43 (138).
28 I 03 [London].

Dear Georgii Valentinovich!

I am sending you a statement from the Organizational Committee (sent to No. 32) and an article by Pero [Trotsky] for No. 32: please return both things as soon as possible: the statement of the Organizational Committee must absolutely be preserved (as a very important document), and regarding Pero [Trotsky]'s article we need to decide in view of the abundance of articles against [socialist-revolutionaries]. The Rostov comrades are writing a protest. That's one. Pero [Trotsky]—No. 2. A. N. [Potresov] has probably already written (wrote that he was finishing) about socialist-revolutionaries. That's three. Your leading article "Imaginary Friends of the Proletariat"—four. We need to discuss this so that there isn't *des Guten zu viel. It would be best for you to discuss this, because you have both the Rostov comrades close by and A. N. [Potresov], with whom you can speak. In my view, you should write the leading article (a thunderous one) in any case, and precisely you, because you disputed this publicly and saw the Rostov comrades. Then also place the Rostov comrades' protest in No. 33, as brief and sachlicher as possible. Pero [Trotsky]'s article (it is small), in my view, should also be placed, for it is a separate response to a nonsensical outburst. But A. N. [Potresov]'s article can probably be postponed, for it is not a response and not on the question of the day, but rather "in general" the moderate fathers and socialist-revolutionaries are children.

Think all this over and answer as soon as possible with how you have decided.

The article on Nekrasov will go in No. 33.

The Armenian "Proletariat" (with the subtitle Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party) I received here several days ago and one manuscript (a note on it): this is already, apparently, for No. 33, and I have not yet examined it. In any case, it does not hurt to bring something interesting from it. I will write you more about this; I will try to place it in No. 33.

I am sending you the "Proletariat" as well. Please ask Lalayants or someone else to translate in full from it everything on nationalism and federalism and send it to me as soon as possible. We ought to place a note on them without fail (the sent note needs correction, and for that the text is needed).

But what about Bonch-Bruyevich? We have "profited" by one of their contributions—not much! The liquidator (see No. 6 of Zhizn) Mr. Kuklin. Get acquainted with him through Bonch-[Bruyevich]. Can't we seize something? After all, you seemed to know him before? Can't we at least [get something] for the Russian congress? for the Organizational Committee (abroad there is one member of the Organizational Committee, we could even direct him to Kuklin if necessary)? After all, Kuklin won't eat the print shop, will he? We need to demand a direct contribution of 10,000 from him for the fact that we did not attack Zhizn (I defended it not in vain—for its frivolousness!), or for the fact that we not attack it...

Your Lenin.

P. S. Did you see Rudin's pamphlet ("socialist-revolutionary," "On the Peasant Question")? The most impudent tails! My hands are itching terribly over Rudin and over No. 15 on socialization! Please write me whether you are writing a pamphlet and what length, when you think of finishing? We should not fill the Iskra with them; a pamphlet with an examination of all sides would be much better; now transports are going: we would kill them with a businesslike and principled examination on the merits. Is it worth my writing against Rudin? What do you think? The thought flashed through my mind: to write an article against Rudin and publish separately "articles against socialist-revolutionaries" together with Revolutionary Adventurism. What do you think about this?