Note: From 8 November 1900.

11.
8/XI [1900, Munich].
Dear P. B.! Received your letter of the 5th and the article 1). Many thanks for it.
The reworking probably cost you no little effort and even more unpleasantness, because compressing such
a topic must have been extremely uninteresting work.
All the more valuable for us is that you took it upon yourself. I apologize
that we are not sending you articles: our "secretary"2) is burdened,
unfortunately, with serious family responsibilities and therefore
the correspondence is progressing very slowly.
I am sending the article "New
Friends of the Russian Proletariat" 3), which we want to place in No. 1, Feuilleton. Please let me know your opinion—
you can do so on the article itself in pencil—and then please send
it to Georgy Valentinovich [Plekhanov].
Regarding the Parisians, we decided to stick to exactly the tactics
that you advise: on the one hand, "not to disarm," on the other hand, "to abstain."
They are, of course, unhappy with our abstention, and recently we had to (necessarily had to) give such a rebuff to their expression of displeasure that we feared "cooling"
(feared—an unsuitable word, because we decided to give this rebuff even if it
would certainly lead to a break).
Yesterday we received a response from the "secretary" of the group they formed in
Paris; judging by the response, our rebuff did not have harmful consequences, and "everything is fine." Let's hope that
this will continue to be the case in the future. That later we will probably have to think about "statutes" and other
lukewarm and interesting things that you talk about is perfectly true, but you did excellently to set an approximate
deadline for this of six months.
Until the enterprise is "in full swing"—this would be premature; we fully agree with your opinion on this.

V. I. LENIN - P. B. AKSELROD.

But as for starting to speak out openly here— I cannot agree with you. That "legality has already been lost,"
I cannot yet think. In my opinion, it has not yet been lost,
and this "yet" may last for several more months, during which much will become clear. (Brother [Potresov] is already in Russia; so far, everything is fine.
The Traveler 4) is also traveling safely so far).
Even with the complete and final loss of legality, there may be weighty considerations
against speaking out openly (for example, considerations about trips
home) 5). Therefore, until *) the first issues come out and until
we all gather together with A[lexei—Martov] and brother [Potresov],
I will continue to hide in any case. If the enterprise is destined to succeed, then this decision may
soon change—but my previous "optimism" regarding this condition has been considerably shaken by the "prose of life."
Regarding the journal 6), it will probably soon become clear whether we will arrange
it here or go to other countries to seek refuge. As soon as
it becomes clear, I will let you know.
It is very inconvenient for me to write to America, because I don't know anyone
and no one knows me—I will have to resort to your mediation anyway: so wouldn't it be better to just write to you directly
and send a statement, stating that it is from a Russian group, that
your relationship to this group is such and such, that a brochure "May Days in Kharkov" 7)
is now being typeset in the same printing house and after it is finished, a newspaper will be typeset, that the statement is silent about the journal (or
collection) for conspiratorial-technical reasons, that such and such articles by Georgy Valentinovich—Plekhanov], yours, Kautsky's (Erinnerungen 8)—an interesting little thing, which Vera Ivanovna Zasulich is already translating] and others are being (or are ready) prepared for "N. I think all the goals that you write about will be achieved much more directly and better by your letter, and sending
a statement to America from you no longer threatens (it seems to me)
undesirable publicity now, especially sending one copy for reading by the local society secretary at its meeting 9).
I shake your hand firmly. Your Petroff.
P. S. I received the pillow and the book.
*) After this word, Vladimir Ilyich crossed out the word "meeting." ed.

TO P. B. AKSELROD.

^ "W. Liebknecht" — the article P. B. Akselrod speaks about in the previous letter.
2) Our "secretary" — Smidovich-Leman, see letter 4, note. 1.
*) "New Friends of the Russian Proletariat" — an article by Yu. O. Martov,
published under the same title in No. 1 of "Iskra".
4) The Traveler — apparently
Yu. O. Martov, who at that time lived under police surveillance in Poltava and communicated with Russian
organizations mainly in the south.
5) Akselrod, like Plekhanov,
were opponents of the publication of "Iskra" and "Zarya" in Germany.
It seemed to them that Switzerland was a more suitable place for setting up the enterprise.
Lenin and Potresov held the opposite opinion.
After the September meetings of Lenin and Potresov (near Geneva
in 1900) with Plekhanov, Akselrod, and V. Zasulich, it became obvious to the Russian part
of the Iskra editorial board that the interests of the cause required that
the editorial board not be in the same city as G. V. Plekhanov.
Lenin, for very understandable reasons, could not write about this to his correspondent, but we
can now say with complete certainty after the publication in the first issue of the "Lenin Collection" of Vladimir Ilyich's record of "How Iskra Almost Went Out," that such motives played a significant role.
As is known, Lenin and Potresov managed to insist on their opinion: the printing of "Iskra" with the help of the German Social Democrats
was established in a secret printing house in Leipzig, and the publication of "Zarya" in Stuttgart
with the well-known publisher, the German
Social Democrat Dietz.
On the advice of the German Social Democrats, the Iskra editorial board settled
in Munich, where Lenin, Potresov, Zasulich were located, and after Martov and N. K. Krupskaya arrived from abroad.
(See "Lenin Collection", pp. 27-50, "Proletarian
Revolution"
7 (30) - 1924, review by A. I. Elizarova, pp. 253-7 and "Letters of P. B. Akselrod and Yu. O. Martov". Berlin 1923, p. 21,
note. 9.)
®) Journal — collection — "Zarya". The first issue included
articles by Plekhanov, Martov, Lenin, Potresov, Zasulich, Narvus, Ryazanov and K. Kautsky ("Memoirs" translated by V. I. Zasulich);
there was no article by Akselrod in "Zarya".
7) The brochure "May Days in Kharkov" — see below, p. 295.
8) Erinnerungen — memoirs.
•) We are talking about the "Announcement of the publication of "Iskra" — see letter 1,
note.
10.
The Secretary of the American
Socialist
Society was S. Ingerman.

P. B. AKSELROD—TO V. I. LENIN.
10/XI [1900, Zurich].
Dear friend!
*In aller Eile* as the Germans say. I received the dedication to "Rabochaya
Mysl" 2) yesterday and sent it to Geneva [i.e., to G. V. Plekhanov] yesterday, underlining in pen in two places. In one place
the juxtaposition of anti-terroristic tactics of Social Democracy to the execution of Sudeikin 3) may give rise to various misinterpretations.
For tactical or diplomatic reasons, this passage should be changed slightly 4).
Otherwise, it turns out that we, in the spirit of the late Dragomanov 3), condemn
the Narodovoltsy for the fact that they secretly and not "in the bright light
of day" dealt with various scoundrels. Not having the text in front of me, I cannot write exactly how to change it, but I think that once
you pay attention to the marked pair of phrases, you will agree yourself
that it is better to change them a little.
In another place you will have to throw out the words: "fruits of art" (or blessings of culture—I don't remember), because to be holy
and ideological in the heads of workers is possible, but it is difficult to enjoy
the highest blessings without being a free citizen.
This, of course, is a petty formality, but why not throw out a pair of words or change a half phrase
when the author's thought will not suffer at all from this?
But the little article is very opportune and, as far as a quick review
allows one to judge, very well written. I personally liked it even
more for the following reason. The last half or 2/3 of my
little article, although it did not cost me any particular effort (because in it I partially summarized the results of the 3 chapters I wrote, and partially what is not yet written], but caused me no little grief, because--

P. B. AKSELROD---- TO V. I. LENIN.

awareness that, for readers a little familiar with the matter, what I have said is of no interest, because it is too general, almost vulgar, and for those unfamiliar with it, it will give absolutely nothing, because it is devoid of all specificity, not based on facts known to them. And so the story *) became for me a kind of consolation: in a simplified, crude, unrefined form, it can a little illustrate and concretize what is implied in the concluding remarks of my article.

I received the article just when I was sorting through foreign newspapers, for which I had to run to different places, to fish out material for the chronicle. It was in vain that I was not informed earlier that you had no correspondence. Be that as it may, I am now preparing a chronicle, and therefore I am not answering either Vera Ivanovna Zasulich, nor you, your letters. If God does not send any special misfortune on my head, it will be ready the day after tomorrow. When the magazine and newspaper are finally налажены, it will not be difficult to work even in disarray, but for now how much "unproductive" waste of time, effort and misunderstandings!

Greetings to all.

Yours, I. A.

*In aller Eile* — hastily, in a hurry.

2) "Dedication to M." — an article by Yu. O. Martov in the first issue of *Iskra* under the title: "New Friends of the Russian Proletariat" (dedicated to "Rabochaya Mysl").

The article is devoted to attempts by the Russian government to introduce a split into the Russian labor movement through provocation. The inspirer and organizer of these attempts was the outstanding Russian detective S. V. Zubatov.

3, G. P. Sudeikin, head of the St. Petersburg охранное отделение, one of Zubatov's predecessors in the field of investigation, provocation and corruption of the revolutionary milieu. Killed by Degaev on December 16, 1883.

4 Axelrod's remarks on Martov's article, as well as all correspondence with Lenin and other members of the editorial board, testify to the attention with which the members of the editorial board treated their duties, how carefully they discussed not only the very content of the articles intended for *Iskra*, but also every phrase, this or that unsuccessful expression. This is explained above all by the enormous importance that all members of the editorial board attached to their enterprise, and the responsibility they assumed. Theoretical consistency, in the spirit of Marx's teaching, fidelity to the revolutionary precepts and traditions of the Russian revolutionary movement in general and the Social-Democratic movement in particular, the coverage of facts and issues of Russian reality from the point of view of scientific socialism and the indication of ways and paths by which the Russian working-class Social-Democratic movement should be organized and proceed, all this, together with the struggle that had to be waged in its own ranks, made it particularly attentive and cautious about the material. The place in the article in which, according to Axelrod, condemnation of the Narodniks was expressed and the correction of which he proposes, is as follows:

"This is Sudeikin's policy: to introduce such depravity into the revolutionary milieu that it would be difficult to distinguish where a comrade who enters into friendly relations with the gendarmes ends, and where a formal traitor and provocateur begins. Sudeikin tried to undermine the mighty *Narodnaya Volya* party with such a policy. He got burned on this matter. When the infection of gendarme corruption touched the heart of the party, the Executive Committee of *Narodnaya Volya* put an end to the vile game with a bold blow: Sudeikin was executed by order of the Executive Committee. Russian Social Democrats must direct their efforts to cope with provocative corruption without resorting to political assassinations. Let us hope that Zubatov will live to see the time when, in the light of an open struggle for freedom, the people will hang him on one of the Moscow lanterns."

The following place in the article, which is mentioned in Axelrod's letter, reads as follows:

"The economic goal of the labor movement, therefore, is inseparable from the political struggle, which alone can ensure the achievement of this goal. And therefore, the development of poetic self-consciousness, revolutionary propaganda of the political struggle must go hand in hand with the economic movement of the working class. We want to improve our economic situation, we want to enjoy all the benefits of culture that have been created by our labor and our art, but we want to enjoy them not as slaves, but as free citizens."

Apparently, the last words — "but as free citizens" — were added at the direction of P. B. Axelrod.

5) Mikhail Petrovich Dragomanov, a famous Ukrainophile, Federalist, first professor at Kiev University, then an émigré (1841–1895). In 1876, he was forced to emigrate to Switzerland as a result of persecution by the Russian government. Due to Dragomanov's hostile attitude towards the terrorist activities of Russian revolutionaries and due to the knowingly incorrect coverage (in the journal "Volnoe Slovo," published by him in Geneva in 1881–82) of the nature of this activity, a polemic arose between Dragomanov and Russian revolutionaries, and members of *Chernyi Peredel* (Plekhanov, Zasulich, Deich, and Axelrod) stood against Dragomanov in a united front with the Narodovoltsy.

It is to this incorrect assessment of terrorist activity by Dragomanov that Axelrod alludes in his letter.

*) Further in the manuscript there is a gap.