V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:LS/v13;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

TWO LETTERS FROM THE CORRESPONDENCE OF V. I. LENIN
WITH A. A. YAKUBOVA
OCTOBER 26 — NOVEMBER 4, 1900

The two letters published below—from Lenin and A. Yakubova*—deal with the question of the attitude of the Iskra supporters towards *Rabochaya Mysl*,**
the organ of the extreme "Economists" (see Works, Vol. IV, Note 3, p. 535).

Shortly after Lenin's arrival abroad, where he came in August 1900 to organise the publication of *Iskra*, which set itself the task of fighting for the positions of revolutionary Marxism, the leaders of *Rabochaya Mysl*, in the person of its editor K. Takhtarev and A. Yakubova (Takhtareva), approached Lenin and Plekhanov with a proposal to collaborate in *Rabochaya Mysl*. This proposal, which obviously aimed at inducing Lenin and the Emancipation of Labour group to abandon their intention of publishing *Iskra*, or at least to hamper its struggle against the Economists, whose influence in Russia had by that time considerably weakened, was, of course, rejected. During the International Socialist Congress in Paris, in September 1900, Takhtarev, as can be seen from Yakubova's letter, again proposed, this time to Plekhanov alone, collaboration in *Rabochaya Mysl*, motivating his proposal by an alleged intention to change the character of *Rabochaya Mysl*, turning it into a political organ (Takhtarev and Plekhanov attended the congress as members of the Russian delegation). According to Takhtarev, it was even a question of handing over the editorship of the newspaper to Plekhanov (K. M. Takhtarev, *The Working-Class Movement in St. Petersburg 1893-1901*, 1924 ed., p. 172). Plekhanov expressed his willingness to come to an agreement, but considered it necessary to obtain Lenin's consent on this matter as well. As can be seen from the letter printed below, Lenin reacted negatively to Takhtarev's project, and the agreement did not take place. Yakubova's reply is interesting both for the factual data she communicates about the negotiations with Plekhanov, and, in particular, for the views developed by Yakubova on the tasks of *Rabochaya Mysl* and on the interrelation of political and economic struggle.

9*

The letter is printed from Lenin's draft manuscript, which underwent repeated corrections by him. To reflect all the editorial variants of these corrections, two texts are printed below: "First Draft of the Letter" and the final text. In addition, there is a separate variant of part of the letter, crossed out by Lenin and replaced in the final text by a note. It is given separately in the collection.

The letter is written on five sheets of notepaper in black ink and pencil with corrections in blue pencil, specified in the footnotes. At the top of the letter, in N. Krupskaya's hand, there is a note (apparently made later): "To the Taras", i.e., A. and K. Takhtarev.

V. I. LENIN TO A. A. YAKUBOVA
IN LONDON.

a.
FIRST DRAFT OF THE LETTER.

26/X. [1900. Munich.]

I received your letter of 24/X yesterday and am replying, at your request, immediately.

I cannot forward the letter just now: I do not send by enclosure to the address I have, but only by chemical means, and I have no time to copy the letter in this way. I wrote to the addressee yesterday about the gist of the letter, and hope to communicate the whole letter to him in the near future. Or perhaps you will copy it in an unbound book by chemical means—then I will send it at once.²

I will give the address to my sister: she was not in Paris in September, so you were hardly there at the same time. I hope you have dropped her a line yourself at the address I gave you?

Now to business.

Your letter to me makes a strange impression. If I exclude the communications about addresses and forwarding, there remain only reproaches—bare reproaches without any explanations on the substance. The reproaches even go as far as attempts to make a cutting remark ("are you convinced that you have done this for the benefit of the Russian working-class movement or for the benefit of P[lekhanov]?"),—but I, of course, will not exchange cutting remarks with you.

You reproach me for having "advised against it". [Firstly,] you convey my words very inaccurately. I remember well that I expressed myself much more cautiously: "We find it difficult at the present moment to advise"—I wrote, i.e., I directly made our "difficulty" conditional upon a preliminary clarification of the matter. What the clarification should consist of is clear from my letter: it was necessary for us to get a full account of whether a "turn" had really taken place in R[abochaya] M[ysl] (as we were informed) and what kind of turn it was.

On this, the basic and main question, you say—not a word.

That we regard R[abochaya] M[ysl] as an organ of a special trend, with which we are in the most serious disagreement, you have known for a long time. Both I and the addressee of your long letter directly refused to participate in an organ of such a trend several months ago, and it is understandable that, acting in this way ourselves, we could not but advise the same to others.

But we were placed in a "difficulty" by the news of a "turn" in R[abochaya] M[ysl]. A real turn could have substantially changed the matter. It is natural, therefore, that in my letter I first of all [asked you (i.e.] expressed the desire to find out all the details about the turn,—and you did not reply a single word to this.

From your letter to my friend I conclude that there is no turn (and I will remain of this opinion until refuted by you,⁴ i.e., a substantial turn). You write to the friend, "fight, if you are not ashamed". He will, of course, answer you himself, and I will ask permission to reply to this on my own account. There is nothing at all to be ashamed of in fighting,—[it is shameful to fear the fight,] since matters have come to such a pass that disagreements [have reached] [have touched the most fundamental questions] have touched the most fundamental questions, that an atmosphere of mutual misunderstanding, mutual distrust, and complete discord has been created (I am not speaking only of R[abochaya] M[ysl]: I am speaking of everything I have seen and heard, and moreover [seen] not so much here as at home), since a number of "splits" have already arisen on this ground. To get rid of this stifling atmosphere, one can and must welcome even a furious storm, and not only a literary struggle. [And there is nothing more erroneous than the opinion that the struggle between socialists "was only good for amusing our enemies"—it is not always so. It happens (and history knows thousands of examples) that it has been the opposite: the struggle]

And there is no particular reason to fear the struggle: the struggle for a time (a short one) may, perhaps, cause irritation among a few individuals, but it will clear the air, define precisely and directly the relations,—define where people are who are really going a completely different road, and where are the victims of misunderstandings, etc.,—define which disagreements are essential and which [are not] secondary. Do you really think it is possible to do without such a definition, without [a direct and open clarification] a direct and open clearing away of the mud stirred up by the "Credists" and Bernsteinians? And is the struggle for the sake of this clearing away illegitimate?

You write that there were mistakes in R[abochaya] M[ysl]. Of course, we all make mistakes. But how, without a struggle, can one separate these particular mistakes from the trend which is clearly outlined in the "Separate Supplement to R[abochaya] M[ysl]",⁴ in the "Credo",⁵ in the profession de foi,⁶ in other "documents", in the verbal statements of some St. Petersburgers among the "young", and, finally, in your letter to the friend, and also in the articles of Bulgakov, Struve and Co.? Without a struggle there can be no sorting out, and without sorting out there can be no successful forward movement, there can be no durable unity. And those who begin the struggle at the present time are by no means destroying unity. Unity no longer exists, it has already been destroyed, destroyed along the whole line. Russian Marxism and Russian Social-Democracy are scattered temples, and an open, direct struggle against [the "critics"] the Bernsteinians and against the "Economists" (you are deeply mistaken if you do not see that the one and the other are brothers) is one of the necessary conditions for restoring unity.

Yes, restoring unity. Such "unity", when we hide from our comrades "economic" documents like a secret disease, when we take offence at the publication of what views are being preached under the flag of Social-Democratic, when we impose the strictest conditions—not to show anyone the products of "economic" creativity—such "unity" is not worth a brass farthing, such "unity" is sheer cant, it leads only to the deepening of the disease, to its transition into a chronic, malignant form. When the disease has reached the point where the organism begins to rot alive,—it is shameful to fear a serious operation. * And that an open, direct and honest struggle will cure this disease and create a truly united, vigorous and strong Social-Democracy,—of this I have not a moment's doubt.

b.
* FINAL TEXT OF THE LETTER.

26/X. [1900. Munich.]

I received your letter of 24/X yesterday and am replying, at your request, immediately.

I cannot forward the letter just now: I do not send by enclosure to the address I have, but only by chemical means, and I have no time to copy the letter in this way. I wrote to the addressee yesterday about the gist of the letter, and hope to communicate the whole letter to him in the near future. Or perhaps you will copy it in an unbound book by chemical means—then I will send it at once.

I will give the address to my sister: she was not in Paris in September, so you were hardly there at the same time. I hope you have dropped her a line yourself at the address I gave you?

Now to business.

Your letter to me makes a strange impression. If I exclude the communications about addresses and forwarding, there remain only reproaches—bare reproaches without any explanations on the substance. The reproaches even go as far as attempts to make a cutting remark ("are you convinced that you have done this for the benefit of the Russian working-class movement or for the benefit of P[lekhanov]?"),—but I, of course, will not exchange cutting remarks with you.

You reproach me for having "advised against it". You convey my words very inaccurately. I remember well that I expressed myself not categorically, not unconditionally: "We find it difficult at the present moment to advise"—I wrote, i.e., I directly made our decision conditional upon a preliminary clarification of the matter. What the clarification should consist of is clear from my letter: it was necessary for us to get a full account of whether a "turn" had really taken place in R[abochaya] M[ysl] (as we were informed and as we had the right to conclude from the fact that you approached P[lekhanov] with a proposal of participation) and what kind of turn it was.

On this, the basic and main question, you say—not a word.

That we regard R[abochaya] M[ysl] as an organ of a special trend, with which we are in the most serious disagreement, you have known for a long time. Both I and the addressee of your long letter directly refused to participate in an organ of such a trend several months ago, and it is understandable that, acting in this way ourselves, we could not but advise the same to others.

But we were placed in a "difficulty" by the news of a "turn" in R[abochaya] M[ysl]. A real turn could have substantially changed the matter. It is natural, therefore, that in my letter I first of all expressed the desire to find out all the details about the turn,—and you did not reply a single word to this.

However, perhaps you consider that the answer to my question about the turn lies in your letter to the friend? Perhaps, if you addressed P[lekhanov] on behalf of the editorial board of R[abochaya] M[ysl],—your letter to the friend can also be considered an authentic expression of the views of the editorial board? *

If so, then I am inclined to draw the conclusion that there is no turn at all. [[[Perhaps, of course, this is mistaken, but I have no other data for judgment at present. Then, if "the editorial board of R[abochaya] M[ysl] has now passed entirely into the hands of the St. Petersburg Union" (as you write), then what exactly is your (and your husband's; **) role and what is your place—I consider it necessary to raise this question, of course, not out of curiosity, but all for the clarification of the same question about the "turn". Perhaps the St. Petersburg Union gave you authority to be its foreign representative (in the spring I heard something similar from one of your friends, also a former teacher, soon afterwards arrested)? I repeat once more that I am writing all this to clarify the questions you have raised, I am writing on the assumption that we both desire this clarification. If this assumption is incorrect, then all this, of course, falls away.]]

You write: "Do you not think that by this you have, as it were, prejudged the question of whether our meeting is necessary?"

So you make the meeting dependent on purely business relations between us on the question of (our) participation in R[abochaya] M[ysl]? You mean to say: if you categorically refuse, then there is no point in meeting? Is that how I understood you? I think we must speak quite frankly.

I will speak frankly. The matter began with you (on behalf of the editorial board of R[abochaya] M[ysl], evidently) proposing to P[lekhanov] to write a leading article, to participate in general (at least, that is what I heard).

P[lekhanov] asked our opinion. We were extremely surprised by your proposal, for we knew of the complete difference in trends, of whose side you were on at the congress.⁷ (I also saw one of your letters to Russia about the congress.) So, we decided, something has changed. And we were told: there (in R[abochaya] M[ysl]), they say, it has been overcome.]

If I am mistaken, I ask you to explain my mistake to me.

The other day another close supporter of P[lekhanov] wrote to me about a turn in R[abochaya] M[ysl]. [I think he is mistaken.] But being in correspondence with you, I cannot, of course, believe these "rumours" about a turn, not confirmed by anything on your part.

I will say again, better to say it straight out at once (even at the risk of incurring new reproaches)—being in full solidarity with my friend (to whom you write), I also subscribe to his words: "we shall have to fight with you"—if there is no turn. And if there is, we must ascertain with all thoroughness what exactly this turn is.

You write to the friend: "fight, if you are not ashamed". He will, of course, answer you himself, but I will also ask permission to reply to this on my own account. There is nothing at all to be ashamed of in fighting,—since matters have come to such a pass that disagreements have touched the most fundamental questions, that an atmosphere of mutual misunderstanding, mutual distrust, and complete discord has been created (I am not speaking only of R[abochaya] M[ysl]: I am speaking of everything I have seen and heard, and moreover not so much here as at home), since a number of "splits" have already arisen on this ground. To get rid of this stifling atmosphere, one can (and must) welcome even a furious storm, and not only polemics in literature. ***

And there is no particular reason to fear the struggle: the struggle [for a time (a short one)] * may, perhaps, cause irritation among a few individuals, but it will clear the air, define precisely and directly the relations,—define which disagreements are essential and which are secondary, define where people are who are really going a completely different road and where are comrades in the party who differ on particulars.

You write that there were mistakes in R[abochaya] M[ysl]. Of course, we all make mistakes. But how, without a struggle, can one separate these particular mistakes from the trend which is clearly outlined in R[abochaya] M[ysl] and reaches its culminating point in the Credo.** Without a struggle there can be no sorting out, and without sorting out there can be no successful forward movement, there can be no durable unity. And those who begin the struggle at the present time are by no means destroying unity. Unity no longer exists, it has already been destroyed, destroyed along the whole line. Russian Marxism and Russian Social-Democracy are scattered temples, and an open, direct struggle is one of the necessary conditions for restoring unity.

Yes, restoring it! Such "unity", when we hide from our comrades "economic" documents like a secret disease, when we take offence at the publication of what views are being preached under the flag of Social-Democratic,—such "unity" is not worth a brass farthing, such "unity" is sheer cant, it leads only to the deepening of the disease, to its transition into a chronic, malignant form. And that an open, direct and honest struggle will cure this disease and create a truly united, vigorous and strong Social-Democracy,—of this I have not a moment's doubt.

End: * Perhaps it is very inappropriate that in a letter to you I have so often to speak of struggle (literary). But I think that our old friendship obliges us above all to complete frankness.

I press your hand,
Petroff

P.S. In about 2 weeks I will have another address [only for] :
Herrn Ph[ilipp] R[oegner] (C[igarren]h[andlung]. N[eue] G[asse]
N[urnberg] (only for letters and also in 2 envelopes). [Please do not write any initials in letters—the Lord knows whether the post here is reliable enough.)

c.
* VARIANT OF PART OF THE LETTER.

For instance, in your letter to the friend I clearly see two currents: one—a completely legitimate emphasis on the fact that economic struggle is necessary, that one must be able to use legal [workers'] organisations, that all kinds of responses to the daily and urgent needs of the workers are necessary, etc. All this is legitimate and correct. It is a misunderstanding if you think that the revolutionaries "have a negative attitude towards legal organisations", that they are "hateful" to them, that they "turn their backs on society", etc. And the revolutionaries recognise that economic struggle is necessary, that it is necessary to respond to daily [and urgent] needs, that it is necessary [to be able] to learn to use legal organisations. The revolutionaries have nowhere and never advised turning one's back on society, but, on the contrary, have emphasised that it is necessary for Social-Democracy to place itself at the head of the social movement and to unite under the leadership of a revolutionary Social-Democratic party all democratic elements. But it is necessary to ensure that legal organisations and purely economic organisations do not separate the working-class movement from Social-Democracy and from revolutionary political struggle, but, on the contrary, bind them together as closely and inseparably as possible. And in your letter there is also this other (pernicious and, in my opinion, deeply reactionary) current, a current of separating the working-class movement from Social-Democracy and from revolutionary political struggle,—a pushing aside of political tasks, a substitution of the concept of political struggle by the concept of "legal struggle", etc.

How to draw the line between [the healthy and useful current and the harmful one? That it is impossible to limit oneself to wordy disputes, this I think I need not prove to you,—to you, who have already tasted the cup of "foreign meetings". And is it not ridiculous to fear the examination of a question in literature, when in any case it has already been examined for a long time in letters and debates. Why is it permitted to argue at meetings and write letters, but to clarify controversial questions in print is "the most pernicious thing, [capable] fit only (???) for the amusement of our enemies". This I do not understand. Only literary polemics can precisely establish that line of which I speak, because individuals very often and inevitably go to extremes in this.

Of course, struggle in literature will give rise to several new grievances, will inflict not a few kicks, but we are not such touch-me-nots as to fear kicks! To desire struggle without kicks, disagreements without struggle—would be an institute-girl naivety, and if the struggle is conducted openly, it is a hundred times better than the foreign and Russian "Gubarevism", it will a hundred times sooner lead, I repeat, to durable unity.

¹ A. Yakubova's letter has not been preserved.
² This refers to A. Yakubova's letter to G. Plekhanov, sent through Lenin.
³ This refers to A. Yelizarova (Ulyanova), who was then abroad (in Paris).
⁴ The "Separate Supplement" to *Rabochaya Mysl* was published in September 1899 by the St. Petersburg "Union of Struggle".
A critical analysis of the "Separate Supplement", especially of the article by R. M. "Our Reality", is given by Lenin in the article "A Retrograde Trend in Russian Social-Democracy" and in *What Is To Be Done?* (see pp. 529 of Vol. II and p. 359 of Vol. IV of Lenin's Works).
⁵ "Credo" ("Symbol of Faith")—written in 1899 by E. Kuskova. This document was received by Lenin, who was in exile in Eastern Siberia, through A. Yelizarova.
In response to the "Credo", Lenin wrote the "Protest" (which appears below in Yakubova's letter as Anticredo), adopted at a meeting of exiled Social-Democrats.
Detailed data on the "Credo" and the circumstances of the writing of the "Protest" are given in Lenin's Works, Vol. II, Notes 65, 66 and 67 (pp. 635-637) and Vol. IV, Note 2 (pp. 554-555).
⁶ "Profession de foi" ("Declaration of Faith", "Exposition of One's Views") of the Kiev Committee of the RSDLP was written by an unidentified author, apparently in 1899, and represents one of the documents of the "Economist" trend in Russian Social-Democracy. Concerning the "Profession de foi", Lenin wrote a critical review (below in Yakubova's letter—"Antiprofession de foi"), which is printed together with the text of the "Profession de foi" in *Lenin Miscellany* VII, p. 6.
⁷ This refers to the Second Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Union Abroad in April 1900 in Geneva. At this congress, which ended with a split between the Emancipation of Labour group and the "Economist" majority of the Union, the following were present from *Rabochaya Mysl*: K. Takhtarev, A. Yakubova and N. Lokhov-Olkhin.

A. A. YAKUBOVA TO V. I. LENIN
IN MUNICH.

4 XI — 1900.

I am terribly sorry that, having sent a long letter, I thereby, as it were, forced you to copy it. Forgive me, I did not know that it could not be enclosed, and you tear it up. When I get home I will write in chemical ink and send it to the address I have. I will also write to N[adya] * from London, and I am writing to your sister today. Only yesterday I received her letters from Brussels, because Madame S.'s¹ husband is ill and she has lost her head. You will, of course, also forgive me for the harsh words I wrote to you in my first letter. This happened to a considerable extent from that general state of irritated spirit in which one has been all this time, thanks to various purely practical disorders which have to be settled here. From your letter I understood that, in essence, the matter is not at all about *Rabochaya Mysl* alone and it plays a comparatively insignificant role in that "confusion" which, according to many reports, now reigns in Russia. We personally have a very vague and confused idea of this confusion, mostly from rumours and from such documents as the Credo and anticredo, profession de foi and antiprofession de foi. But you and your sister write that persons are also involved here who have nothing to do with either the Credo or *Rabochaya Mysl* or the profession de foi, etc. Well, that means the matter is more complicated than we imagine; and we are actually interested only in one thing (or rather, concerned), that these confusions in the "upper spheres" should not hinder practical work in the "lower depths", as the quarrels between the Narodniks and the Marxists hindered in former times. I personally am under the impression of those very quarrels and find that there was nothing fruitful in those quarrels and polemics; the Narodovoltsi were swept from the road not by polemics, but by life itself, the appearance on the scene not of "heroes", but of the "crowd". Moreover. In 96-97, as you know, definite agreements were concluded with the Narodnaya Volya, first in the summer of 96 (it had no practical significance due to the summer collapse), and then in the winter of 97.² The latter agreement in the end had only a principled significance. But you cannot imagine to what extent all the negotiations were hindered by all the quarrels which were conducted not between the contracting groups themselves, but between various peripheral young men and girls. Even now I picture very clearly all these "Credists" and "anticredists", "Myslites" and "anti-Myslites" (ha, ha... what a name that is!) in student uniforms, who go out of their way to prove the correctness of their "convictions". And their "convictions" are really not worth a brass farthing, for there is nothing independent or profound in them. The pictures of the disputes of Narodnik and Marxist young men and girls stand very vividly before my eyes. You might as well talk to a brick wall, but once you are a Marxist, every word of yours is from the evil one. Then the same gentlemen blinked in amazement, learning of the "agreement". That is why all sorts of credos and anticredos, etc., seem to me extremely harmful, for they breed "verbal debauchery" among our public. There are always few people for real work, but there will always be many for tongue-wagging; and this latter is also harmful because it so hypnotises a person that, when offered to do something useful, he replies confusedly: "I haven't yet clarified who I am." Oh, come on, all that is required of you is just this and that. For this it is enough to be a decent, honest person, sympathetic to the working class. "Yes, true... but... still!.." Well, you wave your hand and leave the person alone. What offends me is that this tongue-wagging so absorbs a person that he imagines he is doing something, having argued himself tired with another similar subject. And besides, it's just a joke, take the Credo. Its author, among other things, says that he will not engage in anything except legal activity. But from further conversations it turned out that the word illegal is understood in a way that absolutely no one here understands it. Issuing leaflets criticising government actions regarding workers' societies, distributing these leaflets, communicating with illegally working organisations—all this is considered legal activity. Just a joke! I absolutely refuse to attach any serious practical significance to the words of the Credo and anticredo, except for one thing, that they sow verbal debauchery. The very idea of the author of the credo about "legal" activity shows that the so-called "purely economic" struggle on Russian soil is a pure utopia, a utopia precisely in the sense that the fighters constantly have to deal with political oppression, and consequently to adopt a political stance. However, I really have no idea whether we have many Credists and whether they work practically. If not, then it's not worth talking about them. As for the supporters of *Rabochaya Mysl*, as far as I understand and share this trend, it consists in a special understanding of tactics, which is possible and necessary at the present time. Moreover, this "trend" is the exponent of the aspirations of the average worker, even tries to represent the interests of the lower strata; it is not for nothing that someone expressed about *Rabochaya Mysl* that it is the representative of the lower stratum of the proletariat. It is quite understandable that the most developed workers find it insufficiently "political"; for these "cream" of the proletariat, what is needed is not *Rabochaya Mysl*, but *Novoye Slovo*,³ only published illegally. They need an organ that would broadly treat all questions and needs arising from contemporary reality and outline the paths of a broad struggle for a better future. *Rabochaya Mysl*—for the broad mass of workers (do not forget that this is a local organ, therefore I would like to say "*Rabochiye Mysli*"), a serious socialist political organ for the higher strata—this is what I would consider the most urgent need for our workers. *Rabochaya Mysl* would prepare ever new cadres for understanding the questions treated more broadly and diversely in another newspaper. I think that a significant part of the attacks on *Rabochaya Mysl* arises because people forget or ignore the aims which *Rabochaya Mysl* pursues. And its aims are these: mainly to touch upon questions of surrounding reality and to indicate the possibility of struggle even under present political conditions. As long as there are no such forces which in the near future will overthrow the existing order, it is necessary to prepare these forces, and for this it is necessary to bring onto the arena of struggle those strata which until now have only known how to work and die without complaint. And to bring out these strata it is necessary to indicate to them the immediate [goals, for this is a purely agitational device when one has to deal with such strata which, due to their downtroddenness and ignorance, are not yet able to understand distant goals. Every success in the struggle, as you know, gives rise to new efforts for further struggle; and success and struggle develop the mental horizon of the fighters and prepare them for a higher order of struggle. I think that the process of preparation, by bringing ever new forces onto the arena of struggle, is a very necessary and honourable work, and this work was done by *Rabochaya Mysl*, as I understand its significance. Then it took upon itself the role of answering, as far as possible, the numerous questions of the workers: "but how to organise?". It, i.e., *Rabochaya Mysl*, tried to point out to them the most natural and easiest path—to organise on the basis of satisfying daily urgent needs and on the basis of labour,—i.e., on the one hand it pointed to all kinds of consumers' societies, cooperative societies, etc., to workers' committees, to circles for self-education, recreation, strike funds, on the other hand—trade unions.

All the above about the significance and tasks of *Rabochaya Mysl* in its past is what I meant when I said that *Rabochaya Mysl* was the first to pose the workers' question as it really is. That is, it began with the fact that we have nothing that would in any way characterise organised struggle. Struggle exists, but only in rare cases does it assume signs, beginnings of organisation; hence the tasks of the organ—to promote organisation, if only of that struggle which is already being waged. But pursuing a given goal at a given moment does not mean "pursuing this same goal for all future times". If *Rabochaya Mysl* pursued its goals over the course of 8 issues, that is no great sin, for no newspaper (except perhaps *Vperyod*⁴) set itself these special goals, they even completely ignored these goals. I do not think that the St. Petersburg workers did not value *Rabochaya Mysl* precisely for these goals; I am inclined to think the opposite, judging by the reviews I have heard from workers abroad.

You say that I separate economic struggle from political struggle. This is a pure delusion. This inseparability in the struggle on Russian soil is so obvious that I did not even consider it necessary to speak about it. Where there is no political freedom, where the government is ready to come to the aid of the employers armed with all its state machine, there can be no question of a purely economic struggle being possible; that is why I find that the author of the Credo stands not on Russian soil, but at least on German soil. Economic struggle in its pure form seems to me possible only in England, where the relationship between employer and worker has the character of purely private relations. But what I really fear and what I have already had occasion to speak about with the "politicians". Their indifference and even neglect of the purely trade union and consumers' organisation of the workers may play into the hands of the Russian government, and in the following respect. Sooner or later, trade unions and other workers' organisations will be able to form and exist without the obstacles which the Russian government now places in their way. But it is two completely different things whether the workers will achieve greater (compared to the present) freedom of organisation through struggle, and the most stubborn struggle, in which all forces and all organs will participate; or whether this "freedom" will be decreed from above by the Russian government, in order, by immediately satisfying the workers, to take the ground from under the feet of the "agitators"; and the government can do this, seeing the neglect of this side of the matter among the "agitator-politicians". This latter outcome will be the greatest evil, for then that separation between economic and political struggle will indeed be created, which you desire no less than I do. But who will be to blame for this? Certainly not *Rabochaya Mysl*! The achievement of "freedom" for workers' organisations will be a powerful agitational and organisational means only if it is the result of struggle, and not of a decree from above. Two countries always flash before my eyes—Germany and Belgium. In the first, Social-Democracy, until very recently, ignored the trade union organisation of the workers. Results: the Gewerkschaftshaus,* built by the trade unions without the knowledge of the party, Bebel's last pamphlet,⁵ where he proves the necessity of the independent existence of the Gewerkschaften** and so on and so forth. In Belgium, on the contrary. There the party has always been so attentive to the trade unions and other organisations of the workers that there, with few exceptions (like the old union of typographers and those unions organised by the Christian Socialists), all trade unions and other unions and cooperatives belong to the party. Moreover, the party proclaimed the principle: every member must, in the first place, be a member of some union or some organisation. The "Maison du Peuple" is at the same time a real socialist fortress and a "ministry", in which each separate union or federation finds a corner, if only in the form of a letter-box for letters, petitions, etc., with the inscription: "such and such a Federation" or "such and such a union". You know, a most instructive building—this Brussels "Maison du Peuple".*** Really, if one is to speak of a socialist workers' party, one must speak primarily of the Belgian one. If one is to speak of a party which consists of workers and for workers, it is precisely that one. Vandervelde, such a brilliant representative of the party, is only its show side and he has significance only where the question of show representation comes to the fore. At home, Vandervelde is entirely under the influence of less brilliant and more modest, but no less industrious workers. From the chief editor of *Le Peuple*⁶ to the secretaries of Federations and unions—all are persons who have come from the workers. Of the Belgian party it can be said that it has few intellectual forces who could engage not only in rough work.

So, I think that we, Russian revolutionaries, must strive, as far as possible, to create conditions closer to Belgium, where the party penetrates into all aspects of the worker's life, and not Germany, where politics is one thing, and the Gewerkschaften are another.

You reproach me for not writing you a single word about the "change of direction" of *Rabochaya Mysl*. But you forgot what I wrote in the letter to our common friend. 1. The editorial board