Date: 1908-02-13
Source: ru:PSS/v47

Source: PSS vol 47

the necessity for the workers’ movement. On all these issues, there can be no divergence among us; I am firmly convinced of this, and if we cannot meet in person at this time, it is imperative that we begin working together without delay. It is precisely in the course of our work that we will most easily—and most effectively—reach a final, complete understanding.

Your plan to write short pieces for “Proletariy” (a notice has been sent to you) fills me with great, profound satisfaction. But of course, when major tasks lie ahead, one must not lose sight of the bigger picture.

I had intended to reply to you last time about Trotsky, but I forgot. We—meaning the local editorial board of “Proletariy,” including Al. Al., myself, and “Inok”*—a very fine comrade from the Russian émigré circles—decided right away to invite him to contribute to “Proletariy.” We drafted a letter, outlined a topic, and made a formal proposal. By mutual agreement, we signed the letter as “The Editorial Board of ‘Proletariy,’” seeking to place the matter on a more collegial footing (for instance, I personally had a fierce, bitter struggle with Trotsky back in 1903–1905, when he was still a Menshevik).

Whether Trotsky took offense at this form of address, I do not know—but he sent a letter that was clearly not his own:

“On behalf of Comrade Trotsky,” the editorial board of “Proletariy” was informed that he declined to contribute, citing prior commitments.

In my view, this was mere posturing. At the London Congress, too, he behaved like a poseur. I simply do not know whether he will ultimately align himself with the émigré circles…

Here, the Mecki have published an announcement regarding the monthly journal “Voice of the Social Democrat,” No. 140, signed by Plekhanov, Axelrod, Dan, Martov, and Martynov. I’ll obtain a copy and send it to you.

The struggle may intensify. Yet Trotsky seeks to stand “above the warring factions”...

As for materialism as a worldview, I believe I fundamentally disagree with you. My disagreement does not concern “a materialist understanding of history” (which our “empiriocritics”141 do not reject), but rather philosophical materialism. To claim that the Anglo-Saxons and Germans owe their bourgeois mentality to “materialism,” while the Romance peoples are indebted to anarchism—this I categorically dispute. In every corner of the world, materialism as a philosophy has long been relegated to the margins. Even “Neue Zeit,” the most steadfast and knowledgeable of all organs, remains indifferent to philosophy—and has never been a fervent advocate of philosophical materialism. In recent years, I have published, without reservation, works by the empiriocritics. To suggest that the kind of materialism taught by Marx and Engels could somehow give rise to a lifeless, petty-bourgeois existence—that is utterly mistaken, utterly wrong! All petty-bourgeois tendencies within social democracy wage their fiercest battles against philosophical materialism, gravitating instead toward Kant, neo-Kantianism, and critical philosophy. No, the philosophy that Engels laid out in “Anti-Dühring” excludes petty-bourgeois thought even at the threshold. Plekhanov harms this very philosophy by conflating its struggle with factional strife—but no Russian social democrat today should confuse the present-day Plekhanov with the old Plekhanov.

Al. Al. has just left me now. I will convey to him again and again the importance of the “Congress.” If you insist, we can arrange for it to take place in just a couple of days—and soon, too.

With warm regards. Lenin

on the island of Capri (Italy)

---

Sent from Geneva

First published in 1924

in Lenin’s Collected Works, Volume I

Printed from manuscript