V. I.

Lenin

7

To:   A. N. POTRESOV

June 27, 1899

Last Friday, the 18th, I received your letter of June 2, but I have not received either Mehring or Karelin, about which you write. I waited a
little at first, thinking there was a delay in the post, but now I am forced to
believe that either the parcel has been lost or you put off sending
it. If the former is the case, lodge a complaint at once.

Your comments on my book [1] gave me great joy. All the same, I think you are
exaggerating in speaking about a translation of it: I doubt whether the Germans
would want to read a thing so crammed with facts of purely local and minor
significance. True, they translated
N.—on [8] (but then he already had a great reputation and the recommendation, probably, of Engels, although the
latter had intended to make hay of it, according to Monist). Have you come
across reviews of it in the German literature? If I am not mistaken, they have
translated him into French too. I was somewhat surprised at your statement that
you “at last succeeded in obtaining” my book.... Didn’t you
receive it from Moscow or St. Petersburg? I asked that it should be sent to you,
as to all the rest of my friends, and they all got it. If you have not received
it, let me know and I shall write again to Moscow. So far I have not seen any
reviews of it in the press, but I don’t expect to find any before the
autumn—but then the only newspaper I read is Russkiye Vedomosti , [9] which continues to maintain a “tactful
silence”....

I have read Bulgakov’s article in Archly . I do not in tend to write a reply to him for the German public too:
for one thing, I couldn’t do it in German; secondly—and this is the
chief thing, for it would be possible, perhaps, to find a translator from
Russian—an article of the kind that I wrote for the Russian public, i.e.,
with a detailed exposition of Kautsky’s book, would be quite unsuitable
for the German public. I cannot answer Bulgakov’s special references (from
German statistical data) for I have no material. Nor would I undertake to write
for the Germans about his general standpoint (Kantian and
... Bernsteinian, if one can use the term). I think it really is necessary to
correct the Germans’ idea of the Russian disciples, but for this (unless someone
would undertake to write a special article) a simple paragraph about my article
against Bulgakov, when this article is published in a Russian journal,
would suffice. [2]

But if it is not published at all—owing to the demise of
Nachalo and the refusal of Zhizn , or the censorship—then the matter will take quite a different turn.

Regarding the “sensational discoveries” of the Russian disciples and
their neo-Kantianism, I am becoming more and more indignant. I have read
Tugan-Baranovsky’s article in No. 5 of Nauchnoye Obozreniye....
What utterly stupid and pretentious nonsense! Without any historical study of
Marx’s doctrine, without any new researches, on the basis of schematic
errors (arbitrary alteration of the norm of surplus-value), on the basis of
elevating to a general rule an exceptional case (raising the productivity of
labour without decreasing the value of the product: an absurdity if
this is taken as a general phenomenon)—on the basis of this to talk
about a “new theory”, about Marx’s mistake, about reconstruction.... No, I cannot believe your statement that Tugan Baranovsky is becoming
more and more a Genosse . Mikhailovsky was right in calling him an
“echo man”: his article in Mir Bozhy (“according to
Beltov”, you remember? in

1895) and this article confirm the severe judgement of the
prejudiced critic. It is confirmed also by what I have heard
about his personal qualities from you and from Nadya. Of
course, all this is not enough to draw a final conclusion,
and I am quite likely to be mistaken. It would be interesting
to know your opinion of his article.

And then there’s this idea of distinguishing between “sociological” and “economic” categories, set going by
Struve (in No. 1 of Nauchnoye Obozreniye ) and repeated
both by P. Berlin (in Zhizn ) and by Tugan-Baranovsky.
In my view it promises nothing but an utterly meaningless
and scholastic play at definitions, to which the Kantians
give the resounding name of “critique of concepts” or even “gnosiology”. I simply cannot understand what sense
there is in such a distinction. How can there be something
economic apart from social?

Incidentally, concerning neo-Kantianism. What stand do you take? I have read and re-read with great pleasure
Beiträge zur Geschichte des Materialismus , I have read the
articles of the same author in Neue Zeit against Bernstein
and Conrad Schmidt ( Neue Zeit , No. 5, 1898–99; the later
issues I have not seen), [10] I have read Stammler “( Wirtschaft und Recht )” [3] whom our Kantians (P. Struve and
Bulgakov) have so highly praised, and I definitely side with
Monist. Stammler especially rouses my indignation; I fail
to see in him even a hint of anything fresh and significant....
Sheer erkenntnistheoretische Scholastik [4]

!

Stupid “definitions” of a mediocre lawyer, in the worst sense of this last
word, and no less stupid “conclusions” drawn from them.
After Stammler, I re-read the articles of Struve and
Bulgakov in Novoye Slovo and found that neo-Kantianism was a
thing to be seriously reckoned with. I could no longer restrain myself and stuck in my comments and attacks against
it, both in reply to Struve (on his article in Nauchnoye Obozreniye . [5]

Why and by whom the publication of this reply is being held up—I fail to understand. It was to have appeared in No. 6 of Nauchnoye Obozreniye. But it is not there.
Meanwhile, my silence is beginning to make things awkward
for me: for example, Nezhdanov’s article in Zhizn
No. 4  [11] )
and in reply to Bulgakov. I say, “I could no longer restrain myself” for I am only too well aware of my lack of
philosophical education and I do not intend to write on these
subjects until I have learned more. That is just what I am
now doing—I have started with Holbach and Helvètius, and am now taking up Kant. I have got hold of the chief
works of the chief classical philosophers, but I do not have
the neo-Kantian books (I have only ordered Lange). Tell
me, please, whether you or your comrades have them and whether you could not share them with me.

On the same subject I have been greatly interested by the review in No. 5 of Nachalo (May issue, which is in
the last stages of consumption) on Bogdanov’s book. I don’t understand how I could have missed the notice of
this book’s publication. I have only now ordered it.
Already from Bogdanov’s first book I suspected Monist, and
the title and contents of the second book strengthen my
suspicions. And how disgustingly pointless and disgustingly supercilious this review is! Not a word on the real
issue and ... a reprimand for ignoring Kantianism, although
it is evident from the reviewer’s own words that Bogdanov
does not ignore Kantianism, but refutes it, having a different
standpoint in philosophy.... I think (if I am not mistaken,
about Bogdanov) it is impossible to let this review go unanswered. [12] The only thing I can’t understand is how
Kamensky could have left unanswered the articles of Struve
and Bulgakov in Novoye Slovo against Engels! Could you explain this for me?

Your information about the reaction against Marxism which has begun in St. Petersburg was news to me. I am
puzzled. “Reaction”—does that mean among the Marxists?
And which ones? P. B. again? Is it he and his Co. who are
developing a tendency to unite with the liberals? I am looking forward to your explanations with great impatience.
I fully agree that the “critics” are only confusing our people,
while giving absolutely nothing , and that a serious fight with
them (especially over Bernstein) will be necessary (only
will there be somewhere to fight...?). If P. B. “absolutely ceases to be a Genosse ”—so much the worse for him. It will
be a great loss, of course, for all Genossen , for he is very
talented and knowledgeable, but, of course, “friendship is
friendship, but service is service”, and this does not do
away with the need to fight. I fully understand and share
your “fury” (caused by the epithet “loathsome” [sic!] in
regard to Monist—because of what? because of the article
in Neue Zeit ? because of the open letter to Kautsky about
who will begraben whom?) and I am eager to know about his answer to your letter giving vent to this fury. (I have
not yet seen Bernstein’s book). Gründliche Auseinandersetzung is necessary, of course, but it will not and cannot
appear in Nachalo or Zhizn : only specific articles against the
“critics” of Marxism will be published. What is required
for it is a third kind of literature [6] and Platform (if I
have understood you rightly). Only then, at last, the Genossen
will be dissociated from “outsiders” and “kickers”, and
only then will no kind of personal whimsies or theoretical
“sensational discoveries” be able to produce confusion and
anarchy. The accursed Russian disorganisation is wholly
to blame here!

It is not clear to me in what way your article on the heritage (I have read only the first one) was aimed at the St.
Petersburgers, I have not seen the article “Out of Turn”.
Send it to me.

I should very much like to have a more detailed and circumstantial talk about the
Blitzableiter . [7]

But this, evidently, will have to be left for another time. My term of
exile ends on January 29, 1900. I hope they don’t extend
it—a calamity that not infrequently strikes exiles in Eastern
Siberia. I am dreaming of Pskov. And you?

Nadya sends her regards.

All the very best.

V. U.

P.S. I have just re-read the end of my article against
Bulgakov in the rough copy ... and I have noticed that my
tone there is conciliatory; implying, as it were: I am an “orthodox” and vigorous opponent of the “critics” (that I
said plainly), but we must not exaggerate these disagreements [as Mr. Bulgakov does] in the face of common
enemies. It is quite possible that this “conciliatory” tone [I
have tried my hardest to be mild and polemise as a Genosse ]
will prove inappropriate or even ridiculous if expressions
like “loathsome” are employed, and if the “critics” cause
a definitive cleavage. In that case I should find myself
“guilty though guiltless”; not having seen Bernstein’s book,
not knowing all the views of the “critics”, and being at a
“respectable distance”, my view [when I wrote that article]
Was quite an “old one”, simply that of a contributor to
Nachalo .... It looks as if my statement about the theory
of the class struggle not having been touched on by the
“critics” is incorrect? [13]

---
Notes:
[1]
The Development of Capitalism in Russia (see present edition,
Vol. 3).— Ed .

[2]
Lenin refers to the article “Capitalism in Agriculture (Kautsky’s
Book and Mr. Bulgakov’s Article)” (see present edition,
Vol. 4). The article was published in the journal Zhizn in
Jan.-Feb. 1900.— Ed .

[3]

“ Economy and Law”.— Ed .

[4]
Epistemological scholasticism.— Ed .

[5]

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

[6]
Illegal Marxist literature.— Ed .

[7]
Lightning conductor.— Ed .

[8]

( N.—on)— Danielson , Nikolai Frantsevich (1844-1918)—Russian writer and economist, an ideologue of
liberal Narodism of the eighties and nineties; in his political
activities he reflected the evolution of the Narodniks away from
revolutionary action against tsarism towards a conciliatory attitude
to it. Completed the translation of Marx’s Capital into
Russian, which was begun by G. A. Lopatin. While working on this
translation he carried on a correspondence with Marx and Engels in
which he touched on the problems of Russia’s economic development. Danielson, however, failed to grasp the essence of
Marxism and subsequently came out against it.

Lenin here refers to Danielson’s book Sketches of Our Post-Reform Social Economy in which its author elaborates
Narodnik views on the development of post-reform national economy in
Russia. The German edition appeared in 1899 in Munich. The French
edition was published in 1902. p. 38

[9]
Russkiye Vedomosti (Russian Recorder)—a newspaper published in Moscow from 1863 onwards; it expressed the views of the
moderate liberal intelligentsia. In 1905 it became the organ of the
Right wing of the bourgeois Cadet Party. It was closed down In 1918
together with other counter-revolutionary newspapers. p. 38

[10]
Lenin refers to Plekhanov’s article “Konrad Schmidt gegen
Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels” published in Die Neue Zeit No. 5 for 1898-99. p. 40

[11]
Nezhdanov’s article mentioned here is entitled “Markets
under Capitalist Production (Apropos of Ratner’s, Ilyin’s
and Struve’s Articles)”. Lenin replied to this in his article “Reply to Mr. P. Nezhdanov” (see Vol. 4 of this
edition). p. 41

[12]
This refers to the review of A. Bogdanov’s book Fundamentals of the Historic View on Nature , which came out in St. Petersburg
in 1899. The first book by the same author A Short Course of Economic Science was reviewed by Lenin in Mir Bozhy
No. 4 for April 1898 (see Vol. 4 of this edition, pp. 46-54).

Bogdanov, A. ( Malinovsky, Alexander Alexandrovich )
(1873-1928)—philosopher, sociologist and economist, by education
a physician. During the nineties took part in the work of the
Social-Democratic circles. After the Second Congress of the
R.S.D.L.P. (1903) joined the Bolsheviks. During the years of reaction
(1907-10) he became the leader of the otzovists and of the Vperyod
group, which came out against Lenin and the Party. In questions of
philosophy he attempted to set up a system of his own, known as
“empirio-monism”, a species of subjective-idealist Machian
philosophy, which was sharply criticised by Lenin in his book
Materialism and Empirio-criticism (1909) (see Vol. 14 of this
edition). p. 41

[13]
The remarks referring to the end of Lenin’s article “Capitalism in Agriculture” were taken into consideration
by Lenin when publishing the article (see Vol. 4 of this
edition). p. 43