed a group of their own and waged a struggle against Lenin.
They emphatically refused to sit in the Duma or work in the trade
unions, co-operative societies and other mass legal and semi-legal
organisations of the workers. They strove to shut themselves up
within the framework of the illegal organisation: to tear the Party
away from the non-party masses and expose it to the attacks of
reaction. Lenin called the otzovists “liquidators of a new type”
and “Mensheviks inside out”.
A variety of otzovism was ultimatumism. The ultimatumists
differed from the otzovists only in form. They proposed that an
ultimatum should first be presented to the Social-Democratic
group in the Duma and if it was not complied with, the Social-
Democratic deputies should be recalled from the Duma.
Ultimatumism was virtually otzovism in disguise. Lenin called
the ultimatumists “bashful otzovists”.
In the spring of 1909 the otzovists, ultimatumists and god-
builders formed a promotion group to organise an anti-Party
school on the Isle of Capri (Bogdanov, Alexinsky, Lunacharsky
and others). This group, in effect, was the centre of the anti-Party
faction of otzovists, ultimatumists, and god-builders.
A meeting of the extended editorial board of Proletary held
in June 1909 adopted a decision that “Bolshevism, as a definite
tendency in the R.S.D.L.P. has nothing in common with otzovism
or ultimatumism” and called upon the Bolsheviks to resolutely
combat this defection from revolutionary Marxism. Bogdanov
(Maximov), the guiding spirit of otzovism, was expelled from
the ranks of the Bolsheviks.
Later, in his book “Left-Wing” Communism—an Infantile
Disorder, Lenin wrote that the Bolsheviks were able to make an
 NOTES 507

orderly retreat and preserve their forces after the failure of the
revolution because “they ruthlessly exposed and expelled the
revolutionary phrase-mongers, those who did not wish to under-
stand that one had to retreat, that one had to know how to retreat,
and that one had absolutely to learn how to work legally in the
most reactionary of parliaments, in the most reactionary of trade
unions, co-operative and insurance societies and similar organi-
sations” (see Vol. 31, p. 28, of this edition). p. 397
388
The article referred to was “Revolutionary Hangover” published
in Proletary No. 44, April 8 (21), 1909. p. 397
389
The reference is to Kautsky’s stand at the meeting of the Inter-
national Socialist Bureau on October 11, 1908 on the question of
the British Labour Party’s membership of the Second Interna-
tional. This is dealt with in Lenin’s article “Meeting of the Inter-
national Socialist Bureau” (see Vol. 15 of this edition). p. 397
390
Lyubimov, A. I. (1879-1919)—a Social-Democrat, joined the revo-
lutionary movement in 1898. Repeatedly persecuted by the tsarist
government. In 1904 was co-opted on to the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P.
Delegate of the Party’s Council to the Third Congress of the
R.S.D.L.P. Adopted a conciliatory stand towards the Mensheviks
both after the Second Congress of the Party and during the years
of reaction. p. 398
391
See Lenin’s “A Letter to the Organisers of the Party School on
Capri” (Vol. 15 of this edition).
The Capri school was organised in 1909 on Capri (Italy) by the
otzovists, ultimatumists and god-builders. The meeting of the
extended editorial board of Proletary exposed the factional anti-
Bolshevik nature of the school, which was condemned and quali-
fied as “a new centre being formed for a faction breaking away
from the Bolsheviks” (see Vol. 15, p. 450, of this edition).
The school began to function in August, lectures being read
by Bogdanov, Alexinsky, Lunacharsky, Gorky, Lyadov, Pok-
rovsky and Desnitsky. Lenin declined the organisers’ invitation
that he come to Capri as a lecturer. In his letter to the school’s
students, who insisted on his reading a cycle of lectures to them,
Lenin explained that he could not do it inasmuch as it was “a school
deliberately hidden away from the Party” in “a remote foreign spot”
and bearing a factional character. Lenin proposed to the students
that they should come to Paris where they would learn real Social-
Democracy instead of the “separatist factional ‘science’” of the
otzovists and god-builders (see Vol. 15, pp. 472-78, of this edition).
p. 398
392
This refers to the Mensheviks’ liquidator newspaper Pravda,
Trotsky’s factional mouthpiece, published in 1908-12. The first
issues appeared in Lvov, and from No. 4 onward the paper came
out in Vienna. p. 398
508 NOTES

393
Zinoviev, Grigory Yevseyevich (1883-1936)—joined the R.S.D.L.P.
in 1901. From 1908 to April 1917 was an emigrant abroad, member
of the editorial board of the Party’s Central Organ Sotsial-Demo-
krat and of the Bolshevik newspaper Proletary. During the years
of reaction (1907-10) and the new revolutionary upsurge he adopted
a conciliatory attitude towards the liquidators, otzovists and
Trotskyists. In the period of preparation and conduct of the Octo-
ber Revolution he wavered and was opposed to an armed uprising.
In November 1927 he was expelled from the Party for factional
activities, was twice reinstated and expelled again for anti-Party
activities. p. 399
394
Sotsial-Demokrat—Central Organ of the R.S.D.L.P., an illegal
newspaper published from February 1908 to January 1917. The
editorial board, by decision of the C.C. elected at the Fifth (Lon-
don) Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., was composed of representatives
of the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and Polish Social-Democrats.
The paper was virtually run by Lenin. p. 399
395
Rech (Speech)—a daily newspaper, Central Organ of the Cadet
Party, published in St. Petersburg from February 1906. Closed
down by the Military Revolutionary Committee on October 26
(November 8), 1917. p. 399
396
The reference is to the general strike in Sweden, which broke out
on August 4, 1909, following the lockout of 83,000 workers in
various branches of industry, and to the revolt in Catalonia. Arti-
cles on these subjects were published in Proletary No. 47-48 under
the headings: “Lessons of the Class Struggle (the General Strike
in Sweden)”, a leading article and “Colonial Robbery and Revo-
lution”. p. 399
397
The polemic Lenin intended writing about was carried on in June
and August-September 1909 in Golos Sotsial-Demokrata, Nos. 15
and 16-17, in connection with an article by a Geneva anti-liqui-
dator Menshevik, apparently Victor Tevzaya (Georgien), entitled
A Word on a Topical Subject”, in which he defended the idea of
an illegal party and urged that the Menshevik organisations clear
their ranks of the liquidator legalists. In leading articles headed
“Concerning the Article of a Geneva Comrade” and “On the Orga-
nisational Discussion” the Golos people denied that they “winked
at” liquidationism and accused the author of sectarianism. In
his reply (“On the Same Subject”) Georgien quoted a number of
documents reflecting the activities of the liquidators in the orga-
nisations in Russia. No special article on this polemic appeared
in Proletary. Reference to a promised analysis and evaluation of
liquidator ideas “piled up” in issue No. 15 of Golos Sotsial-Demo-
krata is contained in a footnote to Lenin’s article “The Liquidation
of Liquidationism” (see Vol. 15, p. 460, of this edition). p. 399
398
This refers to the contents of the current issue, No. 47-48, of Pro-
 NOTES 509

letary, which published the following articles by Lenin: “The

Liquidators Exposed”, “On the Open Letter of the Executive
Committee of the Moscow Regional Committee”, and “The Elec-
tions in St. Petersburg”, and to the supplement to this issue con-
taining the article “The Faction of Supporters of Otzovism and
God-Building” (see Vol. 16 of this edition). p. 399
399
L. B. Kamenev’s article on the Menshevik five-volume publica-
tion The Social Movement in Russia at the Beginning of the Twen-
tieth Century edited by L. Martov, P. Maslov and A. Potresov
was published in Proletary, Nos. 47-48 and 49, September 5 (18)
and October 3 (16), 1909. p. 400
400
God-builders—adherents of a religious-philosophical trend, hostile
to Marxism, which in the period of reaction (1907-10) arose among
a section of the Party intellectuals who had moved away from
Marxism after the defeat of the revolution of 1905-07. The god-
builders advocated the creation of a new “socialist” religion and
tried to reconcile Marxism with religion. An extended meeting
of the editorial board of Proletary held on June 8-17 (21-30), 1909
condemned god-building and declared in a special resolution that
the Bolshevik section of the Party had nothing in common with
“such a distortion of scientific socialism”. (See The C.P.S.U. in
the Resolutions and Decisions of Its Congresses, Conferences and Ple-
nums of the Central Committee, Part I, 1954, p. 222.)
The reactionary nature of god-building was exposed by Lenin
in his book Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (see Vol. 14 of this
edition). p. 401
401
Dnevnik Sotsial-Demokrata (Diary of a Social-Democrat)—a non-
periodical organ published by Plekhanov in Geneva from 1905 to
1912. The last issue appeared in Petrograd in 1916. p. 402
402
The newspaper referred to was Proletary (see Note 353). p. 405
403
Skvortsov-Stepanov, Ivan Ivanovich (1870-1928)—one of the oldest
participants in the Russian revolutionary movement, a Marxist
writer. Joined the revolutionary movement in 1892; from the close
of 1904 a Bolshevik. In 1906 a delegate to the Fourth (Unity)
Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., at which he adopted a Leninist stand.
In the period of reaction (1907-10) adopted a conciliatory attitude
towards the Vperyod faction, but under the influence of Lenin he
rectified these errors. He was repeatedly arrested and exiled for
his revolutionary activities.
After the October Socialist Revolution he occupied important
government and Party posts. p. 407
404
Liquidators—adherents of an opportunist trend dominant among
the Mensheviks during the period of reaction following the defeat
of the first Russian revolution of 1905-07. They demanded the
liquidation of the revolutionary illegal party of the proletariat
and the creation in its stead of an opportunist party operating
510 NOTES

legally within the framework of the tsarist regime. Lenin and

other Bolsheviks untiringly denounced the liquidators, who were
betraying the cause of the revolution. The Prague Conference of
the R.S.D.L.P. (January 1912) expelled the liquidators from the
Party. p. 408
405
Meaning Stolypin’s agrarian reform aimed at using the kulaks
as a bulwark of the regime in the countryside. The tsarist govern-
ment issued a Ukase on November 9 (22), 1906, regulating the peas-
ants’ withdrawal from the communes and the establishment of
their proprietary rights on the allotment lands. Under this Stoly-
pin law (which got its name from P. A. Stolypin, Chairman of
the Council of Ministers) the peasant was free to withdraw from
the village commune, take possession of his allotment on a pro-
prietorship basis, and sell it. The rural community was obliged
to give the peasants who withdrew from the commune an allot-
ment of land in one place (an otrub, homestead) The Stolypin
reform speeded up the development of capitalism in the country-
side and the process of differentiation among the peasantry, and
sharpened the class struggle in the village. The Stolypin reform is
characterised and evaluated in a number of works by Lenin, notably
in his The Agrarian Programme of Social-Democracy in the First
Russian Revolution, 1905-1907 (see Vol. 13 of this edition). p. 408
406
This document is the draft of a letter of Lenin’s to Karl Kautsky,
Franz Mehring and Clara Zetkin, the “trustees”, to whom the
funds of the Bolshevik section of the Party were handed over in
accordance with the decision of the January 1910 Plenum of the
C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P. Details of this will be found in Lenin’s
article “The Results of the Arbitration of the ‘Trustees’” (see
Vol. 17, pp. 365-67, of this edition). p. 411
407
Lenin is referring to the Fourth (Unity) Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.
held in Stockholm on April 10-25 (April 23-May 8), 1906, and the
Fifth (London) Congress held on April 30-May 19 (May 13-June 1),
1907. p. 411
408
Lenin refers to the Fifth (All-Russia) Conference of the
R.S.D.L.P. which condemned liquidationism. p. 412
409
A phrase used by Plekhanov and addressed to the newspaper of
the Menshevik liquidators Golos Sotsial-Demokrata (Voice of a
Social-Democrat). p. 412
410
Lenin here refers to the resolution “The State of Affairs in the
Party” adopted by the Plenum of the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P. in
January 1910. A critical analysis of this resolution is given by
Lenin in his article “Notes of a Publicist” (see Vol. 16 of this edi-
tion). p. 413
411
The reprint from No. 12 of Sotsial-Demokrat for March 23 (Ap-
ril 5), 1910, contained Lenin’s article “Golos (Voice) of the Liqui-
 NOTES 511

dators Against the Party (Reply to Golos Sotsial-Demokrata)

(see Vol. 16 of this edition). p. 414
412
Vperyodists—adherents of the Vperyod anti-Party group, consi-
sting of otzovists, ultimatumists, god-builders and empirio-mo-
nists; organised in December 1909 on the initiative of Bogdanov
and Alexinsky; the group had its press organ of the same name.
In 1912 together with the Menshevik liquidators they joined the
general anti-Party bloc (the August bloc) against the Bolsheviks,
which was organised by Trotsky. Lacking support among the
workers, the group virtually fell to pieces in 1913. It disintegrated
completely in 1917, after the February revolution. p. 414
413
In answer to this letter Plekhanov wrote on April 2, 1910: “I,
too, think, that the only way of coping with the crisis our Party
is now living through is by a close alignment among the Menshe-
vik Marxists and the Bolshevik Marxists, and I believe that you
and I should talk this over.” Plekhanov, however, wrote that this
meeting should be held later. During the Copenhagen Congress of
the Second International, at which Plekhanov and Lenin wrote
to the Executive Committee of the Social-Democratic Party of
Germany protesting against the publication in Vorwärts of an
anonymous and libellous article by Trotsky, an agreement was
reached between Lenin and Plekhanov for a joint struggle for
the Party and the Party principle against liquidationism and the
liquidators, and for Plekhanov’s contribution to Rabochaya Ga-
zeta. p. 416
414
Pro-Party Mensheviks—a small group of Mensheviks headed by
Plekhanov, who broke away from the Menshevik liquidators and
came out against liquidationism in 1908-12. The resolution here
referred to was adopted by the pro-Party Mensheviks (in Paris)
on April 4, 1910, concerning the necessity of closing down the liqui-
dator newspaper Golos Sotsial-Demokrata in accordance with the
decision of the January 1910 Plenum of the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P.
p. 417
415
Diskussionny Listok (Discussion Bulletin) was started by decision
of the January 1910 (“Unity”) Plenum of the C.C. Its editorial
board was composed of representatives of all the existing trends
and national organisations in the Party. It appeared as a supple-
ment to the Central Organ Sotsial-Demokrat in Paris from March 6
(19), 1911, to April 29 (May 12), 1911. Three issues were put out.
p. 419
416
Nasha Zarya (Our Dawn)—a monthly legal journal of the Menshe-
vik liquidators, published in St. Petersburg from 1910 to 1914.
It became the centre of the liquidators in Russia. p. 420
417
The “Open Letter” was written by a group of prominent Mensheviks,
who proposed liquidating the Party. p. 420
512 NOTES

418
The Party’s School Committee was organised in accordance with
a decision of the January 1910 (“Unity”) Plenum of the C.C. of
the R.S.D.L.P. and was made up of Bolsheviks, Mensheviks
Vperyodists (2 representatives each) and one representative each
from the Bund, the Social-Democrats of Poland and Lithuania
and the Lettish Social-Democrats. The C.C.’s Bureau Abroad
was instructed “to take all steps to induce Comrade Maximov
(Bogdanov) and others to give up the idea of organising a separate
school and to join the organisation of the school under the C.C.,
in which they should be guaranteed full opportunity of applying
their teaching and lecturing talents” (see The C.P.S.U. in the
Resolutions and Decisions of Its Congresses, Conferences and Ple-
nums of the Central Committee, Part I, 1954, p. 240). p. 421
419
Semashko, Nikolai Alexandrovich (1874-1949)—prominent Soviet
statesman. Member of the Bolshevik Party since 1893. Took an
active part in the revolution of 1905-07. Was arrested in 1907
by the Swiss authorities; on his release from prison he moved to
Paris, where he was secretary of the Bureau Abroad of the Central
Committee of the Bolshevik Party. p. 423
420
Here and lower down (see pp. 430-31 and 432) the reference is to
arrangements for publishing abroad the Bolshevik newspaper Rabo-
chaya Gazeta. p. 423
421
Marchlewski, Julian (1866-1925)—prominent member of the rev-
olutionary movement in Poland, Germany and Russia. Was one
of the organisers and leaders of the Social-Democratic Party of
Poland and Lithuania. Took an active part in the revolution of
1905-07. At the Fifth (London) Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. was
elected alternate member of the Central Committee. From 1909
worked chiefly in the German Social-Democratic Party.
p. 424
422
The article against Martov by Marchlewski (Karsky) was pub-
lished in the journal Die Neue Zeit (I. Band, No. 4, October 28
1910) under the heading: “Ein Mißverständnis” (A Misunderstand-
ing). This article dealt with Martov’s distortion of the quotation
from Lenin’s article and his application to the Russian revolution
of 1905-07 of Kautsky’s idea to the effect that “the strategy of over-
throw” was inapplicable to Germany. p. 425
423
Quessel, L.—German Social-Democrat, ultra-opportunist who
gave an opportunist appraisal of the revolution of 1905.
p. 425
424
Nasha Zarya, see Note 416.
Vozrozhdeniye (Renaissance)—a legal journal of the Menshevik
liquidators, published in Moscow from December 1908 to July
1910.
Zhizn (Life)—a legal socio-political journal, organ of the Men-
 NOTES 513

shevik liquidators, published in Moscow; two issues were put out

(in August and September 1910). p. 428
425
This refers to the controversy between Rosa Luxemburg and Karl
Kautsky in the German Social-Democratic press on the question
of the general political strike. The Magdeburg Congress of the
German Social-Democratic Party held on September 18-24, 1910,
adopted the first part of a resolution proposed by Rosa Luxemburg
recognising the general political strike as a method of struggle
for an electoral reform in Prussia; the part of the resolution Lenin
refers to deals with the question of propaganda of the idea of a
general strike. p. 429
426
Shklovsky, G. L . (1875-1937)—member of the R.S.D.L.P. since
1898, carried on Party work in the towns of Byelorussia and abroad.
From 1909 a political emigrant. Returned to Russia after the Feb-
ruary bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1917; worked in Nizh-
ni-Novgorod and Moscow.
After the October Socialist Revolution worked in Party and
government institutions. p. 430
427
Lenin’s lecture tour in Switzerland evidently did not take place. p. 430
428
In this and his next letter Lenin writes about arrangements for
publishing the Bolshevik legal journal Mysl. p. 431
429
Lenin’s “Announcement on the Publication of Rabochaya Gaze-
ta” (see Vol. 16 of this edition). Rabochaya Gazeta (Workers’ Ga-
zette)—an illegal popular organ of the Bolsheviks, published
in Paris in 1910-12. p. 432
430
During the International Socialist Congress in Copenhagen (August
28-September 3, 1910) Lenin and Plekhanov submitted a joint
protest to the Executive of the German Social-Democratic Party
against the publication in Vorwärts, the Central Organ of the
German Social-Democrats, of an anonymous and slanderous article
penned by Trotsky concerning the state of affairs in the Russian
Social-Democratic Party.
Lenin came out against this slander of Trotsky’s in his article
“How Certain Social-Democrats Inform the International About
the State of Affairs in the R.S.D.L.P.” published in the newspaper
Sotsial-Demokrat No. 17, for September 25 (October 8), 1910,
and in his article “The Historical Meaning of the Inner-Party
Struggle in Russia” published in Diskussionny Listok No. 3, for
April 29 (May 12), 1911 (see Vol. 16 of this edition). p. 432
431
Lenin has in mind preparations for the publication of the Bol-
shevik legal monthly Mysl (Thought), the first issue of which ap-
peared in Moscow in December 1910. The journal was published
up till April 1911, altogether five numbers being issued.
The journal was founded on Lenin’s initiative to step up the
514 NOTES

fight against the liquidators’ legal organs and to educate the ad-
vanced workers and intellectuals in the spirit of Marxism. Lenin
directed the journal from abroad and carried on a regular corres-
pondence with the editors. p. 432
432
This refers to the publication of the Bolshevik legal newspaper
Zvezda (Star). It appeared from December 16 (29), 1910 to April 22
(May 5), 1912. Up till the autumn of 1911 the pro-Party Menshe-
viks (the Plekhanovites) contributed to Zvezda. Ideological guid-
ance of the newspaper was effected by Lenin from abroad.
p. 433
433
Znaniye (Knowledge)—a book-publishing house, founded in St.
Petersburg in 1898 by a group of writers; later Maxim Gorky was
closely associated with it. p. 433
434
The Central Organ of the R.S.D.L.P., the illegal newspaper Sot-
sial-Demokrat, was published from February 1908 to January
1917 (see Note 394). p. 433
435
Sovremennik (The Contemporary)—a monthly literary and polit-
ical journal, published in St. Petersburg in 1911-15. Grouped
around it were Menshevik liquidators, Socialist-Revolutionaries,
“Popular Socialists” and Left liberals. The journal had no ties
whatever with the working-class masses. A leading role in the jour-
nal at the beginning of its existence was played by A. V. Amfi-
teatrov.
As a result of Lenin’s letter, Gorky demanded that the words
in the announcement describing him as “a regular contributor”
should be deleted (see V. I. Lenin and A. M. Gorky, Letters, Rem-
iniscences, Documents, Second Russ. ed., Moscow, 1961, p. 59).
Gorky broke with Sovremennik in August 1911, but resumed his
contributions in 1912 when Amfiteatrov resigned from the editorial
staff. p. 434
436
Vestnik Yevropy (European Messenger)—a monthly magazine de-
voted to politics, history and literature, bourgeois-liberal in
trend, published in St. Petersburg from 1866 to 1918. p. 434
437
Russkaya Mysl (Russian Thought)—a monthly literary and polit-
ical journal published in Moscow from 1880 to 1918. Up to 1905
it was of a liberal-Narodnik trend. In the nineties it sometimes
published articles of the Marxists. After the revolution of 1905
it became the organ of the Right wing of the Cadet Party. The
editor was P. B. Struve. p. 434
438
Russkoye Bogatstvo. See Note 16. p. 434
439
Sovremenny Mir (The Modern World)—a monthly literary, scien-
tific and political journal, appeared in St. Petersburg from 1906
to 1918. p. 434
 NOTES 515
440
See Note 391. p. 435
441
Krasnoye Znamya (Red Banner)—a bourgeois political and liter-
ary journal founded by A. V. Amfiteatrov. Published in Paris
from 1906. p. 435
442
Poletayev, Nikolai Gurievich (1872-1930)—Social-Democrat, Bol-
shevik, a turner by trade. Took part in the workers’ circles in the
1890s. Repeatedly sentenced to imprisonment. Deputy to the
Third Duma from St. Petersburg Gubernia, member of the parlia-
mentary Social-Democratic Party. Closely associated with the
publication of the Bolshevik newspapers Zvezda and Pravda. After
the October Socialist Revolution—a business executive. p. 436
443
This refers to Plekhanov’s article “Karl Marx and Leo Tolstoy”
published in the newspaper Sotsial-Demokrat No. 19-20, for Janu-
ary 13 (26), 1911. p. 437
444
Lyakhov, V. —a tsarist army colonel, commanded the Russian troops
who suppressed the revolutionary movement in Persia in 1908. p. 438
445
The Black-Hundreds were monarchist gangs of pogromists organised
by the tsarist police to fight the revolutionary movement.
Octobrists—members of the Octobrist party (or Union of October
Seventeenth), a counter-revolutionary party of the big industrial
bourgeoisie and landowners who engaged in capitalist farming.
It was founded in November 1905. While paying lip service to the
Manifesto of October 17, in which the tsar, frightened by the revo-
lution, promised the people “civil liberties” and a constitution
the Octobrists unreservedly supported the home and foreign pol-
cies of the tsarist government. The leaders of the Octobrists were
the well-known industrialist A. Guchkov and the owner of vast
estates M. Rodzyanko. p. 438
446
Lenin is apparently referring to his book The Agrarian Question in
Russia Towards the Close of the Nineteenth Century written in 1908
for the Granat Bros. Encyclopaedia. It was not published there
for censorship reasons, and Lenin intended, as his letter indicates
to have it published by the Znaniye book publishers. However, it
was first published in Moscow in 1918 as a separate booklet by
the Zhizn i Znaniye Publishing House (see Vol. 15 of this edition).
p. 439
447
The anti-Party school in Bologna (November 1910-March 1911)
was a continuation of the Capri school. Lecturers at this school
were Bogdanov, Lunacharsky, Trotsky, Lyadov, Maslov, Sokolov
and others. An invitation to read lectures there was turned down
by Lenin in view of the anti-Party tendency and splitting activities
of the school’s organisers. Lenin invited the students to Paris,
where he promised to read them a number of lectures on the ques-
tions of tactics, the situation within the Party and the agrarian
question. The lectures in Paris did not take place. p. 440
516 NOTES

448
Meaning the funds on which the second Vperyodist school existed;
these funds were received mainly from the Ural Party people,
who carried out the Miass expropriation. p. 442
449
This refers to the symposium Vperyod, organ of the anti-Party
Vperyod group, published in Geneva in 1910-11. p. 442
450
Sovremennaya Zhizn (Modern Life)—a Bolshevik legal journal,
appeared in Baku in March-April 1911. p. 447
451
Nxmec, Antonin (1858-1926)—a Right Social-Democrat. From
1897 virtual leader of the Czech Social-Democrats, whom he repre-
sented in the Second International. In 1906-18 Social-Democratic
deputy to the Vienna Imperial Council; in 1918-25 deputy to
the National Assembly of the Czechoslovak Republic. p. 448
452
his refers to arrangements for the Sixth All-Russia Conference
of the R.S.D.L.P., which was held in Prague on January 5-17
(18-30), 1912.
The Czech Social-Democrats rendered great help in organising
this Conference. They not only gave the premises for the Confer-
ence, but provided accommodation for the delegates in the homes
of Czech workers and generally took care of the delegates. The
building in which the Prague Conference was held (7, Gibern St.)
is now a Lenin Museum. p. 448
 517

IDENTIFICATION OF PSEUDONYMS,
NICKNAMES AND INITIALS USED IN THE TEXT

A. A., Al. Al.—Bogdanov A. A. Boris, Boris Nikolayevich—Nos-

Absolute—Stasova Yelena kov V. A.
Akim—Goldman L. I. Bouncer (Vyshibalo)—Toka-
Akim’s Brother—Gorev-Gold- rev A. S.
man B. I. Brodyagin—Silvin M. A.
Alexander—Kremer A. I. Bruskov—Andropov S. V.
Alexandrov—Postolovsky D. S. Brutus—Krzhizhanovsky G. M.
Alexei—Martov Y. O. Bundist—Portnoi K.
A. M., Al. M.—Gorky A. M. Bychkov—Lepeshinsky P. N.
A. N.—Potrosov A. N.
An. Al.—Lunacharskaya Anna
Andreyevsky—Ulyanov D. I.
A. P.—Potresov A. N. Calf (Telyonok)—Struve P. B.
Arseniev—Potresov A. N. Ch.—Smidovich P. G.
Auntie (Tyotka)—Zasulich Vera Claire—Krzhizhanovsky G. M.
Auntie—Kalmykova Alexandra Cook (Povar)—Shchekoldin F. I.
A. Vas., An. Vas., Anat. Vas.—
Lunacharsky A. V.

B.—Andropov S. V. Danevich—Gurevich E. L.
Balalaikin—Trotsky L. D. Danila—Novomirsky D. I.
Baron—Essen E. E. Deer (Lan)—Krzhizhanovsky
Barsov—Tskhakaya M. G. G. M.
Bear (Medved)—Ulyanova Maria Delta—Stasova Yelena
Beard (Boroda)—Desnitsky V. A. Dementiev—Basovsky I. B.
Beast, Beastie (Zver, Zverev, Demon—Zemlyachka Rozalia
Zverushka)—Essen Maria Destroyer (Minonosets)—Luna-
Beggar (Nishchy)—Vinogradova charsky A. V.
Olga Doe (Lanikha)—Krzhizhanovs-
Beltov—Plekhanov G. V. kaya Zinaida
Berg—Martov Y. O. Doctor—Gusarov F. V.
B. N.—Noskov V. A. Domov—Pokrovsky M. N.
Bogdan—Babushkin I. V. Dubois—Postolovsky D. S.
Bonch—Bonch-Bruyevich V. D. Dvinskaya—Ettinger-Davidson
B o o k s e l l e r (Knigoprodavets)— E. S.
Potresov A. N. Dyadin—Knipovich Lydia
518 IDENTIFICATION OF PSEUDONYMS, NICKNAMES AND INITIALS

Elder Sister (Starshaya Sestra)— Kamensky—Plekhanov G. V.

Zasulich Vera Karelin—Zasulich Vera
Embryon—Baramzin Y. V. Kasyan—Radchenko I.
Ernest—Rollau E. Khariton—Gusev S. I.
Kiroff—Zasulich Vera
Koltsov—Ginsburg B.
Falcon (Sokol)—Essen Maria Konyaga, Konyagin—Galpe-
Feld—Blumenfeld I. S. rin L. Y.
Felix—Litvinov M. M. Kostrov—Jordania N.
Fred—Vladimirov M. K. Kurtz—Lengnik F. V.
Frey—Lenin V. I.
Frockcoat (Syurtuk)—Kopp V. L. Lebedev—Gusev S. I.
L. Gr.—Deutsch L. G.
Lidin—Lyadov M. N.
G.—Kopelson T. Lightmind (Legkomyslenny)—
Galyorka—Olminsky M. S. Lunacharsky A. V.
Genosse—Yermansky O. A. L. M.—Martov Y. O.
George—Plekhanov G. V. Lyova—Vladimirov M. K.
Glebov—Noskov V. A. Lyubich—Sammer I. A.
Grigory—Zinoviev G.
Grishin—Kopelson T.
G. V.—Plekhanov G. V. M.—Vilonov N. Y.
Gvozdyov—Zimmerman R. Maria Fyodorovna—Andreyeva
Gurvich—Dan F. I. Maria
Mark—Lyubimov A. I.
Martyn, Martyn Nikolayevich—
Hairpin (Shpilka)—Krasi- Lyadov M. N.
kov P. A. Martyn—Rozanov V. N.
Handsome (Krasavets)—Krokh- Matryona—Smidovich P. G.
mal V. N. Maximov—Bogdanov A. A.
Hans—Krzhizhanovsky G. M. Mermaid (Rusalka)—Lyadov M. N.
Heron (Tsaplya)—Stasova Yelena Meshkovsky—Goldenberg I. P.
Horse (Loshad)—Krasin L. B. Meyer—Lenin V. I.
M. F.—Andreyeva Maria
Mikhail—Vilonov N. Y.
Ignat—Krasikov P. A. Mikhail—Isuv I. A.
Igor—Gorev-Goldman B. I. Mitrofan, Mitrofanov—Gusa-
Ilyin—Lenin V. I. rov F. V.
Inok, Innokenty—Dubrovins- Monist—Plekhanov G. V.
ky I. F. Monk (Monakh)—Yeramasov A. I.
Insarov—Lalayants I. K. Motya—Belopolsky I. I.
Isari—Topuridze D. Mouse (Mysh)—Kulyabko P. I.
Myamlin—Essen A. M.

Jacques—Alexandrova Yekate-
rina Nadezha—Dan F. I.
Josephine—Vorovsky V. V. Nadya—Krupskaya Nadezhda
Judas—Struve P. B. Natalya Ivanovna—Alexandrova
Julius, Yuli Osipovich—Mar- Yekaterina
tov Y. O. Nation (Natsia)—Gusev S. I.
 IDENTIFICATION OF PSEUDONYMS, NICKNAMES AND INITIALS 519

Nevzorov—Steklov Y. M. R.N.S.—Struve P. B.
N. G.—Zhitlovsky H. I. Roman—Yermolayov K. M.
N. I.—Yordansky N. I. Rook (Grach)—Bauman N. E.
N. I.—Fyodorova-Shtremer N. I. Rosa—Zemlyachka Rozalia
Nikitich—Krasin L. B. Rosa—Luxemburg Rosa
Nikolai—Rollau E. Ru—Galperin L. Y.
Nik. Iv.—Lalayants I. Kh. Ruben—Knunyants B. M.
Nil—Noskov V. A.
Nina Lvovna—Essen Maria
N.—on—Danielson N. F. Samovarov—Nogin V. P.
Novitskaya—Babushkin I. V. Schmidt—Rumyantsev P. P.
Novobrantsev—Peshekhonov Schwarz—Vorovsky V. V.
A. V. Serafima—Afanasieva Sophia
Sergei Petrovich—Krasikov P.
She—Gorev-Goldman B. I.
Old Believer (Starover)—Potre- Simonov—Gutovsky V. A.
sov A. N. Skaldin—Yelenev F. P.
Old Man (Starik)—Lenin V. I. Smith—Krzhizhanovsky G. M.
Olin—Lepeshinsky P. N. Sokolovsky—Makhlin L. D.
Orlovsky—Vorovsky V. V. Sommer—Lyubimov A. I.
Orsha—Radchenko L. N. Stake (Kol)—Lengnik F. V.
Orthodox—Axelrod L. I. Stanislav—Sokolov A. V.
Osip—Levitsky K. O. Stroyev—Desnitsky V. A.
Osipov—Zemlyachka Rozalia Sysoika—Bogdanov A. A.

P.—Nogin V. P. Teacher of Life (Uchitel Zhizni)—

P. A., P. Andr.—Krasikov P. A. Sponti Y. I.
Pakhomy—Martov Y. O. Tick (Kleshch)—Bibikov I. I.
Pakhomy’s Brother—Tseder- Travinsky—Krzhizhanovsky G. M.
baum S. O. Tria—Mgeladze V. D.
Pankrat—Krasikov P. A. Tsvetov—Blumenfeld I. S.
Papasha—Litvinov M. M. Tu—ra—Stopani A. M.
Pavlovich—Krasikov P. A. 2a3b—Lepeshinsky P. N.
P. B.—Axelrod P. B.
P. B.—Struve P. B.
Pen (Pero)—Trotsky L. D. Uncle—Knipovich Lydia
Petrov, Petroff—Lenin V. I.
Poletayev—Bauman N. E.
“Praktik”—Dubrovinsky I. F. Vadim—Noskov V. A.
Private (Ryadovoi)—Bogdanov Valentin—Galperin L. Y.
A. A. Vanya—Krasnukha V. P.
Puttman—Potresov A. N. Varvara Ivanovna—Stasova Ye-
lena
Vasiliev—Lengnik F. V.
Rakhmetov—Bogdanov A. A. Vas. Vas., Vasily Vasilievich—
Rakhmetova—Bogdanova Nata- Olminsky M. S.
lia Velika, Velika Dmitrievna—
Rashid-Bek—Zurabov A. G. Zasulich Vera
Raznotsvetov—Blumenfeld I. S. V. I., V. Iv.—Zasulich Vera
Reinert—Bogdanov A. A. V. I.—n—Ivanshin V. P.
520 IDENTIFICATION OF PSEUDONYMS, NICKNAMES AND INITIALS

Vlas—Rerikh A. E. Yakov—Tsederbaum S. O.
Voinov—Lunacharsky A. V. Yegor—Martov Y. O.
Volgin—Plekhanov G. V. Yeryoma—Shneerson A. A.
V. U.—Lenin V. I. Yevgeny—Vulpe I. K.
Vyach—Rozhkov N. A. Y. O.—Martov Y. O.
Yurdanov—Yordansky N. I.
Werner—Bogdanov A. A. Yuri—Bronstein P. A.
Winter—Krasin L. B. Yuriev—Vecheslov M. G.
Wolf—Lengnik F. V.
Wood (Derevo)—Dan F. I. Zarin—Lengnik F. V.
Zernova—Essen Maria
X.—Knipovich Lydia Zverev—Essen Maria
ZZ—Lalayants I. Kh.
Yablochkov—Nogin V. P.
ù/ à —Galperin L. Y.

B. n. leHnH
coЧnHeHnr
T OM 3 4
HÅ ÅéÑåâäíãèç ÄàúãÜ