Pages: 66-69

Dear Friend! Thank you for your thorough letter. It would be very pleasant if you took up local affairs with more energy.

As for my opinion concerning the arguments of the editorial board presented by you in their 2nd "conspiratorial" leaflet, I can say the following for now. First of all, what strikes one immediately is the glaring absurdity of the "secrecy," when 1) there is nothing conspiratorial about it and 2) the same thoughts are repeated in No. 79 (Ekaterinodarian demonstration, correspondent's article and editorial note). No. 79 was analyzed in No. 1 of Forward. You will receive it before Monday and will see how we pose the question. Now to conspire with a leaflet is altogether ridiculous, and I would attack this particularly sharply.

In substance, the "thoughts" of the editorial board in its new production give, as it were, two main points of support: 1) Staroverov's position, which the editorial board cites and which was clarified in Iskra, and 2) playing at parliamentarism, "parades and maneuvers," lack of faith in the proletariat, a timid attempt to hedge regarding panic (supposedly, the words may have been "unnecessary" (!) regarding panic).

This must be emphasized very strongly.

Re: 1. Staroverov's position, which came out strikingly in No. 77 (leading article)—NB NB—is, in my opinion, utter confusion. I will analyze it in print. To justify his muddled resolution, he has to "invent" a good bourgeoisie. There is fabricated a "bourgeois democracy" distinct from "zemstvo men" and liberals (as if zemstvo men are not bourgeois democrats!), into which gets, in essence, the *intelligentsia* (from careful reading of Nos. 77 and 79 you will clearly see that bourgeois democracy is identified with "radical intelligentsia," with "democratic intelligentsia," with "intelligentsia democracy"—for example, No. 79, p. 3, column 3, line 9 from bottom, and passim).

To classify the intelligentsia, in distinction from zemstvo men, etc., as *bourgeois democracy*—this is sheer nonsense. To call on it to become a "self-reliant force" (No. 77, italics Iskra's)—this is vulgarity. Here the real basis of broad democracy is ignored (peasants, handicraftsmen, etc.), and *socialist revolutionaries* are ignored as the natural and inevitable *left wing* of radical intelligentsia. These propositions I can only sketch here, as they need to be expounded in greater detail in print.

Staroverov's work is full of pretentious drivel, as if "democratic intelligentsia" is the "driving nerve" (!) of liberalism, etc. His attempt to call the indication of the "third element," cultural workers, intelligentsia, zemstvo employees, etc., a "new word"—is amusing. See my internal review in Zarya No. 2/3, where there is an *entire chapter*: "The Third Element." Only the new Iskra could find a "new word" there.

It is incorrect that social-democrats can exert influence, as a vanguard, only on the democratic intelligentsia. They can and do exert influence on zemstvo men as well. Our influence on them and on Mr. Struve is a fact, unnoticed only by people enamored with "obvious, tangible results" of popular demonstrations.

It is incorrect that besides zemstvo men and democratic intelligentsia there is no one to influence (peasants, handicraftsmen, etc.).

It is incorrect that intelligentsia, in distinction from liberals, constitutes "bourgeois democracy."

It is incorrect that French radicals and Italian republicans did not obscure the *class* consciousness of the proletariat.

It is incorrect that the "agreement" (of which the editorial board wrote in the 1st leaflet) could have had in mind Staroverov's "conditions."

This is absurd. The editorial board is wriggling, clearly seeing that the conditions proved to be thrown overboard.

Re: 2). The second point comes out, in my opinion, particularly starkly in the phrase of the 2nd leaflet:

"We must, in our opinion, follow our class adversary and temporary political ally into precisely that domain where they fulfill the role transmitted to them by history—the political leadership of national liberation; the proletariat must in this domain cross swords with the bourgeoisie."

Here is genuine playing at parliamentarism! Cross swords—how our red-mouthed intelligentsia rabble degrades this great concept when they reduce it to a manifestation of a handful of workers at a zemstvo assembly! What hysterical fussing, clutching at a momentary conjunction (right now the "center stage" is occupied by zemstvo men—go ahead and talk about the domain where they fulfill the role transmitted by history! Have mercy, gentlemen! Do not speak so eloquently!). "Complete contact of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie occupying the political center stage." What "completeness"! with the very Ekaterinodarian blockhead in "lace."

The defense of the idea about "the highest type of mobilization" is not entirely clear, because you paraphrase here rather than quote. And in this idea lies the crux of their confusion. The distinction between "ordinary" and "political demonstration" (does it really stand so literally in the 2nd leaflet? Is it a printed leaflet? Could you get a copy? a specimen?)——is a genuine pearl. This is where, in my opinion, one should push the opponent hardest, because it is precisely here that he is sitting in the mud. It is not manifestations in zemstvos that are bad, but lofty disquisitions about the highest type are vulgar.

I will limit myself to this for now. I am preparing for today's lecture. The Mensheviks, it is said, decided not to attend.

No. 1 of Forward is coming out today.

Write in more detail about your impression of Forward, *get correspondences*, especially for the workers' section.

[I advise you to connect the editorial board's second leaflet with Nos. 77 and 78, Staroverov, and No. 79]

Your N. Lenin.

1 Addressee not established.

2 Refers to "Letter to Party Organizations," signed by the editorial board of Iskra. The letter bears the inscription: "For party members only" and the date: December 1904. The document was written by P. B. Axelrod.

A detailed critique of this letter is given by Lenin in the article "Two Tactics" (see Works VII, 109). The theme touched upon in the letter is developed in the article "Workers' and Bourgeois Democracy" (Works VII, 63-69).

3 Refers to the article "On Good Demonstrations of the Proletariat and Bad Reasoning of Some Intellectuals" in No. 1 of Forward (see Works VII, 35). In No. 79 of Iskra, from December 14 (1), 1904, there was published a correspondence: "Proletarian Demonstrations."

4 Refers to: 1) the leading article in No. 77 of Iskra, from November 18 (5), 1904, "Democrats at the Crossroads" and 2) Staroverov's article "Our Misfortunes (On Liberalism and Hegemony)" in No. 78 of Iskra, from December 3 (November 20), 1904.

5 Refers to the "Letter to Party Organizations," printed in October 1904 as a leaflet, signed by the editorial board of Iskra (see Works VII, "Documents and Materials," 410-416). Critique of Iskra's letter is given in Lenin's pamphlet "The Zemstvo Campaign and the Plan of Iskra" (Works VII, 5-20).

6 In a letter to the Bern Group supporting Forward from January 7, 1905 (archives IMEL No. 36932), N. K. Krupskaya reported on Lenin's lecture that took place on January 6 in Geneva.

7 No. 1 of Forward is dated January 4, 1905.