8) G. Plekhanov's article: "On the Sixtieth Anniversary of Hegel's Death"
"Neue Zeit" for 1891, vol. IX. In Lenin's text it says "30-year anniversary" - apparently a typo.
9) M. Ratner's article: "Regarding the New Edition of Volume I of 'Capital'" in No. 7 of "Russian Wealth" for 1898.
10) Vladimir Ilyich has in mind P. Axelrod's articles that appeared in Nos. 30 and 31 of "Neue Zeit" for April 1898 under the title: "Die historische Berechtigung der russischen Sozialdemokratie" and subsequently printed in Russian under the title: "The Historical Position and Mutual Relationship of Liberal and Socialist Democracy in Russia" (Geneva, 1898). Lenin did not have P. Axelrod's articles themselves at this moment and judged them based on A. Potresov's account in one of the latter's letters that has not reached us. Having received these articles (presumably they were forwarded to him again by A. Potresov: in a letter of April 27, 1899, Lenin informs the latter of returning "Die historische BerechtiguDg," i.e., precisely these articles by P. Axelrod), Lenin expressed himself in detail about them in the following letter to A. Potresov of January 26, 1899.
11) "Ob der Gefahr einer politischen Isolierung des russischen Proletariats" - "On the danger of political isolation of the Russian proletariat." This thought was expressed by P. B. Axelrod in his brochure: "On the Question of the Current Tasks and Tactics of Russian Social Democrats," published by the "Union of Russian Social Democrats," Geneva, 1898. See, for example, the following passage: "... the real state of affairs by no means dooms our industrial proletariat to socio-political isolation. And thank God it doesn't doom. Having only recently begun to separate from the peasantry, enslaved to the state and of low culture, it is still, in its mass, too deeply immersed in the nationwide barbarism and ignorance to be able - in the grip of absolutism - to rise completely independently, without any external support, to the height of a conscious revolutionary force. Our 'revolutionary workers' party' would have even less chance to grow and energetically manifest itself in life if it had to fight against all bourgeois and petty-bourgeois classes, as against 'one solid reactionary mass', already at the current low level of intellectual and cultural development of the popular masses in Russia, on the soil of the autocratic-police state. Meanwhile, the Marxist youth of the 80s seemed to be completely unaware of the significance of these moments and saw the only guarantee of the success of our social-democratic movement in the numerical growth of the factory proletariat. This point of view could somehow coexist with purely propagandist activity in small circles of selected units of the working class. But it becomes incompatible with organizational and agitational activity in the masses." Pp. 15-16.
12) Gauches - leftists.
13) Alliancist, from alliance - union.
14) A hint at the heated debates between Marxists and Narodniks that were raging at that time in colonies of exiles. Presumably, A. Potresov in his letter described one such clash among exiles in Vyatka Governorate.

Letter 2.
26/I 99 [Shushenskoye village].
Received your letter of 24/XII. I am very glad for you that you have, at last, untangled yourself from your illness. Rumors about it had already reached us: I heard about it during the holidays, while in Minusinsk, and kept thinking about where and how to make inquiries (I considered it inconvenient to write to you directly, because they said the illness was serious). Well, now you have resurrected just in time, when one literary enterprise is also resurrecting. Of course, you already know about "Nachalo," which is scheduled to begin in mid-February? *). I hope that you are now fully recovered - a month has already passed since you wrote the last letter - and that you will be able to work. After all, in terms of books you are probably well provided for: do you subscribe to the main new publications? If you don't severely limit yourself in funds for subscribing to books, then you can, I think, work even in the backwoods - I judge, at least, by myself, comparing my life in Samara about 7 years ago, when I read almost exclusively other people's books, and now, when I have begun to make a habit of subscribing to books.
Regarding the "Legacy" I had to agree with your opinion that considering it as something unitary is a bad tradition of bad (80s) years 2). Indeed, perhaps I should not have taken on historical-literary themes... My justification is only that I am not proposing anywhere that we accept the legacy precisely from Skaldin 3). That we must accept the legacy from other people is indisputable. It seems to me that a remark on p. 237 will be protection (from possible attacks by opponents) for me, where I had in mind precisely Chernyshevsky and motivated the reasons for the inconvenience of taking him for a parallel 4). It is also recognized there that Skaldin is liberalkonservativ 5), that he is "not typical" for the 60s, that it is "inconvenient" to take "typical" writers - I did not have articles by Chernyshevsky, and there are none*, and the main ones have not yet been reprinted, and I would hardly have been able to get around the pitfalls in this case. Then I would also defend myself by the fact that I gave a precise definition of what I mean by the "legacy" I am talking about. Of course, if the article nevertheless gives the impression that the author is proposing [precisely] to accept the legacy precisely from Skaldin, then this shortcoming cannot be corrected by anything. I forgot almost my main "defense": if Skaldin is a "rarity," then bourgeois liberalism, more or less consistent and pure from Narodism, is not a rarity, but a very broad current of the 60s and 70s. You object: "from coincidence to succession there is a distance of enormous size." But the point of the article is that it is necessary to cleanse bourgeois liberalism from Narodism. If this is true and if this is feasible (especially important condition!), then the result of the cleansing, the residue after the cleansing, will be precisely bourgeois liberalism, not only coinciding with Skaldin's, but also successive in relation to it. So, if I am exposed for accepting nedstvo from Skaldin, then I will have the right to answer that I am only obliged to cleanse it of impurities, and I myself stand aside, and besides cleaning various Augean stables, I also have more pleasant and more positive occupations... Well, I seem to have already gotten carried away and imagined myself indeed "defending myself"!
Our correspondence was so long in stagnation that I have already forgotten, I confess, when exactly I last wrote to you about the articles "Die historische Berechtigung" 6). It seems I wrote before I received them? Now I have become acquainted with them and found that the author's main idea fully deserves acceptance (especially at the end about the two extremes or pitfalls that need to be avoided) 7). In the motivation, however, it would indeed be necessary to more sharply highlight the Klassencharakter 8) of that Bewegung 9) that the author speaks of (he said this, but only in passing and very briefly) 10), and then not be so benevolent towards the frondeur agrarians: there is more precisely frondeurism and "resentment" in their liberalism for einundsechzig 11) than a desire for "faster industrialization" of the country. It is worth remembering their attitude to migrant trades, resettlement, etc. The author should formulate the task more precisely: to liberate all and any fortschrittliche StrOmungen 12) from under the junk of Narodism and agrarianism.

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

and in such, cleansed, form utilize all of them.
But, in my opinion, "utilize" is a much more accurate and fitting word than
Unterstiitzung und Bundesgenossenschaft 13). The latter indicates
the equality of these Bundesgenossen 14), while they must (in this I fully agree with you) follow in the tail, sometimes
even "with gnashing of teeth"; they absolutely have not grown up to equality and never will, given their cowardice,
fragmentation, etc. Unterstiitzung 15) will come not only
from Intelligenz und fortschrittliche Grundbesitzer 16), but also from
many others, both Semites and fortschrittliche Kaufleute und
Industrielle 17) (the author quite unnecessarily bypassed them: it's still a question whether
they constitute a smaller % in their environment than in the environment
of Grundbesitzer’oB) 18) and those Bauer 19) who are inclined to represent
Urtheil 20), and not Vorurtheil 21), Zukunft 22), and not Vergangenheit 23)
of their class, and many, many others. In two respects, the author went too far in the other direction: firstly, while fighting against
the Economists, he left aside praktische 24) immediate
Forderungen 25), important both for industriellen Arbeiter 26) and for
Hausindustrielle 27)
and for Landarbeiter 28) and so on.
Secondly, he fought against the abstract, disdainful attitude
towards gemassigten fortschrittlichen 29) elements (it is true that
it is by no means a good thing to completely disregard them, that they must be utili-
lized) and, as it were, overshadowed by this the independent and more
decisive position occupied by the Bewe- gung’oM 30) that he represents. In the historical-philosophical sense, the proposition
he puts forward (and Inorodzew put forward even earlier
in Sociale Praxis 31) is indisputable, namely, that among the present composition of our Genos-
sen 32) there are many verkleidete Liberalen 33).
To a certain extent one can even say this about Deutschland versus England 34). This
is our, so to speak, happiness; this allows us to count on an easier
and faster start; this forces us precisely to utilize all these verkleideten 35).
But the author's formulation is capable, perhaps, of causing some reinterpretation (an Old Believer told me: but this is a belittling and depersonalization...), on the one hand,
and some feeling of distrust and confusion among the Genossen 32).
In this respect, Inorodzew, in my opinion, also formulated unsuccessfully.
But in essence, I think, there are no disagreements with the author.
As for Parvus 36) — I have not the slightest idea about his personal character and by no means deny that he has great
talent.
Unfortunately, I have read very little of his works.

1 6

Do you hope to get Kautsky's "Agrarfrage" 37), which came out
recently?
Regarding Werth 38), Evg. Solovyov 39) and M. Filippov 40)
I must say that I do not know the first at all, and I have read the second two
very little. That "weathering" is and will be, I do not
doubt in the slightest. And therefore it is especially necessary and not
only verkleidete Literatur 41)...
I shake your hand. V. u.

*) "Nachalo" [The Beginning] — an organ of legal Marxism, published under the editorship
of P. Struve and M. Tugan-Baranovsky in 1899. Only five
issues were published (four books, of which the April issue was confiscated).
In June 1899, the journal was closed.
V. I. Lenin placed in it a number
of his reviews (see Volume II of Collected Works) and one chapter ("The Displacement of Corvée
Economy by
Capitalism")
from "The Development of Capitalism in Russia".
2) Refers to V. I. Lenin's article: "What Heritage Do We Renounce?", printed in his collection "Economic Studies
and Articles" (1899).
The disagreement between Lenin and Potresov regarding this article had a literary and political continuation, about which
see note 28 to letter 3.
3) Skaldin — pseudonym of F. Yelenev.
In his article "What
Heritage Do We Renounce?"
Vladimir Ilyich analyzed his work "In the Backwoods and in the Capital," previously published in "Otechestvennye Zapiski"
for 1867-69.
In the 90s, Skaldin became an extreme reactionary and a member of the Main Censorship Committee.
4) Page 237 of the collection "Economic Studies and Articles" (1899)
or page 321 of Collected Works. Volume II.
5) Liberalkonservativ — conservative liberal.
6) I.e. about P. B. Axelrod's articles in "Neue Zeit".
Lenin wrote about these articles to Potresov, even before becoming acquainted with them, in a letter of September 2,
1898. (See note 10 to letter 1.)
7)
Lenin has in mind the following passage: "Only two extremes could unfavorably affect the attitude of educated society to the labor movement.
Firstly, if this movement did not emerge from the rut of private clashes of workers with individual entrepreneurs.
This would deprive it of all political interest and would cause indifference to it in outside social circles.
But, perhaps, the other extreme would be even worse.
I mean the case if our labor movement, carried away by Bakuninist and Blanquist
currents, would set as its immediate practical goal an anarchist or communist revolution.
In practice, it would then be expressed in disorderly, frivolously provoked strikes, accompanied by violence and attacks on the lives of capitalists and government officials, and the forces of the proletariat would be,

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

therefore, wasted in vain, uselessly, both for the liberation struggle against absolutism and for the interests of the very class of proletarians in the narrow sense.
As for the first extreme, we are insured against it by our
tsarist regime.
And to protect our labor movement from the influence of Bakuninists and Blanquists is the direct duty of the dominant
social-democratic elements in it."
(Excerpt quoted from the Russian edition: Axelrod, P. "The Historical Position and Mutual Relation
of Liberal and Socialist Democracy in Russia," Geneva, 1898
Pages 23-24).
8) Klassencharakter — class character.
9) Bewegung — movement.
10) The last words refer to almost the only place in Axelrod
where this is discussed.
It literally reads as follows: "I am very far from the idea of weakening the class character of our movement and diluting it with water." . .
Ibid. (see note 7) page 28.
11) Za einundsechzig — for the 61st, i.e. 1861, for the liberation of the peasants.
12) Fortschrittliche Stromungen — progressive currents.
13) Unterstiitzung und Bundesgenossenschaft — support and alliance, words
used by P. Axelrod to characterize the relationship between the labor and liberal movements in Russia.
14) Bundesgenossen — allies.
15) Unterstiitzung — support.
16) Intelligenz und fortschrittliche Grundbesitzer — intelligentsia and progressive landowners.
17) Fortschrittliche Kaufleute und Industrielle — progressive merchants and industrialists.
18) Grundbesitzer’oB — landowners.
19) Bauer — peasants.
20) Urtheil — Understanding.
21) Vorurtheil — prejudice.
22) Zukunft — future.
23) Vergangenheit — past.
24) Praktische — practical.
25) Forderungen — demands.
26) Industriellen Arbeiter — industrial workers.
27) Hausindustrielle — artisans.
28) Landarbeiter — agricultural workers.
29) Gemassigten fortschrittlichen — moderately progressive.
30) Bewegung’oM — movement, i.e. the workers’ Social-Democratic movement.
31)
Lenin refers to the article "The Labor Movement in Russia," printed in No. 2 of the German weekly "Soziale Praxis" for 1896
(the issue was released on October 8, 1896) under the signature P. Inorodzew.
We provide the passage that Lenin has in mind:
"But there is also something else that can give great political
significance to the nascent labor movement, namely, the absence
of a strong bourgeois-liberal movement and, in general, a liberal
movement in the country. . .
So far, liberals in Russia cannot understand, Lenin Collection, IV that the cultural development of the country has shifted liberalism into a narrowly limited realm of political ideals, in which nothing more can be done with the old common Enlightenment phrases, that it has placed liberalism before a revolutionary task in a twofold sense of the word—in a ph i l o s o p h i c a l sense no less than in a state sense, when it is necessary to courageously declare: “Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise.”
Having reached this point, liberalism should have become a revolutionary movement or renounced it.
But liberalism did not make this turn: it is becoming more than ever a superficial, politically impotent Enlightenment.
The nascent Social Democracy all the more, it seems, wants to seize the revolutionary-political role into its own hands. Under the influence of sad historical experiences and the Marxist doctrine of the political struggle of classes, it is restored in the most decisive way against the existing indifference of Russian socialism in the field of “politics.” It is also alien to any utopianism ...
Social Democracy, as the leader of the struggle for political freedom, needs to fulfill, it is true, not an impossible, but an extremely difficult task: it needs to arouse in wide circles of the "intelligentsia" a social democratic enthusiasm and in even wider circles, at least a certain degree of sympathy for its aspirations,—a task that faces the socialist movement, which has no predecessor in this area.
It is not impossible, since for most of the citizens who could be drawn into this movement, the political content of the movement would become a real life core, and everything else, at best, "holiday ideas" ("Sonntagsideen"), as Brentano says somewhere about the socialism of English trade union activists of the Owen school.
The need for political freedoms becomes more and more obvious every day.
The time may come when this necessity will move forward the advanced elements of society with such force that no liberalism will satisfy.
Precisely because of the industrial backwardness of the country and the political backwardness of the industrial bourgeoisie, political aspirations can emerge precisely in social democratic guise."
It has not been possible to document who the pseudonym Inorodtseva belonged to. However, without the risk of error, it can be asserted that the article belonged to P. B. Struve, a long-time employee of “Soziale Praxis”, who at the time of the publication of this article was abroad (in connection with the London International Socialist Congress).
82) Genossen — comrades.
38) Verkleidete Liberalen — disguised liberals.
34) Deutschland versus England— Germany compared to England.
3B) Verkleideten— disguised.
8в) Parvus (Gelfand) then collaborated in the German Social Democratic press. In 1898 his work was published: "The World Market and the Agricultural Crisis", about which Vladimir Ilyich gave an extremely favorable review at the time (see "Nachalo," No. 3 for 1899; reprinted in Vol. II of the Collected Works).
37) "Agrarfrage" — "The Agrarian Question."

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

88) Unfortunately, it is difficult to establish which Wert is in question. There is reason to believe that O. A. Wert is meant, the editor of the translation of the brochure: K. Kautsky, "The Limits of Capitalism in Agriculture."
PB. 1900
We have no other information about this Wert, except that he is also the translator of R. Ihering's "The Struggle for Law."
8в) Solovyov, Evg. (1863 — 1905) a well-known historian of Russian literature and publicist.
He tried to give an analysis of the history of Russian literature (mainly of the 19th century) from a Marxist point of view.
Evg. Solovyov was not a consistent Marxist and was not averse to combining the latter with some currents of bourgeois thought, for example, with Nietzscheanism.
His most famous books are: "Essays on the History of Russian Literature of the 19th Century" and "An Experience in the Philosophy of Russian Literature," which have undergone several editions (the last time they were published by Novaya Moskva publishing house).
He wrote under different names — the most well-known being: Scriba and Andreevich. At the time to which the letter refers, Solovyov headed the literary criticism section in the journal Zhizn.
40) Filippov, Mikh. Mikh. (1858 — 1903) — a writer of an eclectic bent, who accepted Marxism with reservations.
He collaborated in a number of progressive journals of that time.
In 1894 he founded his journal "Scientific Review", where, along with others, he also published articles by Marxists.
As an eclectic, he recognized Marxism ("social materialism")—along with other trends as "one-sided," but still standing "closest to the truth."
At the beginning of the spread of Bernstein's revisionism, he spoke out in favor of it, but did not remain in this position for long, starting an altercation with the inspirer of Russian revisionism, P. B. Struve. Of the major works, admittedly, deservedly forgotten, there remains a two-volume "Philosophy of Reality" (PB. 1895 — 1898) of 1200 pages.
41) Verkleidete Literatur— literally “disguised literature,” i.e. the literature of authors dressing up in the guise of social democrats.
In these words of Vladimir Ilyich there is a clear hint at the need to publish genuinely party and Marxist-orthodox literature, i.e. the future "Iskra" and "Zarya", which Vladimir Ilyich was thinking about at that time and which he was subtly organizing.

Letter 3.
27/1Y 99 [Shushenskoye].
I was very glad, Alexander Nikolaevich], to your letter of 27/III, which finally interrupted your long and stubborn silence. There really have accumulated a mass of questions for discussion, but it is not possible to talk in more detail, on topics of a literary nature primarily, here.
And now also the journal 1): without conversations with colleagues, one feels too detached to write.
Here, only Yuliy 2) takes all this quite close and actively to heart, but with him, the cursed "long distances" prevent talking in enough detail.
I will start with what now interests and excites me most—with Bulgakov's articles in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd issues of "Nachalo"8).
Having read your review of him, I was unspeakably glad that I met with sympathy in the most essential thing,—the more so I was glad that on the part of the editorial board, apparently, one cannot really count on sympathy... If Bulgakov's article made a "repulsive" impression and "pitiful," then it drove me straight into a frenzy. So far, no matter how much I read and reread Bulgakov, I simply cannot understand how he could write such a completely nonsensical and impossibly indecent article in tone and how the editorial board considered it possible not to protect itself with even a single remark from solidarity with such a "demolition" of Kautsky. I, like you, am "sure that the public is completely (exactly!) confused and perplexed."
And how can it not be perplexed in reality, when it is announced—on behalf of "modern science" (No. 3, p. 34)4), that Kautsky is all wrong, arbitrary, a social miracle, "equally little real agronomy and real economy" (No. 1—2) and so on, and Kautsky is not presented, but directly distorted.

V. I. LENIN to A. N. POTRESOV

2
1
of Bulgakov's own views, as any sort of coherent system, is completely invisible. If the man had any sense of party spirit, an awareness of responsibility before all Genossen 5) and before all their program and practical activity,—he would not have dared so cavalierly ("swoop down" (in your accurate expression), giving nothing himself, but only promising... a scholarly work about "Ostelbien"!! He obviously feels himself free from all comradely obligations and responsibility, a "free" and individual representative of professorial science. I don't forget, of course, that under Russian conditions one cannot demand that a journal admit only Genossen and exclude the rest,—but after all, a journal like "Nachalo" is still not an almanac, admitting Marxism purely out of fashion (à la 6) "Mir Bozhii", "Nauchnoe Obozrenie", etc.) 7), but an organ of a direction. Therefore, for such a journal it is obligatory to impose some curb on scholarly cavalrymen and on all "outsiders" in general. Only that explains the enormous success of "Novoe Slovo" 8), that the editors led it precisely as an organ of a direction, and not as an almanac.

I read Kautsky's book even before the appearance of Bulgakov's article and did not find in the latter a single somewhat meaningful objection against Kautsky, but of distortions of Kautsky's thoughts and theses—a mass. For example, what nonsense are Bulgakov's assertions that Kautsky confuses technology and economics, that he proves "the demise of agriculture" (No. 3, p. 31). Kautsky directly says the opposite: (Seite 289), that he denies agriculture a tendency of development ("No. 3, p. 34), etc.! 9)

I already wrote and sent to the editors the first article "Capitalism in Agriculture (on Kautsky's book and on Mr. Bulgakov's article)" two weeks ago, and now I am taking on the second regarding the end of Bulgakov's article 10). I am greatly afraid that P.B. [Struve] will reject it, referring either to the large volume (it comes out larger than Bulgakov's article, because I need, first, to motivatedly refute such unfounded and carelessly thrown verdicts, like, for example, the statement that Marx was mistaken, teaching about the decrease in the relationship in agriculture; second, because it is necessary to expound Kautsky), or to the undesirability of polemics (I, of course, did not use in the article a single abusive

2
2

expression of the kind that are above, and in general I tried to make sure that there was nothing personal against Bulgakov. In general, the tone is not at all 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 to me extremely suspicious: loud phrases about "criticism" against "dogma," etc.—and exactly no positive results of criticism 12). However, for the composition of the article à la 6) Bulgakov's, in addition to "criticism" and sympathies to professorial "modern science," tactlessness ad пес plus ultra 13) was also required.

I sent Struve an answer to his article on markets 14). My sister [A. I. Elizarova] writes to me that this answer will be published in "Nauchnoe Obozrenie" and that P.B. [Struve] is also going to answer 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 Petr Bernhardovich [Struve] consists precisely in the fact that he confuses abstract-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 of 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 at all see any contradictions between his statements in "Essays" and in "Nauchnoe Obozrenie", 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 minds of the public, not yet receiving from any of the representatives of the "new critical current" a systematic proof of this inconsistency and its correction?

V. I. LENIN to A. N. POTRESOV

And Bulgakov's outburst (No. 3, p. 34, footnote) against the theory of Zusammenbruch'a 17)!! — without any mention of Bernstein and with the peremptoriness of a "scholarly" decree! I know about the release of Bernstein's new book, and I subscribed to it, but I hardly will look through it 18). From the article about it in Frankfurter Zeitung 19) and in "Zhizn'" (a not bad journal! The fiction is straight up good and even better than all!) 20) I became fully convinced that I understood Bernstein's fragmentary articles incorrectly and that he has actually lied to the point of impossibility, to the point that he has to be precisely b e g r a b e n 21), as the author of "Beitrage zur Geschichte des Materialismus" 22) expressed it, in an open letter to Kautsky. The new objections of Bernstein against the materialistic understanding of history *) and so on (according to "Zhizn'") are striking in their weakness. If I. B. [Struve] is such a ardent defender of Bernstein that he almost "swears" because of him, then this is very, very sad, because his "theory" against Zusammenbruch'a—is immeasurably narrow for Western Europe—and is completely unfit and dangerous for Russia.

Do you know that it is already being utilized by our "young" (ultra-economists), who in one publication so presented the Stuttgart debates that Bernstein, Peus, and others appeared to them as defenders of "economics, 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 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 has not fully and entirely gotten 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 came out and I asked to send it to you (I have not received it myself yet). I heard that Post Scriptum in the preface was late, got into the preliminary censorship and "suffered," it seems. I will wait with interest for your remarks. 26)
*) By the way. Do you remember how one of our mutual acquaintances in "the glorious distance" maliciously ridiculed and demolished me for calling the materialistic understanding of history — a "method"? But it turns out that Kautsky is also guilty of the same grave sin, using the same word: "method" ("Zhizn'", 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 devilishly annoying that it was abridged! Could you not write a Rezeptzip 27) about it?
An acquaintance sent me also "Journal
Notes" by A. Potresov (about "inheritance" and "inheritors"). Interesting: was further polemic with me intended in the continuation or not? 28)
I liked A. Schotresov's article extremely; the journal lost a lot from cutting it out. I, frankly, see no disagreements between us: you take a different question — not about how students relate to Russian democratism in general, whether they reject it (I wrote exclusively about this), but about what the relations were between different kinds of democrats in the good old days. I was interested only in Mikhailovsky's error, as if we reject democratism in general, — and you take — another of h i s errors, the "blurring" of essentially important differences in the "inheritance."
I saw
Maslov's note in No. 3 of "Nauchnoye Obozreniye", directed against me, but it, frankly, did not interest me. 29) Oh, by the way: the clipping of A. Schotresov's article confirmed my opinion that taking an inheritor more striking than Skaldin is "(inconvenient" (sad confirmation!!).
In general, in my opinion, the tone of the journal is "pre-death."
If so, then the end and death is only a matter of time. After all, this is simply speculation on
Bathlosigkeit 30) and red tape in the department, which, etc.
One could hold one's tongue without harm and not without
benefit to the cause. Indeed, compared to the modern tone, our
"Materials" could be a model of "moderation" and "solidity"... 31)
I shake V. U.'s hand. Write more often, if you're not lazy, because I
have absolutely no one to learn journal news from.
I am sending "Historische Berech[ti- gung]" 32) by registered parcel.
Please do not think that I am inaccurate in returning books: after all, you did not write about the deadline, and I therefore did not refuse comrades' requests to lend them out. I would be very grateful for the end of Karelin.
Do you not have any German reviews of Kautsky? I only read in the "Frankfurter Zeitung" — angry and empty toward la Bulgakov.
On the whole, I like the books of the journal very much.
They are excellently edited. Have you read Gvozdev's book, and what
do you think of it? 33)