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

It is incorrect that the "bourgeois democracy," in contrast to the liberals, is the intelligentsia.

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

It is incorrect that "agreement" (which the editorial board wrote about in the 1st leaflet) could have had in mind the "conditions" of the Old Believer. This is absurd. The editorial board is spinning around, clearly seeing that the conditions have in fact gone overboard.

Re: 2). The second point stands out to me especially sharply in the phrase from the 2nd leaflet:

"We must, in our view, follow our class adversary and temporary political ally into that very sphere where they fulfill the role assigned to them by history—the political leadership of national liberation; the proletariat must in this sphere measure its strength against the bourgeoisie"*.

There we have it—a genuine play at parliamentarism! Measure strength—how this great concept is debased by our loudmouthed intelligentsia rabble when they reduce it to a manifestation of a handful of workers at a zemstvo assembly! What hysterical fussing, grasping at a momentary conjunction (right now the zemstvo men are "on the stage"—go ahead, talk about the sphere where they fulfill the role assigned by history! For mercy's sake, gentlemen! Do not speak so beautifully!). "Complete contact of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie occupying the political foreground." How much "more complete" than that! with the very Ekaterinodarian head himself [the text here appears corrupted].

The defense of the idea about the "highest type of mobilization" is not entirely clear, because you are paraphrasing here rather than quoting. And in this idea lies the very nail of their confusion. The distinction between "ordinary" and "political demonstration" (is this really stated so literally in the 2nd leaflet? Is it a printed leaflet? Could you obtain a copy? an example?) is simply a pearl. Here, in my view, one should most of all press the opponent, for it is precisely here that he sits in a puddle. It is not manifestations in the zemstvos that are bad, but bombastic reasoning about the highest type is vulgar.

For now I shall limit myself to this. I am preparing for today's report 3. The Mensheviks, I hear, have decided not to come.

No. 1 of *Forward* comes out today 4.

Write in more detail about your impression of *Forward*, obtain correspondence, especially for the workers' section.
[I advise you to connect the editorial board's second leaflet with No. 77 and No. 78, Old Believer, and No. 79.]

Your N. Lenin

Written in Geneva

First published in 1934 in Lenin Collection XXVI

Printed from the manuscript