V. I.

Lenin

Thefollowing letter has been received by the Editorial
Board:

“Indealing with the question of agitation (if I am not mistaken, in
No. 13) Iskra opposes agitational leaflets (pamphlets of two or
three pages) on political subjects. In the opinion of the editors, news
papers can successfully replace such literature. Newspapers are, of
course, a fine thing. Nobody would dream of disputing that. But can they
replace leaflets that are specially intended for widespread distribution
among the masses? The editors have received a letter from Russia in which
a group of workers-agitators gave their opinion on this
subject. Iskra’s reply is obviously due to a misunderstanding. The question of agitation is as important today as the
question of demonstrations. It is, therefore, to be desired that the
editors raise this question once again and on this occasion devote to it
greater attention.

“ AReader ”

Anyonewho takes the trouble to read our reply to the letter from
“Southern Workers” in No. 13 of

Iskra [See present volume,
p. 326.— Ed .]

together with this letter will easily convince himself that it is
precisely the author of the letter who labours under an obvious
misunderstanding. There was no question of Iskra’s “opposing agitational leaflets”; it never entered anyone’s
head that a newspaper could “replace leaflets”. Our correspondent did not notice that leaflets are in fact proclamations. Such
literature as proclamations cannot be replaced by anything and
will always be absolutely essential—on this point the “Southern Workers” and Iskra are in full accord. But
they are also agreed that this type of literature is not sufficient. If we speak of good housing for the workers and at the
same time say that good food is not enough for them, that would hardly be taken to mean that we are against”
good food. The question is—which is the highest form of
agitational literature? The “Southern Workers” did not say a word about the newspaper when they raised
this question. Their silence could, of course, have been due to local
circumstances, but we, although we did not in the least wish to enter into
“disputes” with our correspondents, naturally could not
refrain from reminding them that the proletariat should also organise its
own newspaper just as the other classes of the population have done, that
fragmentary work alone is not enough, and that the regular, active, and
general work of all localities for a revolutionary organ is essential.

Asfar as the three- or four-page pamphlets are concerned, we did not speak “against” them in the least , but merely
doubted the practicability of a plan to develop them into
regular literature distributed “simultaneously through out Russia”. If they consist of three or four pages, they will be,
essentially, only proclamations. In all parts of Russia we have many
very good proclamations that are not in the least heavy reading, both
student and workers’ proclamations, that sometimes run to six or eight
small pages. A really popular pamphlet, capable of explaining even one single question to a completely unprepared
worker, would probably be much bigger in size and there would be no need
and no possibility of distributing it “simultaneously throughout
Russia” (since it is not only of topical significance). Fully
recognising, as we do, every variety of political literature, old and
new, so long as it is really good political literature, we would advise
working, not upon an invention of a midway type of agitational
medium— something between leaflet and popular pamphlet, but for a
revolutionary organ that really deserves the name of periodical
(appearing, not once, but at least two or four times, a month) and which
is an All -Russian organ.

---
Notes: