Letter 2.
26/I 99 [Shushenskoe].
Received your letter of 24/XII.
I am very glad for you that you, damn it, are rid of your illness. Rumors about it had already reached us: I heard about it during the holidays, being in Minusinsk, and I kept wondering where and how to inquire (I considered it inconvenient to write to you directly, because they said the illness was serious).
Well, now you have resurrected just in time, when a literary enterprise is also resurrecting. Of course, you already know about “Nachalo,” which is scheduled to begin in mid-February? *).
I hope that you have now fully recovered — a month has passed since you wrote the last letter — and that you will be able to work. After all, you are probably well provided for in terms of books: are you subscribing to the main new releases? If you are not too constrained in funds for subscribing to books, then you can, I think, work even in the backwoods — at least, I judge by myself, comparing my life in Samara 7 years ago, when I read almost exclusively other people's books, and now, when I have begun to get into the habit of subscribing to books.
Regarding “Nasledstvo,” I had to agree with your opinion that considering it as something unified is a bad tradition of bad (80s) years 2).
Indeed, perhaps I shouldn't have taken on historical-literary topics... My excuse is only that I am not anywhere proposing to accept the legacy precisely from Skaldin 3). That one must accept the legacy from other people is indisputable.
It seems to me that the note on page 237 will be a defense (against possible attacks from opponents) for me, where I meant precisely Chernyshevsky and motivated the reasons for the inconvenience of taking him for a parallel 4).
There it is also recognized that Skaldin is liberalkonservativ 5), that he is «not typical» for the 60s, that it is «inconvenient» to take «typical» writers — I did not have Chernyshevsky’s articles and do not have* and the main ones have not yet been reprinted, and it is unlikely that I would have been able to circumvent the pitfalls in this case. Then I would also defend myself by saying that I gave an exact definition of what I mean by the «legacy» about which I am talking. Of course, if the article still gives the impression that the author is proposing to accept the legacy precisely from Skaldin, then this shortcoming cannot be corrected by anything. I almost forgot about my most important «defense»: if Skaldin is a «rarity», then bourgeois liberalism, more or less consistent and pure from Narodism, is not a rarity, but a very broad current of the 60s and 70s. You object: «from coincidence to continuity there is a distance of enormous size».
But the essence of the article is that it is necessary to cleanse bourgeois liberalism from Narodism. If this is true and if this is feasible (an especially important condition!), then the result of the cleansing, the residue after the cleansing, will be precisely bourgeois liberalism, not only coinciding with Skaldin’s, but also continuous in relation to him.
So, if I am exposed for accepting the legacy from Skaldin, then I will be entitled to answer that I only undertake to cleanse it from impurities, but I myself stand aside and, in addition to cleansing various Augean stables, I have even more pleasant and more positive occupations...
Well, I seem to have already gotten carried away and imagined myself really «defending» myself!
Our correspondence was at such a standstill for so long that I have already forgotten, I confess, when exactly I last wrote to you about the articles «Die historische Berechtigung» 6). I think I wrote before I received them?
Now I have familiarized myself with them and found that the author's basic idea is fully deserving of acceptance (especially at the end regarding the two extremes or pitfalls that must be avoided) 7). In the motivation, however, it would indeed be necessary to present the Klassencharakter 8) of the Bewegung 9), about which the author speaks, more sharply (he said this, but only in passing and very briefly) 10), and then not to favor the Frondeur agrarians so much: in their liberalism there is more precisely Frondeurism and «resentment» for einundsechzig 11 ) than a desire for the «faster industrialization» of the country. It is worth remembering their attitude to seasonal trades, to resettlement, etc.
The author should formulate the task more precisely: to liberate all and any fortschrittliche Strömungen 12) from under the junk of Narodism and agrarianism.

V. I. LENIN ----A. N. POTRESOV
and in such a cleansed form, to utilize all of them. But, in my opinion, «utilize» is a much more accurate and appropriate word than Unterstützung und Bundesgenossenschaft 13). The latter indicates the equality of these Bundesgenossen 14), while they should (in this I fully agree with you) follow in the tail, sometimes even «with gnashing of teeth»; they have absolutely not grown to equality and will never grow to it, with their cowardice, fragmentation, etc. Unterstützung 15) will come not only from one Intelligenz und fortschrittliche Grundbesitzer 16), but also from many others, both Semites and fortschrittliche Kaufleute und Industrielle 17) (the author quite unnecessarily bypassed them: it is still a question whether they constitute a smaller % in their environment than in the environment of Grundbesitzer’s 18) and those Bauer 19) who are inclined to represent Urtheil 20), and not Vorurtheil 21), Zukunft 22), and not Vergangenheit 23) of their class and many, many others. The author went too far in the other direction in two respects: firstly, in fighting against the Economists, he left aside praktische 24) immediate Fordererungen 25), important both for industriellen Arbeiter 26) and for Hausindustrielle 27)
and for Landarbeiter 28) and etc. Secondly, he was fighting against the abstract, contemptuous attitude towards gemassigten fortschrittlichen 29) elements (it is true that one should not neglect them at all, that they must be utilized) and thereby somewhat obscured the independent and more decisive position occupied by the Bewe- gung’om 30) represented by him. In the historical-philosophical sense, the position he puts forward (and earlier put forward Inorodzew in Sociale Praxis) 31), that among the current composition of our Genossen 32) there are many verkleidete Liberalen 33), is indisputable.
To a certain extent, one can say this also about Deutschland versus England 34). This is our, so to speak, happiness; this allows us to count on an easier and faster start; this forces us to utilize all these verkleideten 35).
And the author's formulation is capable, perhaps, of causing some reinterpretation (one Old Believer told me: but this is a humiliation and depersonalization...), on the one hand, and some sense of distrust and confusion among the Genossen 32), on the other hand. In this respect, Inorodzew, in my opinion, also formulated unsuccessfully.
But in essence, it seems to me, there are no disagreements with the author.
Regarding Parvus 36) — I have not the slightest idea about his personal character and do not at all deny his great talent.
Unfortunately, I have read very little of his works.

16
Do you hope to get Kautsky’s "Agrarfrage" 37), which was recently published?
Regarding Werth 38), Evg. Soloviev 39) and M. Filippov 40), I must say that I do not know the first at all, and I have read very little of the second two. That "weathering" will occur—of this I have no doubt. Therefore, especially necessary is not only verkleidete Literatur 4I)...
I shake your hand V. у.
*) "Nachalo" – the organ of legal Marxism, published under the editorship of P. Struve and M. Tugan-Baranovsky in 1899. Only five issues were published (four books, of which the April one was confiscated). In June 1899 the journal was closed. V.I. Lenin placed a number of his reviews in it (see Volume II of the Collected Works) and one chapter ("The Displacement of Corvée Economy by Capitalist") from "The Development of Capitalism in Russia."
2) V.I. Lenin's article "What Heritage Do We Renounce?" printed in his collection "Economic Studies and Articles" (1899) is meant. The disagreement between Lenin and Potresov regarding this article had a literary-political continuation, about which see footnote 28 to letter 3.
3) Skaldin is the pseudonym of F. Elenev. In his article "What Heritage Do We Renounce?" Vladimir Ilyich analyzed his work "In the Backwoods and in the Capital," previously published in "Otechestvennye Zapiski" for 1867-69. In the 90s Skaldin became an extreme reactionary and a member of the Main Censorship Committee.
4) P. 237 of the collection "Economic Studies and Articles" (1899) or p. 321 of the Collected Works, Volume II.
5) Liberalkonservativ - conservative liberal.
6) I.e. about P.B. Axelrod's articles in "Neue Zeit." Lenin wrote to Potresov about these articles, even before becoming acquainted with them, in a letter dated September 2, 1898. (See footnote 10 to letter 1.)
7) Lenin is referring to the following passage: "Only two extremes could unfavorably affect the attitude of educated society toward the labor movement. Firstly, if this movement did not go beyond the rut of private clashes between workers and individual entrepreneurs. This would deprive it of all political interest and would cause indifference to it in outside social circles. But, perhaps, an even worse extreme would be another. I mean the case if our labor movement, carried away by Bakuninist and Blanquist currents, would set as its immediate practical goal an anarchist or communist revolution. In practice, it would then be expressed in disorderly, frivolously provoked strikes, accompanied by violence and attacks on the lives of capitalists and government officials, and the forces of the proletariat would be,

V.I. LENIN----A.N. POTRESOV
thus, wasted in vain, uselessly, both for the liberation struggle against absolutism and for the interests of the class of proletarians themselves in the narrow sense.
As for the first extreme, we are insured against it by our Tsarist regime. And it is the direct duty of the social-democratic elements prevailing in it to protect our labor movement from the influence of Bakuninists and Blanquists." (The excerpt is given according to the Russian edition: Axelrod, P. "The Historical Position and Interrelationship of Liberal and Socialist Democracy in Russia," Geneva, 1898. pp. 23-24).
8) Klassencharakter - class character.
9) Bewegung - movement.
10) The last words refer to almost the only place in Axelrod where this is discussed. It literally reads as follows: "I am very far from the idea of weakening the class character of our movement and diluting it with water.". . . Ibid (see footnote 7) p. 28.
11) Za einundsechzig – for the 61st, i.e. 1861, for the liberation of the peasants.
12) Fortschrittliche Strömungen - progressive currents.
13) Unterstützung und Bundesgenossenschaft – support and alliance, words used by P. Axelrod to characterize the relationship between the labor and liberal movements in Russia.
14) Bundesgenossen – allies.
15) Unterstützung – support.
16) Intelligenz und fortschrittliche Grundbesitzer—intelligentsia and progressive landlords.
17) Fortschrittliche Kaufleute und Industrielle—progressive merchants and industrialists.
18) Grundbesitzer’oB — of landlords.
19) Bauer — peasant.
20) Urtheil — Understanding.
21) Vorurtheil — prejudice.
22) Zukunft — future.
23) Vergangenheit — past.
24) Praktische— practical.
25) Forderungen— demands.
26) Industriellen Arbeiter— industrial, industrial workers.
27) Hausindustrielle— home-based artisans.
28) Landarbeiter— agricultural workers.
29) Gemassigten fortschrittlichen— moderate progressives.
30) Bewegung’oM— movement, i.e. the worker s.-d. movement.
31) Lenin is referring to the article "The Labor Movement in Russia", published in No. 2 of the German weekly "Soziale Praxis" for 1896 (the issue was released on October 8, 1896) under the signature P. Inorodzew. We cite the passage that Lenin has in mind:
"But there is also something else that can give great political significance to the nascent labor movement, namely, the absence of a strong bourgeois-liberal movement and, in general, a liberal movement in the country. . . So far, liberals in Russia cannot understand,
Lenin Collection, IV that the cultural development of the country has moved liberalism into a narrowly limited area of political ideals, in which nothing more can be done with the old general enlightenment Phrases, that it has placed liberalism before a revolutionary task in a twofold sense of the word—philosophical no less than state, when it is necessary to courageously declare: "Here I stand, and I cannot do otherwise."
Having reached this, liberalism should have become a revolutionary movement or abandoned it.
But liberalism did not make this turn: it becomes more than ever superficial, politically weak enlightenment.
The nascent social democracy, all the more, seems to want to seize the revolutionary-political role into its own hands. Under the influence of sad historical experiences and the Marxist doctrine of the political struggle of classes, it has been restored in the most decisive way against the existing indifference of Russian socialism in the field of "politics." It is also alien to any utopianism ...
Social democracy, as the leader of the struggle for political freedom, needs to accomplish, it is true, not an impossible, but an extremely difficult task: it needs to evoke social democratic enthusiasm in wide circles of the "intelligentsia" and, in even wider circles, at least a certain amount of sympathy for its aspirations—a task that faces the socialist movement, which has no predecessor in this area.
It is not impossible, since for most of the citizens who could be drawn into this movement, the political content of the movement would become a real core of life, and everything else, at best, "holiday ideas" ("Sonntagsideen"), as Brentano says somewhere about the socialism of English trade union activists of the Owen school.
The need for political freedoms is becoming more obvious every day.
The time may come when this need will move forward the advanced elements of society with a force that no liberalism will satisfy.
Precisely because of the country's industrial backwardness and the political backwardness of the industrial bourgeoisie, political aspirations can emerge precisely in a social democratic guise."
It has not been possible to documentarily establish who owned the pseudonym Inorodtsev. However, without risk of error, it can be argued that the article belonged to P. B. Struve, a longtime employee of "Soziale Praxis," who at the time of the appearance of this article was abroad (in connection with the London International Socialist Congress).
82) Genossen— comrades.
38) Verkleidete Liberalen — disguised liberals.
34) Deutschland versus England— Germany compared to England.
ЗБ) Verkleideten—disguised.
8в) Parvus (Gelfand) then collaborated in the German Social Democratic press. In 1898, his work was published: "The World Market and the Agricultural Crisis", about which Vladimir Ilyich gave an extremely favorable review at the time (see "Nachalo", No. 3 for 1899; reprinted in Volume II of the Collected Works).
37) "Agrarfrage" — "The Agrarian Question".

V. I. LENIN----A. N. POTRESOV
88) Unfortunately, it is difficult to establish which Wert is being referred to. There is reason to think that O. A. Wert is meant, the editor of the translation of the brochure: K. Kautsky, "The Limits of Capitalism in Agriculture."
SPb. 1900
We have no other information about this Wert, except that he is also the translator of R. Iering's "The Struggle for Law".
8в) Soloviev, Evg. (1863 — 1905) a well-known historian of Russian literature and publicist.
He tried to give an analysis of the history of Russian literature (mainly of the 19th century) from a Marxist point of view.
Evg. Soloviev was not a consistent Marxist and was not averse to combining the latter with some currents of bourgeois thought, for example, with Nietzscheanism.
His most famous books are: "Essays on the History of Russian Literature of the XIX century" and "An Experience of the Philosophy of Russian Literature", which have undergone several editions (the latter was published by "New Moscow").
He wrote under different names - the most famous are: Scriba and Andreevich. At the time to which the letter refers, Soloviev led the literary criticism department in the journal "Life".
40) Filippov, Mikh. Mikh. (1858 — 1903) — a writer of eclectic character, who accepted Marxism with reservations.
He collaborated in a number of progressive journals of that time.
In 1894, he founded his own journal "Scientific Review", where, along with others, he also published articles by Marxists.
As an eclectic, he recognized Marxism ("social materialism") - along with other currents "one-sided", but still standing "closest to the truth".
In the early days of Bernstein's revisionism, he spoke out in favor of it, but did not stay in this position for long, beginning a squabble with the inspirer of Russian revisionism, P. B. Struve. Of the large works, however, deservedly forgotten, there remains the two-volume "Philosophy of Reality" (SPb. 1895 — 1898) in 1200 pages.
41) Verkleidete Literatur— literally "disguised literature", i.e. literature of authors dressing up in the costume of social democrats.
In these words of Vladimir Ilyich there is a clear hint at the need to publish genuinely partisan and Marxist-orthodox literature, i.e. the future "Iskra" and "Zarya", which Vladimir Ilyich was thinking about at that time and which he was secretly organizing.