V. I.

Lenin

1900

TO Y. M. STEKLOV [2]

Letter to Nakhamkis

1. We shall carry it.

2. The plusses of the article. [Remarks about the mass
and Social-Democratic mass movement—the impossibility for Social-Democrats to renounce their strict Social–
Democratic principles even for a moment—about propaganda and
agitation, and the relationship between political rights and
political freedom. About not narrowing down the significance of May Day, etc. ]

3. The minus. Some minor alterations in the article are
desirable, and we suggest what they might be, hoping that
joint discussions of them will bring us to complete agreement.

Firstly, there is need for a summing-up of what has been
said, a résumé, a conclusion, as you yourself have already
pointed out. Secondly, in connection with this, a rewording
of some passages and a shortening of the rest of the article
(whose total length must not exceed 1 printed sheet ) are
desirable (for example, the following passages might be
cut down: p. 3 [N.B. 2]; p. 39 [N.B. 16] and some others).
It seems to us that the rewording should consist in the
following: the whole form of the article has become something
of a challenge (“open letter”, the official form of address,
etc.), and this is hardly desirable. You yourself pointed
out some of the extremes in the present polemics (“Mr.
G.’s stalwarts”, [3] and similar things) and you were quite right ; but since these extremes were there, we should now
be more careful—not in the sense of conceding one iota of principle, but in the sense of refraining from needlessly
embittering those who are working for Social-Democracy within the limits of their understanding. Perhaps a criticism of the Rabocheye Dyelo programme in the third
person would be better in this respect?

For the same reasons it would be appropriate to make some “allowance” for the formal side of the Rabocheye Dyelo programme. After all, it is not the programme of a
party, nor even the draft programme of a party, so that it is
incorrect to compare it with the programmes of the French
and German Social-Democrats (at any rate, when such a comparison is made without reservations, as it is on your p. 42
[N.B. 17]). The criticism of the formal side of the programme
could be abbreviated (you yourself expressed the desire,
on p. 2, to “leave aside” the formal defects), reducing the
formal shortcomings, as particular cases, to the general
defect of the programme in principle. We think that such
an alteration is desirable with respect to the critical
remarks on pp. 45 (N.B. 20), 39 (N.B. 16), 20 (N.B. 9) and 6
(N.B. 6). The brusque formulation of these remarks here and
there might give the people occasion to speak (and not entirely without foundation) of faultfinding. The superfluous
(from the strictly theoretical standpoint) reminder of the
need to reckon with local conditions, etc., could be the
result, not of the editorial board having failed to master
scientific socialism, but of its wishing to emphasise this
quite obvious point just at this moment, when it saw the
need to do so. And is there not sometimes a need to stress
even self-evident things? We do not deny at all that, in the
present case, 75 per cent —only 75 per cent—of the “need”
boiled down to the “need” of bowing and scraping before
Rabochaya Mysl . If we forget about the remaining 25 per
cent, we shall give the people a chance to accuse us of
faultfinding, whereas if we reduce these formal defects, as particular instances , to the general defect of principle, we shall
take the faultfinding edge off our remarks and reinforce
our line of argument.

Now a few more detailed remarks:

P. 17 (N.B. 8), footnote 1. The remark “What does this
dream augur?” is obscure.

P. 24 (N.B. 11). You cannot say that Social-Democracy
“is little concerned about whether its demands are attainable”. We understand your idea and accept it, but it should
be expressed with greater care and precision; “cannot make the immediate possibility of attainment the supreme test”
would indicate the road that needs to be taken, not the
possibility of early practical success, or something of that
sort.

P. 32 (N.B. 13)—“to use its own expression”: isn’t that
too strong?

P. 33 (N.B. 14)—“to seize, etc.”: an awkward,
incautious expression, because of the word “seize”.

P. 35 (footnote in fine [1]

).

(N.B. 15.)

“ Gendarmes” and so forth. Would it not be better to strike out or change this?

P. 43 (N.B. 18). Too strong. “Peasantry” is a term we
cannot eschew .

P. 44 (N.B. 19). Too strong and blunt. The question of
what the peasantry can provide is still far from settled by
the Russian Social-Democrats (compare the footnote to the
1885 Programme of the Emancipation of Labour group [4] ),
and is hardly likely to be decided in the sense that the
political role of the peasants is equal to zero (cf. Der 18. Brumaire [5] ).

I hope to have a letter from you in reply to this, and not a letter alone, but the article as well (preferably not
later than in 2 weeks’ time, 3 weeks at the outside).

G. V. has looked through the article and has also decided
in favour of it, noting only the passage on p. 24 (about
the possibility of attainment).

P.S. The “we” in this letter are those with whom you had
a talk at
Bellerive. [6] We do not undertake as yet to speak for the whole editorial board with complete certainty , but
hope this will not produce any unpleasant consequences either for you or for us.

---
Notes:
[1]
At the end.— Ed .

[2]
A review of D. B. Ryazanov’s article, “Remarks on the Rabocheye Dyelo Programme”, sent in by Steklov. The article was published
in the journal Zarya (Dawn) No. 1, April 1901.

“ The Rabocheye Dyelo Programme” (“Editorial Note”) was
issued in Rabocheye Dyelo No. 1 in April 1899 and published
separately that same year under the title “Programme of Rabocheye Dyelo , a periodical organ of the Union of Russian
Social-Democrats”.

Rabocheye Dyelo (The Workers’ Cause)—a magazine of the
Economists, and an organ of the Union of Russian Social–
Democrats Abroad, published in Geneva from April 1899 to February
1902 and edited by B. N. Krichevsky, A. S. Martynov and V. P.
Ivanshin.

A criticism of the views of Rabocheye Dyelo group is given
in Lenin’s What Is To Be Done? (See present edition, Vol. 5,
pp. 347–529.)

[3]
Mr. Grishin’s stalwarts —an expression used by Plekhanov in a
postscriptum to his publication, Iz zapisnoi knizhki Sotsial-Demokrata (From a Social-Democrat’s Notebook), Sheet 1,
Geneva, 1900, p. 6.

Grishin —the party name of T. M. Kopelsohn, the Bund’s representative abroad and a member of the Union of Russian
Social-Democrats Abroad.

[4]
A reference to the concluding paragraph of the first draft
programme of the Emancipation of Labour group, published in 1884
(not as erroneously stated in the letter). In the second draft
programme (1888) it was altered into a special note appended to the
draft.

[5]
Karl Marx, Der achtzehnte Brumaire des Louis Bonaparte (The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Moscow, 1960).

[6]
A conference held at Bellerive near Geneva in August 1900 and
attended by V. I. Lenin, N. E. Bauman, V. I. Zasulich, G. V.
Plekhanov, A. N. Potresov and Y. M. Steklov. It discussed a
programme for Iskra and Zarya .