V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:PSS/v46; en:MT;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

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 mass of subjects for conversation has indeed accumulated, and it is impossible to talk them over in detail here, especially on literary topics. And now there is the magazine* as well: without conversations with colleagues one feels too isolated for writing. Here Yuli alone takes a very close and active interest in all this, but the accursed “great distances” prevent me from conversing with him in sufficient detail.

I shall begin with what interests and disturbs me most at present—the articles by Bulgakov in Nos. 1-2 and 3 of *Nachalo*. When I read your opinion of him I was overjoyed to find sympathy on the most essential point—the more so because, apparently, one can hardly count on sympathy from the editorial board... If Bulgakov’s article made an “repulsive” and “pitiful” impression on you, it simply drove me into a frenzy. Up to now, no matter how much I have read and re-read Bulgakov, I absolutely

*—disguised literature. *Ed.*

**The magazine *Nachalo* is meant. *Ed.*

cannot understand how he could have written such a thoroughly nonsensical article, impossibly indecent in tone, and how the editorial board could have considered it possible not to protect itself by at least a single remark from solidarity with such a “dressing-down” of Kautsky. Like you, I am “convinced that the public is completely (precisely!) confused and perplexed.” And indeed how can it help being perplexed when it is told—in the name of “modern science” (No. 3, p. 34)—that everything in Kautsky is wrong, arbitrary, a social miracle,

“equally lacking in real agronomy and real economics” (No. 1-2), etc., while Kautsky is not expounded but directly distorted, and Bulgakov’s own views, as any sort of coherent system, are not at all evident. If a man had any sense of party feeling, any consciousness of responsibility towards all the Genossen* and towards their entire programme and practical activity, he would not have decided to “pounce” so cavalierly (to use your apt expression) without giving anything himself, but merely promising... a learned work on “East Elbia”!! He evidently feels free from all comradely duties and responsibilities, a “free” and individual representative of professorial science. I do not, of course, forget that under Russian conditions one cannot demand that a magazine should admit only Genossen and exclude all others—but a magazine like *Nachalo* is, after all, not an almanac that tolerates Marxism merely out of fashion (à la *Mir Bozhy*,** *Nauchnoye Obozreniye*** and the like), but an organ of a trend. Therefore it would be obligatory for such a magazine to put some curb on learned pouncers and on all “outsiders” in general. The enormous success of *Novoye Slovo* is explained only by the fact that the editorial board conducted it precisely as an organ of a trend, and not as an almanac.

I read Kautsky’s book before Bulgakov’s article appeared and found in the latter not a single sensible objection to Kautsky, but a mass of distortions of Kautsky’s ideas and theses.

*—comrades. *Ed.*

** *Mir Bozhy* (God’s World)—a literary and scientific monthly, bourgeois-liberal in trend, published in St. Petersburg from 1892 to 1906. *Ed.*

*** *Nauchnoye Obozreniye* (Scientific Review)—a monthly, published in St. Petersburg from 1894 to 1903. *Ed.*

For example, what nonsense are Bulgakov’s assertions that Kautsky confuses technique and economics, that he proves the “doom of agriculture” (No. 3, p. 31—Kautsky says the opposite: p. 289), that he denies agriculture’s tendency to develop (No. 3, p. 34), etc.! I have already written and sent to the editorial board about two weeks ago the first article, “Capitalism in Agriculture (On Kautsky’s Book and Mr. Bulgakov’s Article),” and am now starting on the second in connection with the conclusion of Bulgakov’s article.* I greatly fear that P. B. will reject it, pleading either its large size (it turns out to be longer than Bulgakov’s article, because, firstly, I have to give a reasoned refutation of such groundless and carelessly flung verdicts as, for example, the statement that Marx was mistaken in teaching about the decrease of the ratio c/v in agriculture; and, secondly, because it is necessary to expound Kautsky), or the undesirability of polemics (I have, of course, not used a single abusive expression in the article like those above, and have generally tried to ensure that there is nothing personal against Bulgakov. The tone is in no way sharper than in my article against Tugan-Baranovsky on the theory of markets**). I would be very glad to hear your opinion, when you have read Kautsky’s book and finished Bulgakov: what exactly do you find “correct” in Bulgakov? And do you think it possible to leave Bulgakov’s article in the magazine unanswered?

In general, this whole “new critical trend” in Marxism, which Struve and Bulgakov (P. B. is certainly for Bulgakov) are carried away by, seems to me extremely suspicious: loud phrases about “criticism” against “dogma,” etc.—and absolutely no positive results of criticism. However, to write an article à la Bulgakov’s, besides “criticism” and sympathies for professorial “modern science,” one needed tactlessness ad nec plus ultra.***

* See *Collected Works*, Fifth Edition, Vol. 4, pp. 95-152. *Ed.*

** See ibid., pp. 44-54. *Ed.*

***—to the utmost degree. *Ed.*

I sent Struve a reply to his article on markets.* My sister** writes me that this reply will be published in *Nauchnoye Obozreniye* and that P. B. also intends to reply there. I cannot agree with you that “the centre of gravity of the question lies in the concrete impossibility of an abstractly conceivable position,” and my main objection to P. B. is precisely that he confuses abstract-theoretical and concrete-historical questions. Not only the realisation presented by Marx is “concretely impossible,” but also the ground rent presented by him, the average profit presented by him, the equality of wages to the value of labour-power, and many other things. But the impossibility of realisation in pure form is not at all an objection. I can by no means see contradictions between his assertions in *Etyudy*** and in *Nauchnoye Obozreniye*, nor the “bourgeois apologetics” with which Struve has so frightened the readers. What I particularly disliked in his article was the inappropriate dragging in of critical philosophy and remarks like the one that Marx’s theory of value and profit “undoubtedly suffers from contradictoriness.” After all, P. B. knows very well that this is controversial—why sow fog in the minds of the public, which as yet receives from none of the representatives of the “new critical trend” a systematic proof of this contradictoriness and its correction?

And Bulgakov’s sally (No. 3, p. 34, note) against the theory of Zusammenbruch****!!—without any mention of Bernstein and with the peremptoriness of a “learned” decree!

I know about the publication of Bernstein’s new book and have ordered it, but it is unlikely to be sent. From an article about it in the *Frankfurter Zeitung***** and in *Zhizn****** (not a bad magazine! The belles-lettres are really good, even better than all the others!) I have become fully convinced that I understood Bernstein’s fragmentary articles incorrectly and that he has indeed gone to such impossible lengths of raving that

* See “Once More on the Theory of Realisation” (*Collected Works*, Fifth Edition, Vol. 4, pp. 67-87). *Ed.*

** A. I. Ulyanova-Elizarova is meant. *Ed.*

*** *Etyudy* (Studies)—a book by P. Struve. *Ed.*

****—collapse, breakdown (of capitalism). *Ed.*

***** *Frankfurter Zeitung*—a German bourgeois daily. *Ed.*

****** *Zhizn* (Life)—a monthly magazine, literary, scientific and political, published in St. Petersburg from 1897 to 1901. *Ed.*

he must indeed be begraben,* as the author of *Beiträge zur Geschichte des Materialismus** expressed it in an open letter to Kautsky. The objections of Bernstein against the materialist conception of history*** and so on (according to *Zhizn*), which are new to me, are striking in their weakness. If P. B. is such a hot defender of Bernstein that he almost “swears” over him, that is very, very sad, for his “theory” against Zusammenbruch—immoderately narrow for Western Europe—is utterly useless and dangerous for Russia. Do you know that it is already being utilised by our “young” (ultra-economists), who in one publication presented the Stuttgart debates in such a way that Bernstein, Peus and others appeared as defenders of “economics, not politics”? What does P. B. think of such “allies”? If by the successes of the ultra-economists you mean the departure of Volgin and his closest comrades, I know about it;**** it struck me extremely painfully, and I am now perplexed as to how matters stand there and what the future holds. It is terribly harmful, in my opinion, that this dispute with the ultra-economists has not been fully and entirely brought into the press: that would be the only serious means of clarifying the matter and establishing certain precise principled positions. As it is, there is complete chaos!

My book has come out***** and I asked for it to be sent to you (I have not yet received it myself). I heard that the P. S. in the preface was late, got into the preliminary censorship and “suffered,” it seems. 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 mutilated! Won’t you write a review of it?

*—to bury, to finish off. *Ed.*

**—*Essays on the History of Materialism*. *Ed.*

*** By the way. Do you remember how one of our mutual acquaintances,****** in the “beautiful far-off,” maliciously ridiculed and tore me to pieces for calling the materialist conception of history a “method”? And now it turns out that Kautsky is guilty of the same grave sin, using the same word: “method” (*Zhizn*, January, II, p. 53). Have you any news of that acquaintance? Is his health better? Is there any hope that he will write?

**** See *Collected Works*, Fifth Edition, Vol. 4, pp. 153-55. *Ed.*

***** See *The Development of Capitalism in Russia* (*Collected Works*, Fifth Edition, Vol. 3). *Ed.*

****** S. N. Bulgakov is meant. *Ed.*

An acquaintance sent me A. P.’s “Journal Notes” (on the “heritage” and the “heirs”). It is interesting: was further polemics with me intended in the continuation or not? I liked A. P.’s article extremely; the issue lost a lot from the cutting out of it. I confess I do not see any disagreement between us: you take a different question—not about how the disciples relate to Russian democratism in general, whether they reject it (I wrote exclusively about that*), but about what the relations were between different kinds of democrats in the good old days. I was interested only in that mistake of Mikhailovsky’s, that we reject democratism in general—while you take another mistake of his, the “smearing over” of essentially important differences in the “heritage.” I saw Maslov’s note in No. 3 of *Nauchnoye Obozreniye* directed against me, but it did not interest me, I confess. Yes, by the way: the cutting of A. P.’s article confirmed my opinion that taking a more striking testator than Skaldin is “inconvenient” (a sad confirmation!!). In general, in my opinion, the tone of the magazine is “premortal.” If so, then the end and death are only a question of time. For it is simply a speculation on Ratlosigkeit** and red tape in that department which, etc. One could hold one’s tongue without harm and not without benefit to the cause. Really, compared with the present tone, our “Materialy”*** could be a model of “moderation” and “solidity”...

I press your hand. V. U.

Write more often, if you are not too lazy, otherwise I have no one to learn journalistic news from.

I am sending you “Historische Berechtigung”**** by registered book-post. Please do not think that I am careless in returning books: you did not write about the time limit, and so I did not refuse comrades’ requests to let them read it. I shall be very grateful for the end of Karelin.

* See “From What Heritage Are We Rejecting?” (*Collected Works*, Fifth Edition, Vol. 2, pp. 505-550). *Ed.*

**—helplessness. *Ed.*

***—*Materialy* (Materials)—a collection of articles. *Ed.*

****—*Historical Justification*. *Ed.*

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

On the whole, I like the issues of the magazine* very much. They are excellently edited. Have you read Gvozdev’s book and what do you think of it?

In Orlov, Vyatka Gubernia

* *Nachalo* is meant. *Ed.*