Letter 3.
27/1Y 99 [Shushenskoye].
I was very glad, Alexander Nikolaevich], to receive your letter from 27/III, which finally interrupted your long and stubborn silence. A lot of questions for discussion have indeed accumulated, and it is not possible to talk in more detail here, mainly on literary topics.
And now the journal 1):
without conversations with colleagues, one feels too detached to write.
Here, only Yuliy 2) takes all this to heart quite closely and actively, but with him, the damned "large distances" prevent sufficiently detailed conversations.
I will start with what interests and excites me most now—with Bulgakov's articles in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd issues of "Nachalo" 3).
Having read your review of him, I was indescribably pleased to have found sympathy in the most essential matter—all the more pleased because, apparently, one cannot very well count on sympathy from the editorial board... If Bulgakov's article made a "repulsive" impression on you and was "pathetic", then it drove me straight into a frenzy. To this day, no matter how much I read and reread Bulgakov, I simply cannot understand how he could have written such a completely nonsensical article, and one so impossibly indecent in tone, and how the editorial board found it possible not to shield itself with at least one remark from solidarity with such a "roasting" of Kautsky. Like you, I am "sure that the public is completely (precisely!) confused and puzzled." And how can it not be puzzled in reality, when it is declared—on behalf of "modern science" (No. 3, p. 34) 4), that everything in Kautsky is wrong, arbitrary, a social miracle, "equally lacking in real agronomy and real economy" (Jfi 1-2) and so on, and Kautsky is not presented, but directly distorted.

V. I. LENIN----A. N. POTRESOV
2 1 and Bulgakov's own views, as any kind of connected system, are completely invisible. If a person had any sense of party spirit, an awareness of responsibility to all Genossen 5) and to their entire program and practical activity,—he would not dare to be so cavalier ("jump on" (in your correct expression), giving nothing himself, but only promising... a scholarly work on "Ostelbia"!! He feels, obviously, free from any comradely obligations and responsibility, a "free" and individual representative of professorial science. I do not forget, of course, that under Russian conditions one cannot demand that the journal admit only Genossen and exclude the rest,—but such a journal as "Nachalo" is still not an almanac that admits Marxism simply out of fashion (à la 6) "Mir Bozhiy", "Nauchnoye Obozreniye" and so on.) 7), but an organ of a trend. Therefore, for such a journal, it would be obligatory to impose some bridle on scholarly cavaliers and on all "outsiders" in general. Only this explains the enormous success of "Novoye Slovo" 8), that the editorial board ran it precisely as an organ of a trend, and not as an almanac.
I read Kautsky's book before the appearance of Bulgakov's article and did not find a single more or less meaningful objection to Kautsky in the latter, but a mass of distortions of Kautsky's thoughts and theses. For example, what nonsense is Bulgakov's assertion that Kautsky confuses technology and economics, that he proves the "ruin of agriculture" (No. 3, p. 31). Kautsky says the opposite directly: (Seite 289), that he denies agriculture a tendency of development ("N? 3, p. 34) and so on! 9)
I already wrote and sent to the editorial board the first article "Capitalism in Agriculture (on Kautsky's book and on Mr. Bulgakov's article)" 2 weeks ago, and now I am taking up the second on the conclusion of Bulgakov's article 10). I am very afraid that P.B. [Struve] will reject it, citing either the large volume (it turns out to be longer than Bulgakov's article, because, firstly, I need to refute such unsubstantiated and carelessly thrown verdicts in a motivated way, such as, for example, the statement that Marx was wrong in teaching about the decrease in the ratio in agriculture; secondly, because it is necessary to present Kautsky), or the undesirability of polemics. I, of course, did not use a single abusive

2 2 expression in the article of the kind that are above, and in general I tried to ensure that there was nothing personal against Bulgakov. In general, the tone is no sharper than in my article against Tugan-Baranovsky on the theory of markets) 11). I would be very glad to hear your opinion when you read Kautsky's book and finish reading Bulgakov: what exactly do you find "correct" in Bulgakov? and do you think it possible to leave Bulgakov's article in the journal without a response?
In general, this whole "new critical current" in Marxism, which Struve and Bulgakov are carried away by (P.B. [Struve] is surely for Bulgakov), seems extremely suspicious to me: loud phrases about "criticism" against "dogma" and so on—and exactly no positive results of criticism 12). However, for the composition of an article à la 6) Bulgakovian, besides "criticism" and sympathies for professorial "modern science", tactlessness до пес plus ultra 13) was also required.
I sent Struve a reply to his article on markets 14). Sister [A. I. Elizarova] writes to me that this reply will be published in "Nauchnoye Obozreniye" and that P. B. [Struve] also intends to reply there.
I cannot agree with you that "the center of gravity of the question lies in the concrete impossibility of an abstractly conceivable situation" and my main objection to [Peter] Bernhardovich [Struve] consists precisely in the fact that he confuses abstractly-theoretical and concrete-historical questions. "Concretely impossible" is not only the realization presented by Marx, but also the land rent presented by him, and the average profit presented by him, and the equality of wage labor to the value of labor power, and much else. But the impossibility of realization in pure form is not at all an objection 15). I cannot in any way see contradictions between his assertions in "Studies" and in "Nauchnoye Obozreniye", nor the "bourgeois apologetics" with which Struve so frightened the readers. 16) What I especially did not like in his article was the inappropriate dragging in of critical philosophy and remarks like the one that Marx's teaching on value and profit "undoubtedly suffers from inconsistency." After all, P. B. [Struve] knows perfectly well that this is debatable,—so why sow fog in the heads of the public, which has not yet received from any of the representatives of the "new critical current" a systematic proof of this inconsistency and its correction?

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

And Bulgakov’s escapade (JSI? 3, p. 34, note) against the Zusammenbruch theory17) — without any mention of Bernstein and with the безапелляционностью of a “scientific” decree! I know about the release of Bernstein’s new book, and I ordered it, but I’m unlikely to қыш лю т18).

From an article about it in the Frankfurter Zeitung 19) and in “Life” (a decent journal! The fiction is frankly good and even better than everything else!) 20) I became fully convinced that I understood Bernstein’s fragmentary articles incorrectly and that he had truly lied to an impossible extent, to the point that he must precisely be b e g r a b e n 21), as the author of “Beiträge zur Geschichte des Materialismus” 22) expressed it in an open letter to Kautsky.

Bernstein’s new objections to the materialist understanding of history *) etc. (according to “Life”) are striking in their weakness. If I. B. [Struve] is such an ardent defender of Bernstein that he almost "swears" because of him, then this is very, very sad, because his "theory" against Zusammenbruch is immeasurably narrow for Western Europe and is completely useless and dangerous for Russia.

Do you know that it is already being utilized 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 and not politics"? 24) What does P. B. [Struve] think of such “allies”?

If by the successes of the ultra-economists you mean the release of Volgin and his closest comrades, then I know about it; it has struck me extremely hard, and I am now at a loss as to how things stand there, and what the future holds. It is terribly harmful, in my opinion, that this dispute with the ultra-economists did not fall fully and entirely into print: this would be the only serious means for clarifying the matter and establishing certain precise principled positions.

But now there is complete chaos! 25)

My book has been released and I asked for it to be sent to you (I haven't received it myself yet). I heard that the Post Scriptum in the preface was delayed, fell into preliminary censorship, and "suffered," it seems. I will be waiting with interest for your remarks. 26)

*) By the way. Do you remember how one of our mutual acquaintances in the "beautiful distance" maliciously mocked and utterly demolished me for calling the materialist understanding of history a "method"? And now it turns out that Kautsky is also guilty of the same grave sin, using the same word: "method" ("Life," January, II, p. 53). Do you have any news about this acquaintance? Is his health better? Is there hope that he will write? 28)

I ordered and read Karelin's book before I received it from you. I liked it very much; it's damn annoying that it was cut short! Couldn't you write about it *receptzpi*? 27)

An acquaintance sent me A. Potresov's "Journal Notes" (about "inheritance" and "heirs"). Interesting: was further polemic with me intended in the continuation or not? 28)

I liked A. Potresov's article extremely much; the cutout greatly diminished it. I confess, I don't see the disagreements between us: You take a different question — not about how students relate to Russian democratism in general, whether they renounce it (I wrote exclusively about this), but about what the relations were between different types of democrats in the good old days. I was only interested in Mikhailovsky’s mistake, that we renounce democratism in general — and you take a different one, the "smearing" of essential differences in the "inheritance."

I saw Maslov’s note in No. 3 of "Nauchnoye Obozreniye" directed against me, but I confess, it did not interest me. 29) And by the way: the cutout of A. Potresov's article confirmed my opinion that it is "inconvenient" to take a more vivid inheritor than Skaldin (a sad confirmation!!).

In general, in my opinion, the tone of the journal is "pre-death." If so, then the end and death are only a question of time. After all, this is simply speculation on Bathlosigkeit 30) and red tape in that department, which, etc.

One could keep one's tongue behind one's teeth without harm and not without benefit to the cause. Compared to the current tone, our "Materials" could be a model of "moderation" and "solidity"... 31)

I shake your hand, V. U. Write more often if you're not too lazy, otherwise I have no one to learn journal news from.

I am sending “Historische Berechtigung” 32) by registered parcel.

Please don't think that I am careless in returning books: after all, you didn't write about the deadline and I didn't refuse comrades’ requests to give it to them to read. I will be very grateful for the end of Karelin.

Do you have any German reviews of Kautsky? I only read it in the "FrankfurterZeitung" - angry and empty *a la* Bulgakov.

Overall, I really like the books of the journal. They are edited beautifully. Have you read Gvozdev’s book and what do you think about it? 33)

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

*) This refers to the journal "Nachalo." See note 1 to letter 2 about it.

2) Yuliy—Martov, Yu. O., who was then serving his exile in Turukhansk.

3) Refers to Bulgakov's articles "On the Question of the Capitalist Evolution of Agriculture" ("Nachalo" 1899, Nos. 1-2, 3), written in response to K. Kautsky's book, "Agrarfrage" (The Agrarian Question).

4) This and the following indications of Nos. and pages mean "Nos. and pages of the journal "Nachalo."

5) *Genossen* - comrades.

6) *a la* = in the manner of, like.

7) Journals of that time where, along with authors of various directions, Marxists were also printed.

8) The journal "New Word" was the first militant legal Marxist organ. A total of eight issues managed to come out in 1897. In the same year, the journal was banned by censorship. Lenin also took part in it, placing, among other things, his articles "Towards a Characterization of Economic Romanticism."

9) Here Lenin indicates the page in the 1st German edition. The corresponding place in the Russian edition of 1899 is on page 340, and in the 1906 edition on pages 265-266.

10) This phrase in the letter makes it possible to establish the time of writing these articles: it falls on April-May 1899. These articles, sent to "Nachalo," did not manage to appear in it, in view of its termination in June 1899, and with a delay of several months were printed in the journal "Life," Nos. 1 and 2 for 1900 (they are placed in Vol. IX of the Collected Works).

11) "A Note on the Question of the Theory of Markets," written at the end of 1898 and printed in "Nauchnoye Obozreniye," No. 1, for 1899. Placed in Vol. II of the Collected Works.

12) Lenin has in mind the fully defined bias of representatives of legal Marxism, especially Bulgakov and Struve, towards the critical philosophy of Kant.

13) *Ad пес plus ultra* - to the extreme degree, to the limit.

14) Refers to P. Struve's article "On the Question of Markets under Capitalist Production (Regarding Bulgakov's book and Ilyin's article)," published in "Nauchnoye Obozreniye" for 1899, No. 1. Vladimir Ilyich responded to it with the article: "Once Again on the Question of the Theory of Realization," written, as it turns out from this letter, no later than April 1899; it was only printed in the August issue of that journal. Placed in Vol. II of the Collected Works, pp. 480-496.

15) Lenin has in mind one of the provisions of Struve's article, as formulated in the conclusions by the author himself: "A self-sufficient, completely developed capitalist society cannot exist, and even more so, such a society is unimaginable, since in it surplus value will cease to be capitalized, or in other words, expanded reproduction will be impossible. A stationary, i.e., based on simple reproduction, capitalist society contradicts the idea of capitalism, the driving force of which is not immediate consumption, but the self-increase of capital. The idea of a self-sufficient capitalist society (or system), and the schematic из

Marx's treatment of the realization of the product in this system does not give us anything beyond the elementary truth for understanding the real process of capital development: products in the process of realization or social metabolism are always exchanged for products. In elucidating the historical questions of capitalism development, the idea of a self-sufficient capitalist society turns out to be not only sterile, but also directly misleading, since it replaces a complex real process with an abstract and unreal scheme." ("Scientific Review", No. 1, 1899, p. 63.)
1в) Lenin has in mind the following passages from Struve's article:
"... I merely state that Ilyin's completely correct reasoning, with very expressive quotations from Marx ... completely throws overboard that theory of realization, of which Ilyin himself is such an eloquent and energetic defender in other cases." ("Scientific Review" 1, 1899, p. 52.)
"... Bulgakov (as well as Ilyin) attributed the apologetic-bourgeois theory of Say-Ricardo to Marx..." (Ibid., p. 52).
"Tugan-Baranovsky, Bulgakov and Ilyin expound the bourgeois-apologetic theory..." (Ibid., p. 57).
In his reply article "Once Again on the Question of the Theory of Realization" Lenin objects to Struve as follows:
"Struve says that I attributed to Marx the apologetic-bourgeois theory of Say-Ricardo (52),— the theory of harmony between production and consumption (51),— a theory that is in glaring contradiction with Marx's teaching on the evolution and eventual disappearance of capitalism (51-52); that therefore my "perfectly correct reasoning" that Marx in both Vol. II and Vol. III emphasized the contradiction inherent in capitalism between the boundless expansion of production and the limited consumption of the masses of people, "completely throws overboard that theory of realization ... of which I am a defender in other cases."
And this assertion by Struve is just as false and just as based on the above-mentioned misunderstanding into which he has fallen.
Where did Struve get the idea that by the theory of realization I do not mean the analysis of the process of reproduction and circulation of all social capital, but a theory that only says that products are exchanged for products, a theory that teaches about harmony between production and consumption? Struve could not show by an analysis of my articles that I understood the theory of realization in the second sense, for I directly and definitely said that I understood the theory of realization precisely in the first sense.
In the article: "Toward a Characterization of Economic Romanticism," in the paragraph devoted to elucidating the error of Smith and Sismondi, it is said: "The question is precisely how realization takes place, that is, the replacement of all parts of the social product.
Therefore, the starting point in the reasoning about social capital and income—or, which is the same thing,—about the realization of the product in capitalist society—must be the separation ... of the means of production and the articles of consumption" (Studies, 17). "The question of realization consists in analyzing the replacement of all parts of the social product in terms of value and material form" (ib., 26).
Is Struve not repeating

V. I. LENIN---A. N. POTRESOV
the very same thing when he says—as if against me—that the theory that interests us "shows the mechanism of realization ..., insofar as such realization is carried out" ("Scientific Review", 62)? Do I contradict this theory of realization, which I defend, when I say that realization takes place "only amidst difficulties, amidst constant fluctuations, which become increasingly strong as capitalism grows, amidst frenzied competition, etc." (Studies, 27)?—when I say that the Narodnik theory "not only shows a lack of understanding of realization, but also contains, in addition, an extremely superficial understanding of the contradictions inherent in this realization" (26-27)?—when I say that the realization of the product, which takes place not so much at the expense of articles of consumption as at the expense of means of production, is "of course, a contradiction, but precisely such a contradiction that takes place in reality, that stems from the very essence of capitalism" (24), which "fully corresponds to the historical mission of capitalism and its specific social structure: the former (i.e. the mission) "consists precisely in the development of the productive forces of society (production for production); the latter" (i.e. the social structure of capitalism) "excludes their utilization by the mass of the population" (20)?" ("Scientific Review" 1899, No. 8, p. 1571). Reprinted in Vol. II, Collected Works, 1st ed. (pp. 487-489).
17) Zusammenbruch — socialist revolution. In the footnote to which Lenin refers, Bulgakov wrote: "Psychologically, the possibility of such a belief is based on the idea of a social Zusammenbruch, which will immediately renew and change the modern economic organization. This idea is irreconcilable with the current state of science and, above all, with the materialistic understanding of history. It is enough to reread the relevant passages from the applied part of Kautsky's book to be convinced of how much the theory of Zusammenbruch’a hovers over all ideas about the future fate of agriculture." These thoughts were developed somewhat earlier by Bernstein.
18) The book in question is: Bernstein, E., "Die Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus und die Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratie" (Bernstein, E. "The Prerequisites of Socialism and the Tasks of Social Democracy"), published in its first edition in Stuttgart in January 1899.
10) "Frankfurter Zeitung." Unable to follow the German labor movement through Social Democratic organs, which were not allowed into Russia, Vladimir Ilyich had to be content with materials about it published by the aforementioned large bourgeois-democratic newspaper, which he apparently subscribed to.
20) "Life" was a journal of that time that published Marxists. Gorky, Gusev-Orenburgsky, Veresaev, and Chirikov were published in its fiction section. For the period January-April 1899, it featured, among other things: "About the Devil," "Kirilka," and "Foma Gordeev"—by Gorky; "The End of Andrei Ivanovich"—by Veresaev; and "Strangers"—by Chirikov. Legal Marxists and Lenin were also published here. Among the Western Marxists of that time, K. Kautsky and E. Bernstein were published, among others. The article from "Life" in question: "A New Book on Historical Materialism" by S. Steinberg, was published in the March issue of the journal for 1899 ("Life", Book III, 1899, March, pp. 358-371). As for

of Bernstein's articles, Vladimir Ilyich could have familiarized himself with them from the German "Neue Zeit."
21) Begraben—to bury, to ruin.
This expression: "we must bury Bernstein" was used by Plekhanov in his "Open Letter" to Kautsky, published in the "Sachsische Arbeiter Zeitung" ("Saxon Workers' Newspaper") for 1898, Nos. 253-255, under the title: "What do we have to thank him for?" (Plekhanov's Works, vol. XI). Lenin refers to this letter, having received information about it, apparently, from the same "Frankfurt Gazette."
22) "Beitrage zur Geschichte des Materialismus" — "Essays on the History of Materialism." The author of "Essays" — Plekhanov is not named by surname, apparently, for censorship reasons.
23) These words most likely refer to Plekhanov and relate to the conversations that Vladimir Ilyich had with him in 1895, during his trip to Switzerland. Lenin's reference refers to K. Kautsky's article "The Materialistic Understanding and the Psychological Factor," translated and published in "Life" in 1899, book II (January). Reprinted in the collection "Historical Materialism," edited by Semkovsky.
24) Lenin is referring to a report by a certain P. Khramov on the Stuttgart Congress of the German Social Democratic Party (October 1898), printed in No. 4 of "Workers' Thought." We quote from it the passage directly indicated by Vladimir Ilyich:
"The most burning issue in the German workers' party is the question 'of tactics'; for the first three days all disputes revolved around this issue. The essence of the matter is as follows. The German workers' party until very recently was primarily a political party. In its struggle against the propertied classes, it placed the struggle for political freedom first; during agitation, it mainly pointed to political issues. 'The seizure of political power' was put forward as a battle cry. The struggle for wage increases, for the reduction of the working day, etc., in general, the economic struggle was waged by the workers, of course, at all times very energetically; the German workers have huge combat organizations, to which about 350,000 people belong. But all the economic struggle was conducted as if by the way. Until very recently (until 1896) there were few people in the workers' party who attached the same importance to the economic struggle as to the political struggle. Recently, the question has been raised about changing tactics in the sense that more attention should be paid to the economic struggle, to the urgent, immediate interests of broader masses of the population. Auer at a Berlin meeting stated last year that the political and economic struggle have the same importance for the working class. Some supporters of the economic struggle — Bernstein, Jeus, Vollmar, Heine — went even further; they declare that, in general, the immediate interests of the population should be put first, and the 'ultimate goals' — the seizure of political power and socialism — will appear as a result of such a struggle; that emphasizing the 'ultimate goals' is not even scientific, since life is constantly developing and it is impossible to predict what Forms it will take. This is the essence of the dispute."

V. I. LENIN—A. I. POTRESOV
25) This passage refers to the split in the foreign "Union of Russian Social Democrats" and means the refusal of Plekhanov ("Volgin"), and the entire "Emancipation of Labor" Group, to edit the Union's publications. This took place in November 1898 at the Union's congress.
26) It is about Lenin's book (V. Ilyin): "The Development of Capitalism in Russia." "R. S. in the preface" — two pages appended by Lenin to the preface of this book and devoted to a concise presentation and a statement of solidarity with the views developed by Kautsky in his "Agrarian Question." This Post-Scriptum was, apparently, written and sent to press by Lenin after the entire book had been handed over to the press. How much it suffered from censorship — in view of the absence of the manuscript — it is impossible to judge.
27) N. Karelin. "Jean-Jacques Rousseau." An attempt to characterize his social ideas. Struve Publishing House. The author of the book was V. I. Zasulich. The review of it was written by M. Tugan-Baranovsky. ("Nachalo," May, 1899).
28) "Journal Notes" by A. P. — an article by A. N. Potresov, subtitled: On "inheritance" and "heirs," published in the April issue of "Nachalo," but cut out of it by censorship. Apparently, the cut pages were forwarded to Lenin. Potresov's article was related in content to Lenin's article "Do We Renounce the Inheritance?" (see I vol. Coll. Works). It did not contain polemics with Lenin — it only contains a mention of Lenin's article: "Vl. Ilyin in his recently published, very interesting and valuable book 'Economic Studies and Articles' devoted one of the articles to the above-mentioned question, namely — the article 'What Inheritance Do We Renounce?' Agreeing in many respects with its author, we consider it useful to approach the same topic, so to speak, from another end and to outline — only outline — some questions that, in our opinion, can shed light on the state of our contemporary journalism" (quoted from "Studies on the Russian Intelligentsia," published in 1906, pp. 76-77), — but, undoubtedly, was caused by the author's disagreements with Lenin, reflected in the previous letter. The "literary-political continuation" of this disagreement, which we mentioned in note 2 to the previous letter, consisted in the fact that after 6 (six!) years, in connection with the split of the party into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks and over this split, A. N. Potresov returned in "Iskra" to Lenin's article, trying to draw from it proof of the "narrowness" and lack of historical sense of the "rationalism" of Lenin's Marxism. At the same time, the employee of the Menshevik "Iskra" prudently kept silent, of course, about those circumstances, well known to him, which forced Vladimir Ilyich to dwell on Skaldin as a representative of bourgeois liberalism of the 60s and on those caveats that Vladimir Ilyich introduced into his article and which are repeated and emphasized by him in this letter. Potresov's polemical sally was made by him in the article "Our Misfortunes," published in Nos. 98, 107 and 111 of "Iskra" for 1905 and reprinted in his "Studies" (see pp. 264-265). Vladimir Ilyich did not answer it.
29) P. Maslov's article: "Idealization of the National Economy" in No. 3 of "Scientific Review" for 1899. The note read: "The representation of the interests of producers, as such, was inherited by the ideologists of the unthrifty producer, who developed the basic ideas of Chernyshevsky and gave them scientific justification. Therefore, one cannot agree with Vlad. Ilyin ("Economic Studies and Articles"), who considers the ideology of the unthrifty as an "inheritance" from the liberal enlighteners of the 60s. Bourgeois "enlighteners" received and could receive inheritance from bourgeois "enlighteners." Maybe it's not a great honor to be considered the heir of enlighteners worthy of all respect, but what to do when the only thing common between bourgeois and non-bourgeois enlighteners is that both are progressists and look in the same direction — to the West?!" ("Scientific Review" 1899, III, 632 p.).
30) Rathlosigkeit — helplessness.
31) "Materials for the Characterization of Our Economic Development" — a collection of articles by Lenin, Plekhanov, Struve, Potresov, P. Skvortsov, etc., published in May 1895, but destroyed by censorship. V. I. Lenin placed here under the pseudonym K. Tulin his article "The Economic Content of Populism and its Critique in Mr. Struve's Book" (see I vol. Coll. Works).
32) I.e. the booklet of the journal "Neue Zeit" with P. Axelrod's article, later published in Russian under the title "The Interrelationship of Liberal and Socialist Democracy."
33) R. Gvozdev (Zimmerman). "Kulakism-Usury. Its Socio-Economic Significance." Garin Publishing House, SPB. 1898. Lenin gave a review of this book in the journal "Nachalo," No. 3. March 1899. Reprinted in the I volume of Collected Works.