V. I.

Lenin

To:   M. A. SAVELYEV

For Vetrov
Urgent

Dear Colleague, It is extremely sad that our correspondence is still not
properly organised, that I still have no special address
for you personally, that yon don’t reply to my questions
for so long.
(1) I wrote to you a very, very long time ago that Zvezda still had, in addition to the article “Debates
in Britain on Liberal Labour Policy”, the articles “Two
Utopias” [1] and a criticism of the boycott policy (against
Amfiteatrov, I don’t remember the title [3] ). I repeat what
I asked: get hold of them and send them to me. I hope to
make use of them.
(2) At Pravda there are also a number of articles which have not been used there. I very much
want, you to find them and make them into notes of a publicist signed, say, T.... The approximate arrangement would
be:
I. Reply to Mayevsky (in Luch , about liquidationism).
(This subject is the more necessary because Dnevnitsky and Plekhanov, in No. 234 of Pravda , have struck false
notes.)
II. Bulgakov in Russkaya Mysl on the peasants (I don’t remember the title).
III. On morality (two short articles).
IV. “An Increasing Discrepancy” (on the February
1913 conference of the Cadets. We must react to this. Two
short articles were sent to Pravda the day before yesterday;
the remaning four are small, I am sending them today).
The titles for these paragraphs should not be in large type
(as was clone in the article “Results of the
Elections” [2] in No. 1 of Prosveshcheniye ) but in small point.

There are an awful lot of misprints in No. 1 of Prosveshcheniye ....
I enclose the corrected proofs of the article “Debates in Britain on Liberal Labour Policy”. It should be printed.
Have yon really not managed to get rid yet of Mikhalchi....
This is essential, I assure you, essential. I have seen a
misprint on page 26 of Prosveshcheniye No. 1. A correction in
print is absolutely necessary. I enclose the correction.

V. Il.

Misprint

Many misprints occurred in the January number of
Prosveshcheniye (1913, No. 1). We correct one which distorts
the sense. On page 26, line 23 from the top, it reads: “25 per
cent in the workers’ party”, but should read “52 per cent”.