V. I.

Lenin

145

To:   A. V. LUNACHARSKY

Dear An. Vas., I have received your letter. You had better write to my private address:
3. Rue David Dufour.

I don’t know what to do about Kostrov’s pamphlet. I have not yet
read it in the press, but from the old manuscript I know what kind of stuff it
is. You are quite right about its being plain “Black-Hundred
literature”. [2] You ask—how to reply?

Vas. Vas. has written a paragraph for Proletary —an uninteresting
one, I don’t feel like publishing it. Olin has delivered a lecture, he is
writing, too, but I don’t think he’ll manage it. Two things are required
here, in my opinion:

firstly, “a brief outline of the history of the split”. A popular
one. Starting from the beginning, from Economism. Properly documented. Divided
into periods: 1901-03; 1903 (Second Congress); August 26, 1903-November 26,
1903; November 26, 1903-January 1904; January-August 1904; August 1904-May 1905;
May 1905 (Third Congress).

I think it could be written so clearly, exactly, and concisely that even those
to whom Kostrov addresses himself would read it.

Secondly, we need a lively, sharp, subtle and detailed characterisation
(literary-critical) of these Black Hundreds. As a matter of fact, this falsity
is at the bottom of things both with L. M. (did you read the disgraceful stuff
in No. 107? Schwarz is replying with an article. I don’t know whether it
is worth while?) and with Old Believer. A number of such articles and pamphlets
should be collected, the gross lie should be shown up, nailed down , so
that it would be impossible to wriggle out of it, and branded as definitely
“Black-Hundred literature”. The new-Iskrists have now provided
plenty of material and if it is carefully gone over and these dirty methods of
tittle-tattle , talebear- ing, etc., are exposed in all their beauty, a powerful effect could be
produced. L. M.’s obscure “personal hints” alone—what undiluted filth it is!

I may perhaps tackle the first subject myself, but not just now, not soon; I
have no time for it
[1]

(afterwards, I daresay, it will be too late!).

I would not tackle the second subject and I think that only you could
do it. A nasty job, a stinking one, there’s no denying it, but, after all,
we are not fine gentlemen, but newspapermen, and it is impermissible for Social-
Democratic publicists to allow “foulness and poison” to go
unbranded.

Think this over and drop me a line.

A pamphlet on the mass political strike has to be produced—that should
not be difficult for you.

You should certainly continue writing popular pamphlets as well, selecting
something topical. What precisely, I do not know. Perhaps about the Bulygin
Duma? It will be necessary to await the publication. [3]

It would he good to write about workers’ organisation. Compare our Rules (Third
Congress) and the Conference Statute, analyse the two, explain the idea,
importance and methods of revolutionary organisation of the proletariat
(particularly for an uprising), the difference between Party organisations and
those aligned with the Party, etc. In part, this would be an
answer to Kostrov, a popular one, for the masses, on a burning topic of the
day. Have a try!

All the very best, Yours,

N. Lenin ,

---
Notes:
[1]
I am now going to answer Plekhanov ( Sotsial-Demokrat
No. 2). [4] He has to be pulled to pieces thoroughly, for he, too, has a heap of abominations
and miserable arguments. I hope that I shall succeed.

Further, I am turning over in my mind a plan for a popular pamphlet: The Working Class and Revolution [5] —a description of democratic and socialist tasks, and then conclusions about an uprising and a
provisional revolutionary government, etc. I think such a pamphlet is essential.
— Lenin

[2]

“ Black-Hundred Literature”—articles of Kostrov (N. Jordania) published
first in Sotsial-Demokrat (organ of the Georgian Mensheviks),
Nos. 1–3, and subsequently in pamphlet form under the title Majority or Minority?

[4]
Dnevnik Sotsial-Demokrata (Diary of a Social-Democrat) No. 2 for
August 1905 published Plekhanov’s article “Selected Passages From
Correspondence With Friends (A Letter to the Editors of
Proletary )” in which the author answered Lenin’s article “On the
Provisional Revolutionary Government. Article One. Plekhanov’s Reference to
History” ^^(see Vol. 8 of this edition)^^, and accused Lenin and the
Bolsheviks of Blanquism.

[5]
A plan of the pamphlet The Working Class and Revolution was drawn
up by Lenin ^^(see Vol. 9 of this edition)^^, but the pamphlet on this
subject was not written.

[3]
The manifesto concerning the Bulygin Duma was published on August 6 (19),
1905. On August 29 (16) Proletary published an article of Lenin’s
on this subject entitled “Oneness of the Tsar and the People, and of the
People and the Tsar” ^^(see Vol. 9, pp. 191–99, of this edition)^^.