Dear A. M.! I have no objection to your sending my letter to Tikhonov, of course.

Lunacharsky's feuilleton "Between Fear and Hope" interested me after your description. Could you send it to me if you have a spare copy? I will return it promptly if required.

* This letter is an addendum to the letter of G. E. Zinoviev; it was sent to the address of N. I. Podvoisky. Ed.

The collections for the Moscow newspaper greatly pleased us. Our trio of deputies from the Moscow region—Malinovsky, Shagov, and Samoylov—will take on this task. This has already been agreed upon. But caution is needed: we cannot undertake the Moscow newspaper without first strengthening "Pravda." We have a plan for setting up "Moskovskaya Pravda" 174.

Please write to Tikhonov and tell him to speak only with Badayev and Malinovsky, and he must definitely talk with them.

I was especially pleased by the following words in your letter: "From all the plans and conjectures of the Russian intelligentsia, it is clear beyond doubt that socialist thought is interspersed with various currents fundamentally hostile to it: there is mysticism, metaphysics, opportunism, reformism, and remnants of narodnichestvo. All these currents are even more hostile because they are extremely vague and, lacking their own platforms, cannot define themselves with sufficient clarity"*.

I underscore the words that particularly impressed me. Exactly: "fundamentally hostile" and even more so because they are vague. You ask about Stepanov (I. I.). What did he turn out to be (and he is a good fellow, a hard worker, knowledgeable, etc.) in the era of collapse and wavering (1908-1911)? He wanted to reconcile with the Vperyodists. But that means he himself was wavering.

He wrote me letters saying that a cross should be put over the democratic revolution in Russia, that things would go as in Austria without a revolution. I called him a liquidator for these vulgarities**. He was offended. Later, Larin published his thoughts in print.

Now Stepanov demonstratively writes not for us but for Rozhkov's newspaper "Novaya Sibir" in Irkutsk 175. And you know what "current" Rozhkov opened? Have you read

* See V. I. Lenin and A. M. Gorky. Letters, memoirs, documents. 2nd ed., 1961, pp. 92-93. Ed.

** See V. I. Lenin. Collected Works, 5th ed., vol. 47, pp. 223-225. Ed.

his article in "Nasha Zarya" in 1911 and my response in "Zvezda"?* And Rozhkov stuck to his ultra-opportunism. As for Stepanov? Only God knows. Precisely: "extremely vague" and muddled position. I would never trust Stepanov with any independent section now: he would jump, not knowing where. But as a contributor, he could probably be useful. He is one of those who "have not figured it out." Assigning him to "organize" a section would mean ruining both him and the section for sure.

You write: "It is time for us to have our own magazine, but we do not have enough well-coordinated people."

I do not agree with the second part of this sentence. A magazine would force a sufficient number of people to coordinate, if there were a magazine, if there were a core.

The core exists, but there is no (thick) magazine due to external reasons: lack of money. If there were money, I am confident we could manage a thick magazine now, as many contributors could be attracted for pay, distributing topics and assigning places.

While there is no money, we should, in my opinion, not only dream but also build with what we have, i.e., with "Prosveshchenie."
It is, of course, a small fish, but, first, big things grow from small ones. Second, a small fish is better than a big cockroach.

It is high time, long overdue, to start coordinating, if we want to have a large number of "coordinated people."

"It is time for us to have our own magazine." The literary core exists. The correctness of the line is confirmed by 12 years of experience (or even 20), and especially by the last 6 years. Gathering around this core, thereby defining it in more detail, expanding and broadening it. We had to start with the illegal and "Pravda." But we do not want to stop there. Therefore, since you said, "it is time for us to have our own magazine," allow me to hold you accountable for these words: either outline now

* See V. I. Lenin. "Manifesto of the Liberal Workers' Party" (Collected Works, 5th ed., vol. 20, pp. 396-410). Ed.

a plan for finding money for a thick magazine with such-and-such a program, such-and-such an editorial board, and such-and-such a staff of contributors, or start expanding "Prosveshchenie" according to this same plan.

But more likely: not either-or, but both.

I await your reply. From Vienna, you surely already have a letter about "Prosveshchenie" 176. There is a good hope to secure it in a small form for 1913. If you want "us to have our own magazine," let's move forward together.

Regarding the Dashnaks, I have heard nothing. But I consider the rumor nonsense. It was spread by the government, which wants to swallow Turkish Armenia 177.

R. R. S-ies*, undoubtedly, are for Austria and will fight for it. A war between Austria and Russia would be very beneficial for the revolution (in all of Eastern Europe), but it is unlikely whether Franz Joseph and Nicholas will provide us with this pleasure.

You ask for more frequent information. I will do so with pleasure—just respond. I am sending (for now in secret) the resolutions of our recent meeting (which, in my opinion, was very successful and will play a role)**.

Resolutions, they say, are the dullest of all forms of literature. I am too deeply involved in resolutions. Write and tell me how readable they are for you (especially about revolutionary strikes and liquidators).

What harm has the rumor of an amnesty caused in Russia? I do not know. Write and tell me.

N. K. sends her regards.

I shake your hand firmly.

Yours, Lenin