Letter
27/VI 99.
I received your letter of 2/VI last Friday, the 18th, but neither Mehring nor Karelin, which you write that you are sending, I have not received. I waited at first, thinking that there was a delay at the post office, but now I must think that the package is either lost or you have postponed sending it. If the first is true, then file a claim without delay.*)
Your feedback on my book pleased me very much. It still seems to me that you have hardly exaggerated about its translation: it is doubtful that the Germans would read a thing filled with purely local, so to speak, and petty facts. 2) True, N.— they translated it (but he already had a very great reputation and a recommendation, probably from Engels, although the latter was going to tear it apart, according to the monist). 3) Have you come across any reviews of it in German literature? If I am not mistaken, it has also been translated into French. I was somewhat surprised by your words that you "finally managed to get" my book... Didn't you receive it from Moscow or St. Petersburg? I asked to send it to you, as well as to all my other acquaintances, and they all received it. If you have not received it, let me know, and I will write to Moscow again.
I have not yet seen any reviews of it in the press, and I do not expect to find any before autumn - however, from the newspapers I only read "Russkiye Vedomosti", which continues to "tactfully remain silent"...
I read Bulgakov's article in Archiv.4) I do not think to write a response to him, also for the German public: firstly, I cannot write in German; secondly - and this is the main thing, for a translator from Russian could perhaps be found - an article in the spirit in which I wrote for the Russian public, i.e. with a detailed exposition of Kautsky's book, is completely unsuitable for the German public.

I cannot answer Bulgakov's special indications (according to German statistics), because I do not have the materials. I will also not undertake to write about his general point of view (Kantian and... Bernsteinian, if I may say so) for the Germans. I think that it is indeed necessary to correct the Germans' representation of Russian scholars, but for this (if no one would undertake to write a special article) a simple note about my article against Bulgakov would be enough when this article is printed in a Russian journal. But if it is not printed at all... due to the death of "Nachalo" and the refusal of "Zhizn" or the censorship... then the matter will take on a substantially different form.5)
Regarding the "sensational discoveries" of Russian scholars and their neo-Kantianism, I am becoming more and more indignant. I read Tugan-Baranovsky's article in No. 5 of "Nauchnoye Obozreniye"... God knows what stupid and pretentious nonsense! Without any historical study of Marx's doctrine, without any new research, on the basis of errors in the schemes (arbitrary change in the rate of surplus value), on the basis of raising to a general rule the most exceptional case (increase in labor productivity without a decrease in the cost of the product: an absurdity, if only to take this as a general phenomenon), on the basis of this to declare a "new theory", an error of Marx, a restructuring... 6) No, I cannot believe your message that Tugan-Baranovsky is becoming more and more Genosse 7). Mikhailovsky was right to call him an "echo man": his article in "Mir Bozhiy" ("according to Beltov", remember? in 95) and this article confirm such a harsh review by a biased critic.8) This is also confirmed by what I heard about his personal qualities from you and from Nadya 9). Of course, all this is not enough for a final conclusion and I may very well be mistaken. It will be interesting to know your opinion about his article.
Yes, and this idea of distinguishing "sociological" and "economic" categories, launched by Struve (in No. 1 of "Nauchnoye Obozreniye") and repeated by P. Berlin (in "Zhizn") and Tugan-Baranovsky.10) In my opinion, it promises nothing but the most empty and scholastic game in definitions, which the Kantians call by the loud name of "critique of concepts" or even "gnoseology". I absolutely do not understand what sense such a distinction can have?? How can the economic be outside the social??

V. I. LENIN ---- A. N. POTRESOV
By the way, about neo-Kantianism. Whose side are you taking? I have read and reread with great pleasure "Beiträge zur Geschichte des Materialismus", read the same author's articles in Neue Zeit against Bernstein and Konrad Schmidt (in No. 5, Neue Zeit 98-99: I have not seen further Nos.),11) I read Stammler (Wirtschaft und Recht)12), praised by our Kantians (P. Struve and Bulgakov), and I decisively sided with the monist 13). I was especially outraged by Stammler, in whom I refuse to see even a hint of anything fresh, meaningful... A continuous erkenntnisstheoretische Scholastik 14). Stupid "definitions" of the most run-of-the-mill lawyer, in the worst sense of this last word, and from them no less stupid "conclusions". After Stammler, I reread Struve's and Bulgakov's articles in "Novoye Slovo" 15) and found that neo-Kantianism really needs to be taken seriously.
I have already lost patience and inserted a remark and attacks against him in response to Struve (in his article in "Nauchnoye Obozreniye"). Why and by whom the printing of this response is being delayed - I am at a loss. They said that it would be in No. 6 of "Nauchnoye Obozreniye". But it is not there. And in the meantime, my silence is already causing awkward things for me: for example, Nezhdanov's article in No. 4 of "Zhizn") and in response to Bulgakov. 16)
I say: "lost patience", because I am very well aware of my philosophical illiteracy and do not intend to write on these topics until I study.
Now I am precisely engaged in this, having started with Holbach and Helvétius and intending to move on to Kant. I have obtained the main works of the main classics of philosophy, but I do not have neo-Kantian books (I have only subscribed to Lange).
Please let me know if you or your comrades have them and if you could share them.
On the same issue, I was extremely interested in the review in No. 5 of "Nachalo" (May, - suffering from consumption to the last degree) of Bogdanov's book. I do not understand how I could have missed the announcement of the release of this book.
I subscribed to it only now.
I already suspected the monist in Bogdanov's first book, and the title and content of the second book strengthens my suspicions. And how indecently-empty and indecently-arrogant this review is.
Not a word on the substance and... a reprimand for ignoring Kantianism, although it is clear from the words of the reviewer himself that Bogdanov does not ignore Kantianism, but rejects it, standing on a different point of view in philosophy... I think (if I am not mistaken
Lenin Collection, IV concerning Bogdanov), that this review cannot be left unanswered.17)
I only do not understand one thing: how could Kamensky leave Struve's and Bulgakov's articles in "Novoje Slovo" against Engels unanswered. Could you explain this to me? 18)
Your message about the reaction against Marxism that has begun in Petersburg was news to me. I am puzzled. "Reaction" — does that mean from the ranks of Marxists? Which ones? The same P.B. [Struve]? Is it he and his Co. that are developing a tendency towards unity with the liberals?? I will await your explanations with great impatience. That the "critics"19) only confuse the public, giving absolutely nothing, I fully agree with, as well as that a serious war will be necessary with them (especially regarding Bernstein) (but will there be anywhere to wage war?...) If P.B. [Struve] "completely ceases to be Genosse," so much the worse for him. This will, of course, be a huge loss for all Geno.ssen, because he is a very talented and knowledgeable person, but, of course, "friendship is friendship, but duty is duty" and the necessity of war will not disappear because of this. I fully understand and share your "fury" caused by the epithet "repulsive" (sic....) in relation to the monist—what for? For an article in Neue Zeit? For an open letter to Kautsky about who will begraben whom? and I am very interested in his reply to your letter pouring out this fury 20)
(I still haven’t seen Bernstein). 21)
Grundliche Auseinandersetzung 22) is of course needed, but in "Nachalo" or "Zhizni" it will not come out and cannot come out: only private articles against the "critics" of Marxism will come out. But for it we need specifically literature of the 3rd kind and Platform 23) (if I understood you correctly). Only then, finally, Genossen will be demarcated from "outsider" "interlopers" and only then will no personal quirks and theoretical "knockdown discoveries" create confusion and anarchy. The cursed Russian disorganization is to blame for everything here.
How your article (I only read the 1st one) on inheritance was directed against the Petersburgers is unclear to me. I haven't seen the article "Not in Turn". Send it.
Regarding the Blitzableiter'a 24) I would very much like to talk in more detail and thoroughly. But this, apparently, must be another time. My term ends on 29 I 1900. If only they don't add to the term — the greatest misfortune that often befalls exiles in Eastern Siberia. I dream of Pskov. And what about you?
Nadya sends her regards. I shake your hand firmly. Vladimir Ulyanov.

V. I. LENIN ---- A. N. POTRESOV

P.S. I just reread the end of my article against Bulgakov] in the draft... and saw that my tone there is reconciliatory :... I, they say, am an "orthodox" and decisive opponent ((of the "critics" (I said this directly), but there is no need to exaggerate these disagreements (as Mr. Bulgakov does) in the face of common enemies.
It is very possible that this "reconciliatory" tone (I am trying with all my strength to soften myself and polemicize as Genosse) will turn out to be inappropriate or even ridiculous if expressions like... "abominable" come into use, if the "critics" provoke a final demarcation. I would then turn out to be "guilty without guilt": not having seen [Bernstein's] book, not knowing all the views of the "critics", being at a "decent distance", I still looked (when I wrote this article) completely "in the old way", simply as a contributor to "Nachalo"... It seems my assertion that the theory of class struggle is not affected by "criticism" - is it incorrect? 25)
*) It was not possible to establish which books by Mehring and Karelin (Zasulich V. I.) are being referred to. With regard to Karelin (Zasulich), it is likely: "Rousseau" or "Voltaire".
2) Vladimir Ilyich's book "The Development of Capitalism in Russia" is meant.
3) N. -on - the well-known Narodnik Danielson, who wrote under the name "Nikolai -on".
He owns the ending of the translation of the 1st volume of "Capital", a translation begun by Bakunin and Lopatin and published in 1872.
It was in connection with this work that N. -on entered into correspondence with Marx and Engels. His book, which is being referred to, is called: "Essays on Our Post-Reform Social Economy".
It was published separately in Russian in St. Petersburg in 1893. The German edition was published in 1899 in Munich.
The French edition was published only in 1902. "According to the monist", i.e. Plekhanov.
4) "Bulgakov's article in ArchiVe" is Bulgakov's review of Kautsky's book "The Agrarian Question," published in Braun's well-known "Archive."
5) Lenin is referring to his article: "Capitalism in Agriculture (on Kautsky's book and on Mr. Bulgakov's article)", which he sent to the editors of "Nachalo", but which was only published several months later in the journal "Zhizn", 1900, No. 1-2.
See footnote 1 to letter 2 about the journal "Nachalo".
See footnote 20 to letter 3 about the journal "Zhizn".
6) This concerns Tugan-Baranovsky's article "The Main Error of Marx's Abstract Theory of Capitalism." In it, the author, wishing to "go further than Marx, but through Marx," criticizes Marx's law of the falling rate of profit. "I want," the author declares, "therefore, to prove" on the basis of the labor theory of value, that the reduction in the share of variable capital, the replacement of labor by machines (all other things being equal) does not at all affect the rate of profit..." (underlined by the author. Ed.).
The author sees Marx's main error in the following: "Marx did not take into account that with every change in the composition of capital towards a fall in the share of living labor, the productivity of labor, even with no change in the total product of labor, increases. The very fact that the machine replaces living labor makes the latter more productive, even if the production costs of a unit of product remain the same."
As a result of this criticism, the author arrives at, in his opinion, "a new theory," which is by no means "a simple repetition of a well-known dogma..."
See "Scientific Review," 1899, No. 5, pp. 973-985.
7) Genosse - comrade (i.e. party comrade).
8) Tugan-Baranovsky's article in "Mir Bozhy" "on Beltov" - Tugan-Baranovsky's article - "The Economic Factor in History," published in No. 12 of "Mir Bozhy" for 1895.
Mikhailovsky called Tugan-Baranovsky a "echoing man" in his polemic with him, which unfolded around the article of the first just mentioned. See "Russian Wealth" for 1896. No. I, II, IV and V.
9) From N. K. Krupskaya, personally acquainted with Tugan-Baranovsky, who was married to her gymnasium friend.
10) This passage refers to Struve's article "On the Question of Markets under Capitalist Production," which develops the idea of distinguishing between sociological and economic categories. Thus Struve writes: "In general, it seems to me, one should not exaggerate Marx's merits in the field of analyzing purely economic phenomena (market phenomena). Marx made a revolution in the science of political economy by establishing its sociological foundations. But it was undoubtedly unclear to him himself the relationship of these sociological foundations (the theory of capital as a social relation) to the analysis of market phenomena,* an analysis that sets itself completely different tasks than the sociological substantiation of political economy. The lack of clarity in understanding the relationship between sociological foundations and economic analysis is most sharply expressed in the inconsistency that undoubtedly afflicts the doctrine of value, as it is set forth in Volumes I and III of Capital." ... "The content of Marx's criticism, this most important task of modernity in the field of theoretical economics, and should, in my opinion, be a clear separation of the sociological foundations of his political economy, as such, from his analysis of market relations."
. . . "I have taken the liberty of opposing these remarks to the enthusiasm with which Bulgakov and Ilyin" (i.e.
V. I. Lenin. Ed.) "dwell on the supposedly profound differences between Marx and the classical economists in those areas in which Marx essentially had nothing to say or, at least, very little - compared to his predecessors. Thanks to such enthusiasm, the true merits of Marx are not clarified, but obscured. Thus, the division of capital into constant and variable parts has the deepest sociological meaning, but the significance of this division for the analysis of economic phenomena sensu stricto [in the strict sense of the word] seems to me problematic, because profit (an economic category) is brought by all capital, although surplus value (a sociological category) is only born by variable capital." (See "Scientific Review" 1899 No. 1, pp. 48-49.)
Tugan-Baranovsky expressed a similar idea in the article "The Main Error of Marx's Abstract Theory of Capitalism" mentioned above by Lenin.
11) "Beitrage zur Geschichte des Materialismus" - "Essays on the History of Materialism". The author - Plekhanov is not named for censorship reasons.
He is also the author of the articles in "Neue Zeit" ("New Time") mentioned by Lenin against Bernstein and Konrad Schmidt.
12) R. Stammler. "Economy and Law".
It was published in Russian in 1899; a second time in 1907.
13) ..."stood on the side of the monist" - i.e. Plekhanov.
He is called a monist again for censorship reasons.
14) Erkentnisstheoretische Scholastik - epistemological (gnoseological) scholasticism.
15) See footnote 6 to letter 1 about these articles.
16) Lenin calls his remarks in the articles "More on the Question of the Theory of Realization" and "Capitalism in Agriculture" "attacks" against neo-Kantianism.
In the first of these, Lenin says: "By the way, a couple of words about this (future) "criticism," which Struve is so fond of. Of course, no sane person will object to criticism in general. But Struve is obviously repeating his favorite idea of fertilizing Marxism with "critical Philosophy." I have, of course, neither the desire nor the possibility to dwell here on the question of the philosophical content of Marxism and therefore I will limit myself to the following remark. Those students of Marx who cry out: "back to Kant," have not yet given anything at all that proves the necessity of such a turn and clearly represents the gain of Marx's theory from fertilizing it with neo-Kantianism. They have not even fulfilled the duty that falls on them in the first place - to thoroughly analyze and refute that negative assessment of neo-Kantianism that Engels gave. On the contrary, those students who went back not to Kant, but to the philosophical materialism before Marx, on the one hand, and to dialectical idealism, on the other hand, gave a remarkably harmonious and valuable exposition of dialectical materialism, showed that it represents a legitimate and inevitable product of the entire latest development of philosophy and social science. It is enough for me to refer to the well-known work of Mr. Beltov in Russian literature and to "Beitrage zur Geschichte des Materialismus" (Stuttgart 1896) in German literature." (See II vol. Coll. Works, p. 486).
The second boils down to the following: Having quoted Bulgakov's words "The general socio-philosophical worldview of him (Bulgakov. Ed.) is the same as that of Kautsky," Lenin provides it with such a note: "Regarding the philosophical worldview, we do not know whether these words of Mr. Bulgakov are true. Kautsky, it seems, is not a supporter of critical philosophy, like Mr. Bulgakov." (We quote from IX vol. Coll. Works, p. 48.)
The Nezhdanov article mentioned here is called "On the Question of Markets under Capitalist Production" (On the articles by Ratner, Ilyin, Struve). "Zhizn", 1899. IV, pp. 246-317. Lenin responded to it with "An Answer to Mr. P. Nezhdanov." (See Coll. Works, vol. II, pp. 497-503.)

17) What is meant is a review by a certain G-дь of Bogdanov's book "Fundamental Elements of a Historical View of Nature," published in St. Petersburg in 1891. The first book by the same author is "A Short Course in Economic Science," for which Lenin provided a review published in the journal "Mir Bozhiy" for April 1898. From Lenin's words, it follows that, having familiarized himself with "A Short Course," he "suspected" that under the name A. Bogdanov appeared a "monist," i.e., G. V. Plekhanov.
This assumption also affected Lenin's review of A. Bogdanov's book. Vladimir Ilyich knew A. Bogdanov's second book, "Fundamental Elements of a Historical View of Nature," only by its title and a brief table of contents included in newspaper advertisements about the book's release at the time of writing the letter—and remained with his "suspicion" that Plekhanov was hiding under the pseudonym A. Bogdanov.
We have no direct evidence of the impression Vladimir Ilyich gained from reading Bogdanov's book. In a letter to A. M. Gorky on February 25, 1908, Vladimir Ilyich wrote: "I have been following Bogdanov's philosophical works since his energetic book on "A Historical View of Nature," which I studied while in Siberia.
For Bogdanov, this position was only a transition to other philosophical views."
To understand the sharpness of Lenin's expressions regarding the "Nachalo" review of Bogdanov's book, it must therefore be borne in mind that at that moment he had not yet seen the book itself, and "suspected" Plekhanov in the author.
The review begins like this: "Mr. Bogdanov's book represents a rather strange attempt to give some monistic conception...
First of all, one involuntarily pays attention to the nature of the book, and the question arises of its own accord: what is it? a scientific treatise or a popularization of an existing truth?
It is not a scientific treatise—this is easily seen by flipping through a few pages of the book.
But it is not a popularization of an existing system either, because such a "system" can only be found in Mr. Bogdanov's book," etc. in the same spirit.
Specifically Kantian notes sound in the following passage.
"The analysis of the law of causality given by Mr. Bogdanov must be recognized as far from complete and imperfect: the author completely ignores the latest German epistemology and does not mention the point of view of criticism.
What unreserved empiricism emanates from the author's assertion that "cognition only reflects reality" (p. 9). "Of course, in epistemology, one can even defend the point of view of *tabula rasa*, but to ignore the "Critique of Pure Reason" and all Neo-Kantianism in silence means leaving too many unrefuted objections." (See "Nachalo", 1899, May, pp. 121-122.) See above about the articles by Bulgakov and Struve.
18) Kamensky is a pseudonym under which G. V. Plekhanov signed his articles in "Novoye Slovo" in 1897.
These words of Lenin put an end to the misinterpretations to which Plekhanov's words, figuring in Lenin's record of "How Iskra Almost Went Out?", have been subjected, that Plekhanov was allegedly ordered in 1895 (implied: by Lenin) not to shoot at Struve. Lenin, as we see, was clearly dissatisfied and surprised that Kamensky "could" (underlined by Lenin) leave Struve's and Bulgakov's articles of 1897 unanswered.

V. I. LENIN – TO A. N. POTRESOV
Here it would be appropriate to recall that Lenin came to Plekhanov in Geneva in 1895, having already launched a very accurate and weighty charge against Struve (his article in the collection "Materials on the Question of the Economic Development of Russia"). In other words, if Lenin in 1895 did advise Plekhanov not to shoot at Struve, then this advice related to the case if Struve would move towards Marxism.
It would be very strange to shoot at Struve in this case.
But this advice clearly did not relate to the case if Struve would move away from Marxism. And this, as is known, did take place in reality and was especially clearly expressed in some of Struve's articles of 1897. Therefore, Lenin quite naturally considered it a political mistake that Plekhanov did not shoot at Struve and asked Potresov, who was in close relations with Plekhanov: "Can you not explain this to me?", i.e. Plekhanov's silence regarding Struve's non-Marxist articles of 1897, which surprised Lenin.
19) "Critics" — Struve, Bulgakov, Tugan-Baranovsky and Co.
20) *Sic* — great, so. *Begraben* — to bury, to ruin.
See note to letter 3. The epithet "disgusting" in relation to G. V. Plekhanov (the "monist") was apparently used in P. B. Struve's letter to A. N. Potresov.
21) Bernstein — E. Bernstein. This refers to the well-known book of the latter, then only recently published in German. "*Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus und die Aufgabe der Sozialdemokratie*". Stuttgart, 1899.
22) *Grundliche Auseinandersetzung*— fundamental demarcation, disassociation.
23) *Platform*— platform; "3rd kind of literature"— undoubtedly, party-orthodox literature, a hint at the future "Iskra" and "Zarya".
24) *Blitzableiter* — lightning rod.
а5) The considerations indicated by Vladimir Ilyich in the *post-scriptum* are not present in the text of his article that was printed in "Zhizn". It must be assumed that, taking advantage of the delay in the printing of his article caused by the closure of "Nachalo", Vladimir Ilyich simply discarded his concluding remarks for reasons that are evident from the *post-scriptum* itself.