V. I.

Lenin

To:   A. N. POTRESOV

April 27, 1899

I was very glad, A. N., to receive your letter of March 27, which
at last broke your long and persistent silence. A heap of questions to be
discussed has indeed accumulated but there is no opportunity of having any
detailed conversation here on subjects that are mainly of a literary nature. And
now there is the journal [11] : without talks with one’s colleagues one feels too cut off for
writing. There is only Julius, who takes all this quite closely and
actively to heart, but the accursed “long distances” prevent
sufficiently detailed conversation with him.

I shall begin with what interests and agitates me now most of all—Bulgakov’s
article in issues 1–2 and 3 of Nachalo . On reading your opinion of
him, I was exceedingly pleased to meet with sympathy on the most essential
point—the more so because, apparently, one cannot count very much on sympathy
from the editorial board.... If Bulgakov’s article made a “repellent” and
“pitiful” impression on you, it absolutely infuriated me. Up till now, though
I have read and re-read Bulgakov, I simply cannot understand how he could write
an article so completely nonsensical and in such an extremely unbecoming tone,
and how the editors found it possible not to dissociate themselves by at least a
single comment from such a slashing attack on Kautsky, Like you, I am
“convinced that our people are utterly [just so!] confused and puzzled”. And
who wouldn’t be puzzled when told—in the name of “modern science” (No. 3,
p. 34)—that Kautsky is all wrong, arbitrary, socially incredible, “with
equally little of both real agronomics and real economics” (No. 1–2) and so
forth? Moreover, Kautsky is not expounded, but simply distorted , while Bulgakov’s own views as
part of any coherent system are entirely lacking. No man with any sense of party
spirit or sense of responsibility to all the Genossen and their whole
programme and practical activity would dare to take such “side kicks” (to use
your apt expression) at Kautsky, without giving anything himself, but merely
promising ... a learned work on “Ost-Elbe”! Apparently, he feels himself
free from all comradely obligations and responsibility, a “free” and
individual spokesman of professorial science, I do not forget, of course, that
under Russian conditions it is impossible to demand of a journal that it admit
some Genossen and exclude others—but a journal like Nachalo
is not an almanac, allowing Marxism just because it is the mode ( à la Mir Bozhy [12] ,
Nauchnoye Obozreniye [13] , etc.), but an organ of a definite trend. It is incumbent on such a journal,
therefore, to put a certain restraint on learned “kickers” and on all
“outsiders” in general. It is to the fact that its editors have run it as an
organ of a definite trend and not as an almanac that
Novoye Slovo [14] owes its great success.

I read through Kautsky’s book before Bulgakov’s article appeared and I did not
find in the latter a single at all intelligent arguement against
Kautsky. What I did find was a heap of distortions of Kautsky’s ideas
and theses. What shear nonsense Bulgakov talks when he asserts, for example,
that Kautsky confuses technics and economics, that he tries to prove the “ruin
of agriculture” (No. 3, p. 31. Kautsky says just the opposite: . 289),
that he denies agriculture any tendency to develop (No. 3, p. 34), and so on!

I have already written, and sent to the editorial board a fortnight ago, a first
article on “Capitalism in Agriculture (Kautsky’s Book and Mr. Bulgakov’s
Article)” and am now starting on a second dealing with the end of Bulgakov’s
article. [1]

I greatly fear that P.B. will reject it, either on account of its considerable
length (it turns out to be larger than Bulgakov’s article, firstly, because I
have to give reasons for refuting such unsupported and carelessly pronounced
verdicts as, for example, that Marx was wrong in teaching that the ratio
\fracv/c decreases in agriculture; secondly, because it is essential to expound Kautsky), or because a polemic is considered
undesirable (of course, I have not used in the article a single abusive
expression, like those above, and in general I have tried to avoid anything
personal against Bulgakov. The tone in general is in no way sharper than in my
article against
Tugan-Baranovsky [15] on the theory of the market

). I should be very glad to hear your opinion, when you have read Kautsky’s
book and finished reading Bulgakov: what exactly do you find “true”
in Bulgakov? And do you think it possible to let Bulgakov’s article in the
journal go unanswered?

In general, all this “new critical trend” in Marxism, espoused by
Struve and Bulgakov (P. B. is apparently in favour of Bulgakov), looks
highly suspicious to me: resounding phrases about “criticism”
against “dogma” and so forth—and absolutely no positive
results of the criticism. Moreover, compiling an article
à la Bulgakov required, besides “criticism” and sympathy for professorial “modern science
tactlessness nec plus ultra .

I sent Struve a reply to his article on the market. [2]

My
sister [16] writes to me that this reply will be published in Nauchnoye Obozreniye and that P. B. intends to answer it in the same journal. I
cannot agree with you that “the crux of the question lies in the concrete
impossibility of an abstractly conceivable proposition” and my main
argument against P. B. is precisely that he mixes up abstract-theoretical and
concrete-historical questions. “Concretely impossible” is not only
realisation as put forward by Marx, but also land rent as put forward by him,
and average profit, and the equality between wages and the value of labourpower, and much more besides. But the impossibility of something being realised
in a pure form is not a refutation. I am quite unable to see any
contradiction between my assertions in the
Studies [17] and in
Nauchnoye Obozreniye , nor do I see the “bourgeois apologetics” with which Struve has been trying to frighten readers. What I
find most objec- tionable in his article is the fact that he drags in critical philosophy and
that he makes remarks such as that Marx’s theory of value and profit
“ indisputably suffers from a contradiction”. P. B. is perfectly well aware that this is disputable —why then sow
confusion in the minds of our people, who so far have received no
systematic proof of this contradiction and its correction from any single
spokesman of the “new critical trend”?

And Bulgakov’s sally (No. 3, p. 34, note) against the theory of
Zusammenbruch [3]

!—without any mention of Bernstein and with the irrevocable authority of a “learned” decree! I know about the
publication of Bernstein’s new book and I have ordered it but it is hardly
likely to be sent. The article about it in the Frankfurter Zeitung [18] and in
Zhizn [19] (not a bad journal!
Its literary section is really good, even better than any others!) has quite
convinced me that I did not rightly understand Bernstein’s disjointed
articles and that he has got himself so tangled up in lies that he really
deserves to be begraben , [4] as the author of Beiträge zur Geschichte des Materialismus [5] expressed it in an open letter to
Kautsky. Bernstein’s arguments, which are new to me, against the
materialist conception of history, [6] etc., are (according to Zhizn )
astonishingly feeble. If P. B. is such an ardent defender of Bernstein that he
is all but prepared to “quarrel” over him, it is very, very sad,
because his “theory” against
Zusammenbruch —excessively narrow for Western Europe—is
altogether unsuitable and dangerous for Russia. Do you know that it is
already being made use of by our “young” people (ultra-Economists),
who in one publication gave an account of the Stuttgart debates in such a way that for them Bernstein, Peus, and others were defenders of
“economics, not politics”? What does P. B.

think of such “allies”? If by the successes of the ultra-Economists you
mean the resignation of Volgin and his closest comrades, I know about
it [20] ; it was a great shock to me and I am now puzzled as to how matters stand
and what the future has in store. I think it terribly harmful that this dispute
with the ultra-Economists was not fully and completely ventilated in
the press: it would have been the only serious way of clearing things up and
establishing certain precise theoretical propositions. Instead, there is now complete chaos!

My book has come out [7] and I have asked that it should be sent to you (I have not
yet received it myself). I have heard that the P.S. to the preface was late,
came under the preliminary censorship and, it seems, “got into
trouble”. I shall await your comments with interest.

I ordered Karelin’s book and read it before I received it from you. I
liked it very much; it is devilishly annoying that it was pared down!
Aren’t you going to write a review of it?

An acquaintance of mine has sent me A. P .’s “Magazine
Notes” (on the “heritage” and the “inheritors”). I wonder whether the continuation intended to carry on a further polemic with me
or not? I liked A. P.’s article very much; the issue was much the
worse for the cuts in the article. Truth to tell, I see no differences of
opinion between us: you deal with a different question—not what the attitude of the
disciples is to Russian democracy in general and whether they reject it (I
wrote exclusively about this), [8] but what the relations were between
democrats of various types in the good old days. I was concerned only with
Mikhailovsky’s [21] mistake in supposing that we reject democracy
altogether—whereas you fasten on his other mistake , the
“slurring over” of substantially important distinctions in the
“heritage”. I saw Maslov’s note in No. 3 of Nauchnoye Obozreniye directed against me, but to tell you the truth I was not
interested in it. By the way, the cuts in A. P.’s article confirmed my opinion
that it is “inconvenient” to take a more striking testator than Skaldin (a sad confirmation!). In general, I
find the tone of the journal that of a dying body. If that is so, the end and
death is only a question of time. It is simply speculation on
Ratlosigkeit [9] and bureaucracy in the department which, etc. One could
hold one’s tongue without any harm and not without advantage to the
cause. As a matter of fact, compared with the modern tone, our Materials
could be a model of “moderation” and “solidity” [22]

All the best.

V. U.

Write more often, if it’s not too much bother, otherwise I am quite unable
to get press news from anyone.

I am sending the Historische Berechtigung [10] by registered
post. Please don’t think me careless about returning books:
you did not mention any time limit and so I did not refuse comrades who
asked to he allowed to read it. I shall be very grateful for the end of
Karelin.

Do you have any German reviews of Kautsky? I have read only that in the
Frankfurter Zeitung —irate and empty à la
Bulgakov.

I am very pleased on the whole with the issues of the journal. [23]
It is splendidly, edited. Have you read Gvozdyov’s book [24]
and what do you think of it?

---
Notes:
[1]
See present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 105–59.— Ed .

“ A Note on the Question of the Market Theory (Apropos of the Polemic of
Messrs. Tugan-Baranovsky and Bulgakov)” (see present edition,
Vol. 4).— Ed .

[2]

“ Once More on the Theory of Realisation” (see present edition
Vol. 4).— Ed .

[3]
Collapse (of capitalism).— Ed .

[4]
Buried.— Ed .

[5]
Contributions to the History of Materialism .— Ed .

[6]
Incidentally, do you remember how one of our common friends [25]
in the “beautiful faraway” maliciously ridiculed and soundly scold ed me for having called the materialist conception of
history a “method”? And behold, it turns out that Kautsky, too, in
using the same word: “method”, is guilty of the same grievous sin. ( Zhiza , January, Book II,
p. 53.) Have you any news of this friend? Is his health better? Is there
any hope that he will write?
— Lenin

[7]
The Development of Capitalism in Russia (see present edition,
Vol. 3).— Ed .

[8]

“ The Heritage We Renounce” (see present edition, Vol. 2).— Ed .

[9]
Perplexity— Ed .

[10]
Historical Justification .— Ed .

[11]
Meaning the journal Nachalo (see Note 25). p. 32

[12]
Mir Bozhy (God’s World)—a monthly literary and popular-science journal of a liberal trend, published in
St. Petersburg from 1892 to 1906. From 1906 to 1918 it was issued
under the name of Sovremenny Mir (The Contemporary World).
p. 33

[13]
Nauchnoye Obozreniye (Scientific Review)—a journal, published in St. Petersburg from 1894 to 1903; accepted contributions
from publicists and scientists of all schools and trends; widely used
by liberals and “legal Marxists”. The journal published
occasional articles by Marxists. p. 33

[14]
See Note 11. p. 33

[15]
Tugan-Baranovsky, Mikhail Ivanovich (1865-1919)—Russian
bourgeois economist, in the nineties a prominent spokesman of
“legal Marxism”, contributed to the journals Novoye Slovo , Nachalo , and others. p. 34

[16]
This refers to Anna Ilyinichna Ulyanova-Yelizarova. p. 34

[17]
This refers to a miscellany of Lenin’s, Economic Studies and Essays , published in October 1898 (the cover and title-page bore
the date 1899). p. 34

[18]
Frankfurter Zeitung —a daily newspaper, mouthpiece of the German merchants of Change, published in Frankfurt am Main from
1856 to 1943. p. 35

[19]
Zhizn (Life)—a literary, scientific and political journal published in St. Petersburg from 1897 to 1901.

Publication was resumed abroad in April 1902 by the Zhizn
Social-Democratic group (V. D. Bonch-Bruyevich, V. A. Posse,
V. M. Velichkina and others); six issues of the journal, twelve of
Listok Zhizni and several volumes of the Zhizn Library series were published.

The group ceased to exist in December 1902 and the publishing-house
was liquidated. p. 35

[25]
Apparently this refers to Plekhanov, with whom Lenin had talks in 1895
during his visit to Switzerland. p. 35

[20]
This refers to the split that took place at the First Conference of
the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad held in Zurich
(Switzerland) in November 1898.

The Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad was founded in
Geneva in 1894 on the initiative of the Emancipation of Labour group
(see Note 58). It had its own press where it printed revolutionary
literature and published the non-periodic miscellany
Rabotnik . At first the Emancipation of Labour group controlled the Union and edited its publications. Eventually control
passed to the opportunist elements—the Economists or the
so-called “young” group. At the First Conference of the
Union held in November 1898 the Emancipation of Labour group announced
their refusal to edit the Union publications. The Group finally broke
with the Union and left its ranks in April 1900 at the Second
Conference of the Union, when the Emancipation of Labour group and its
supporters walked out and established their own
Sotsial-Demokrat organisation.

At the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. held in 1903 the
Union’s representatives took an extremely opportunist stand and
walked out after the Congress declared the League of Russian
Revolutionary Social-Democracy Abroad to be the only organisation of
the Party abroad. The Second Congress declared the Union
dissolved. p. 36

[21]
Mikhailovsky, Nikolai Konstantinovich (1842-1904)—a prominent theoretician of liberal Narodism, publicist and literary
critic; a representative of the subjective school in sociology; editor
of the journals Otechestvenniye Zapiski and Russkoye

Bogatstvo . Lenin criticised Mikhailovsky’s views in his
book What the “Friends of the People” Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats (see Vol. 1 of this edition) and other
writings. p. 36

[22]
Lenin refers to the miscellany Material for a Characterisation of Our Economic Development containing his article (over the
pen-name K. Tulin) “The Economic Content of Narodism and the
Criticism of It in Mr. Struve’s Book. (The Reflection of Marxism
in Bourgeois Literature)” directed against legal Marxism (see
Vol. 1 of this edition). p. 37

[23]
This refers to Die Neue Zeit (see Note 19). p. 37

[24]
Gvozdyov ( Zimmerman , Roman Emilievich )
(1866-1900)—author, whose short stories and economic articles
were published in Russkoye Bogatstvo , Zhizn and
Nauchnoye Obozreniye . p. 37