((EAR HAS SCARCELY COOLED DOWN. “ISKRA.”
4 7
To speak of what had transpired only to the closest of intimates—such was the decision made, in order to maintain appearances and deny the adversaries any cause for triumph. On the surface, it seemed as though nothing had occurred; the entire apparatus was to continue moving forward as before—except that, within, some vital thread had snapped, and in place of those beautiful personal relationships there now emerged cold, businesslike relations, marked by constant calculation: according to the formula si vis pacem, para bellum 25.
It is worth noting, however, that on the evening of the same day, I engaged in a conversation with a close comrade and staunch supporter of Plekhanov—the member of the “Social-Democratic” group. I did not tell him a single word about what had happened; instead, I simply stated that the journal had been scheduled, the articles assigned—now was the time to get to work. We discussed how best to put things into practice: he was utterly convinced that the older generation was utterly incapable of undertaking editorial duties. We spoke at length about the “Three Combinations,” and I asked him directly which combination, in his view, was the most suitable. Without hesitation, he replied: “The first—(we are the editors, they are the staff)—but, you know, it’s likely that Plekhanov will be in charge of the journal, while the newspaper will be yours.”
As we moved further away from the events that had unfolded, we began to regard them with greater calm and came to the conviction that it would be utterly unwise to abandon the endeavor altogether. There was no reason to fear taking up the task of editing (the collection); indeed, it was precisely we who needed to step forward, for otherwise there would be absolutely no way to set the machinery in proper motion or to prevent the work from being destroyed by Plekhanov’s disruptive “qualities”26.
Upon our arrival in N on September 4–5, 1900, we had already drafted a proposal for formal relations between us—(I had begun composing this draft back on the train, during our journey)—and under this proposal, we were to serve as editors, while they were to function as staff members, each with a voice in all editorial matters. It was decided that this draft would be discussed jointly with Yegor28, and then presented to him29.
Iskra once again began to offer hope of rekindling its flame.
*) Vladimir Ilyich arrived in Zurich in the latter half of August 1900.
2) He could have said so.
*) The split within the “Union of Russian Social Democrats Abroad,” which led the “Liberation of Labor” Group to withdraw from the Union’s editorial activities and sparked fierce polemics between G.V. Plekhanov and P.B. Axelrod, on the one hand, and the editorial board of “Rabocheye Delo,” on the other.

*) He has always considered himself utterly right.
5) Since Vladimir Ilyich had been abroad in 1895 and had met with G.V. Plekhanov, the remark attributed to Plekhanov here can be understood to mean that the “order” not to shoot Struve in 1895 had come from Vladimir Ilyich—as the representative of the Petersburg social-democratic organization of that time. However, it must be borne in mind that in 1895, G.V. Plekhanov not only “did not shoot” at P. Struve, but also sought to defend Struve’s book, “Critical Notes,” against the attacks of the Narodniks in his “Monistic View of History.” Lenin, on the other hand, criticized Struve’s deviations from Marxism in the aforementioned book, in his article “The Economic Content of Populism and Its Critique in Struve’s Work,” written in late 1894 and published in early 1895 in the collection “Materials on the Question of Russia’s Economic Development,” St. Petersburg, 1895.
b) “Novoe Slovo” was a monthly journal that remained in the hands of Marxists from March to December 1897. Alongside articles by Struve, Tugan-Baranovsky, and other so‑called “legal Marxists”—those who had already begun to drift away from Marxism—this journal also published articles by Plekhanov, Lenin, V.I. Zasulich, and other Marxist revolutionaries. In the September issue of this journal, Struve contributed an article titled “The International Congress on Legislative Protection of Workers,” in which he subjected Marxist views on the revolutionary character of the workers’ movement to sharp criticism.
7) The “Allies,” or Economists—supporters of the “Union of Russian Social Democrats Abroad.”
8) In his pamphlet “Vademecum for the Editorial Board of ‘Rabocheye Delo,’” G.V. Plekhanov published letters from several leading Economists, though these letters were, in essence, purely of a principled nature.
°) The “Editorial Statement” was printed as a separate leaflet and appeared shortly before the release of No. 1 of “Iskra.” In the final text, the provision allowing for polemics among contributors on the pages of “Iskra” was retained; however, the reference to the “possibility of peacefully resolving disputes with the Economists” was omitted. The statement was reprinted in Lenin’s Collected Works, Volume IV, page 5.
10) “Our Third One”—Y.O. Martov—was still in Russia at that time.
p) The General Jewish Workers’ Union in Russia and Poland (Bund) was founded in September 1897. At the First Congress, it was proposed to name the organization “Jewish Social Democracy.” This proposal was rejected, on the grounds that the unfamiliar term “social democracy” might deter the still relatively underdeveloped Jewish working class.
Based on the resolutions of the First Congress, the Bund joined the Party—and at that time, its representatives abroad fully and unconditionally supported the political line of the “Union of Russian Social Democrats Abroad,” opposing the “Liberation of Labor” Group.
12) Friday, August 24, 1900.
13N August 25, 1900.

“HOW THE ‘SPARK’ ALMOST FALTERED.
4 9
14) L. I. Axelrod — The Orthodox.
15) “N. Z.” – “Neue Zeit”
(New Times), the scholarly organ of German social democracy, edited by K. Kautsky. When E. Bernstein first began to voice criticisms of Marx’s doctrine, Kautsky displayed considerable hesitation.
The initial resistance to the revisionists did not come from the pages of Kautsky’s own publication, but rather from the provincial social-democratic press, where Rosa Luxemburg and Parvus engaged in vigorous polemics against them.
Later on, after Kautsky had firmly adopted a stance against the “critics,” he nonetheless permitted their articles to appear in the journal he edited.
From 1891 onward, Plekhanov served as a contributor to “Neue Zeit.”
In 1897, in response to Bernstein’s article “The Realistic and Ideological Elements in Socialism” (“Neue Zeit,” No. 7), Plekhanov published his essay: “Bernstein and Materialism” (“Neue Zeit,” Vol. XXI, Part II).
This article sparked heated debate.
Plekhanov responded with the essay “Konrad Schmidt Against Marx and Engels” (“Neue Zeit,” Vol. XVII, Part I, 1898–1899).
It was his final contribution to “Neue Zeit” during that period.
In 1898, in the “Saxon Workers’ Gazette,” Nos. 253–255, Plekhanov’s “open letter” to Kautsky appeared: “For What Should We Thank Him?”
Plekhanov’s articles critical of Bernstein, along with his letter to Kautsky, were later collected in Volume XI of Plekhanov’s Complete Works.
16) August 26, 1900.
17) That is, G. V. Plekhanov.
G. V. Plekhanov was known among his closest comrades in the “Emancipation of Labor” Group by the pseudonym “Georges.”
18) In reality.
19) The revolutionary organization “Social Democrat” was founded in May 1900 by the “Emancipation of Labor” Group as a counterweight to the “Union of Russian Social Democrats Abroad.”
In addition to the “Emancipation of Labor” Group itself, the organization also included several members of the Union who had left it shortly after the “Emancipation of Labor” Group.
20) He brought matters to a close.
21) To careerists.
22) With reverence.
23) Monday, August 27.
24) As is customary in wartime—according to military protocol.
25) If you want peace, prepare for war.
26) We do not know exactly with whom Vladimir Ilyich conducted the conversation described here.
It is possible that Vladimir Ilyich’s interlocutor was N. E. Bauman.
Vladimir Ilyich took advantage of his stay in the vicinity of Geneva to arrange a series of meetings, including, among others, with N. E. Bauman and Yu. M. Steklov.
One of these meetings was recounted by the latter in “Krasnaya Niva,” No. 7, 1924.
27) Nuremberg—where Vladimir Ilyich sent a letter of extraordinary importance for understanding his attitude toward the “Emancipation of Labor” Group and the “Union of Russian Social Democrats Abroad.”
This letter must be carefully compared with the entry “How the ‘Spark’ Almost Faded,” in order to clarify how Vladimir Ilyich envisioned his relationship with Plekhanov’s group and with the Economists following the “congress” he described.
The letter contains the most resolute, categorical— declaration of close collaboration with Plekhanov, as well as an equally decisive declaration of war against the Economists. Vladimir Ilyich’s letter is published in the present collection.
28) That is, Yu. O. Martov.
a) In Vladimir Ilyich’s archives, we have preserved a typewritten sheet containing a draft agreement between “Iskra” and “Zarya” with the “Emancipation of Labor” Group, dated October 6, 1900.
While we are not yet able to determine whether this surviving draft represents the final agreement, its content suggests that it corresponds closely to the outline Vladimir Ilyich mentions having begun to write immediately after his meeting with G. V. Plekhanov—and that it was finally finalized (apparently jointly with Potresov) on September 4 or 5.
The draft agreement is printed below.

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN V. I. LENIN AND H.
(SEPT. 1900)

ARCHIVAL REFERENCE REGARDING LENIN’S LETTER TO H.
The letter consists of a single sheet of thin postcard-sized paper.
The handwriting is as neat and precise as Vladimir Ilyich could manage.
There are almost no corrections or erasures. Certain words are underlined (as preserved in the text reproduced below). At the end of the letter, a line is drawn, followed by a few zigzagging strokes.
Institute of Lenin.

L. Kamenev
PREFACE TO LENIN’S CORRESPONDENCE WITH X.
The addressee of the letter remains unknown to us. In any case, he was a social democrat with whom Vladimir Ilyich had already engaged in conversation back in Russia, in St. Petersburg, prior to his departure abroad—most likely in late May or June 1900—and to whom he had, in broad outline, at that very time outlined the plan for the creation of “Iskra” and “Zarya.”
Evidently, almost simultaneously with Vladimir Ilyich, this social democrat found himself abroad and spent some time in Paris, where he entered into relations with representatives of the “Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad.” In the letter that has not survived to us—whose reply is provided by Vladimir Ilyich’s letter of September 5—this social democrat expressed his views on the future tactics of “Iskra,” which essentially boiled down to seeking an agreement, in one form or another, with the “Union.”
Incidentally, in this same letter—according to the account of a certain G., a prominent leader of the “Union,” with whom Vladimir Ilyich had maintained contact back in Russia—there was conveyed the dissatisfaction of the “Union’s” leaders with the fact that, upon arriving abroad and establishing close ties with the “Labor Liberation” Group, Vladimir Ilyich had seen fit not to enter into formal relations with the “Union.” Vladimir Ilyich categorically rejected both the “Union’s” claims and the tactic of compromise that had been proposed by his correspondent. At the same time, Vladimir Ilyich firmly emphasized his group’s resolute determination to pursue its work in close collaboration with the “Labor Liberation” Group—and in particular with Plekhanov.
Vladimir Ilyich’s categorical pronouncements regarding the inadmissibility of any kind of agreement with the “Union” and the necessity of close cooperation with Plekhanov in the letter of September 5 are especially significant when one recalls that these statements were made by Vladimir Ilyich just a few days after the events described in the story “How ‘Iskra’ Nearly Went Out.”

A response followed to Vladimir Ilyich’s letter, which has been preserved among Vladimir Ilyich’s papers and which we print in full—first, because it is essential for understanding certain passages in Vladimir Ilyich’s letter and contains certain indications of Vladimir Ilyich’s plans prior to his departure abroad; second, because, in and of itself, it is characteristic of the mood prevailing within the party “swamp” at that time—a milieu with which the organizers of “Iskra” were then obliged to contend.
Vladimir Ilyich replied to his correspondent with a brief note, which we likewise print.