Pages: 23-31

---

37 £69
Dear Anatoly Vasilievich!
I received your letter. Better write to my personal address: 3. Rue David Dufour.
Regarding Kostrov's pamphlet, I don't know what to do. I have not yet read it in print, but from the old manuscript I know what kind of fruit it is. You are quite right that this is precisely ((Black Hundred literature» 2. How to respond? you ask.
Vasily Vasilievich] wrote a note in Proletary — pale, I don't want to print it. Olin * read a paper and is also writing, — but he won't be able to. In my opinion, two things are needed here: first, a «brief outline of the history of the split». Popular. From the beginning, from Economism. With accurate documents. With division into periods: 1901 — 1903; 1903 (Il-nd Congress); 26 VIII 903 — 26 XI 03; 26 XI 03 — I 04; I —VIII 04; VIII 04—V 05; V 05 (III-rd Congress)3.
I think this could be written so clearly, precisely, concisely, that even those to whom Kostrov is addressing would read it.
Secondly, a lively, sharp, subtle and detailed characterization (literary-critical) of these Black Hundreds. After all, in essence, this falsehood lies at the foundation of L.M. as well (did you read the disgrace in No. 107? Schwarz answers with an article. I don't know if it's worth it?) — and of Starover 4. It would be necessary to collect a series of such articles and pamphlets, to expose the crude lies, to catch it so that it would be impossible to wriggle out, to nail it down and brand it precisely as «Black Hundred literature». The new-Iskrists have now provided a lot of material, and if it were carefully processed, to illuminate these vile techniques of gossip, denunciation etc. etc. in all their glory, — 3.
[August 15-19, 1905. Geneva] 1
* P. N. Lepeshinsky. Ed.

that could be a powerful piece. These obscure «personal hints» of L.M. alone — what an infinite abomination!!
I might take on the first topic, but not now, not soon: no time * (and then, perhaps, it will be completely late!).
I wouldn't take on the second, and I think that only you could do it. An unhappy job, stinking, no words, — but we are not softies, but journalists, and leaving «villainy and venom» unbranded is impermissible for publicists of Social Democracy.
Think about it and drop a line.
A pamphlet about the mass political strike should be given, — this will not be difficult for you.
You should definitely continue the popular pamphlets, choose one of the most topical themes. Which one exactly, — I don't know yet. About the Bulygin Duma? We need to wait for publication 7.
It would be good about the organization of workers. To compare our charter (3rd Congress) and the charter of the conference, to chew over, explain the idea, the importance and methods of the revolutionary organization of the proletariat (especially for the uprising), the difference between party and affiliated organizations, etc. This would also be partly an answer to Kostrov, popular, for the masses, on a topical theme. Try it!
I shake your hand firmly. Your N. Lenin.
1 Justification of the date: the «Diary of a Social Democrat» No. 2 mentioned in the letter was published on August 15 (see the letter from N. K. Krupskaya to M. M. Litvinov, archive of the IML JM5 20068); the manifesto on the Duma was published on August 19 (6). Lenin's letter was written in the period between these two dates.
2 Lunacharsky's letter to Lenin, in which Lunacharsky calls literature of the type «"Majority" or "Minority"» (a pamphlet by Noi Zhordania-Kostrov) «Black Hundred literature», is in the archive of the IML (Lй 301). The «Proletary» did not contain articles criticizing Kostrov's pamphlet

*
I will now sit down to answer Plekhanov (Social-Democrat Λ1 2) 5. He needs to be taken apart to the fullest extent, because he also has a multitude of vilenesses and жалкие [pathetic] arguments. I hope I can do it.
Then I have a plan brewing in my head for a popular pamphlet: «The Working Class and the Revolution» 0 — a characterization of democratic and socialist tasks, then conclusions about the uprising and the temporary revolutionary government, etc. It seems to me that such a pamphlet is necessary.

not printed. The articles comprising Kostrov's pamphlet were previously printed in Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of "Social-Democrat," the organ of the Georgian Mensheviks. Criticism of these articles was given in 1905 in I.V. Stalin's pamphlet "In Passing on Party Differences" (in Georgian, Russian, and Armenian).

3 The document "Plekhanov and the New 'Iskra'" has a section: "How, When, and Why did Comrade Plekhanov Get Confused? The History of the Split" (see Lenin Coll. V, 362). The division into periods there almost completely coincides with that given in the letter. Of the two dates: August 26, 1903 and November 26, 1903, the first date is related to the failed attempt to attract minority writers to work on "Iskra," the second - to the last attempt, by means of an ultimatum from the Central Committee, to keep the Mensheviks within the framework of the party charter. About this period Lenin wrote in his letter to Greulich (see Lenin Coll. V, 178): "The minority, after the Congress, refused to work under the leadership of the centers elected by the Congress. This boycott lasted for three months: from the end of August 1903 to the end of November 1903." The interval "26 XI 03 — I 04", i.e. beginning with Plekhanov's speech in No. 52 of "Iskra" with the article "What Not to Do" and ending with the January (1904) session of the Party Council, is defined by Lenin in a letter to Greulich as a period of betrayal by Plekhanov and the new "Iskra" of the ideas of Iskra-ism and a turn to Economism. "I-VIII 04" is the period of the unfolding disorganizing activities of the secret Menshevik organization, ending with betrayal on the part of the conciliatory Central Committee. Finally, the period "VIII 04—V 05" is the period of ideological and organizational consolidation of Bolshevik organizations in the localities, marked by the creation of the BCB (and "Vpered") and ending with the convocation of the III Congress.

4 Speaking of No. 107 of "Iskra" dated August 11, Lenin refers to the articles: 1) Martov's "On the Occasion of a Revolutionary Recipe" and 2) Starover's "Our Misfortunes. On Circle Marxism and Intelligentsia Social-Democracy." Lenin's criticism of Martov's article is given in the article "Black Hundreds and the Organization of an Uprising" (Works, VIII, 158-161). There is no article by Schwartz (V.V. Vorovsky) in "Proletary."

5 In No. 2 of the "Diary of a Social-Democrat" G. Plekhanov placed, along with other minor articles and notes, 2 large articles directed against the Bolsheviks: 1) "Brothers Who Are At War With Each Other" and 2) "Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends. Letter to the Editors of the newspaper "Proletary"" (see Works of G. Plekhanov, XIII, 273-318). In Lenin Coll. V (pp. 360-366) are published two plans for an article or pamphlet with the title "Plekhanov and the New 'Iskra'." The documents represent preparatory stages for a reply to Plekhanov. The work remained unfinished.

β The plan for this pamphlet is published under the title "The Working Class and the Revolution" in Lenin Coll. V, 449-450 (see Works, XXX, 156-157). The pamphlet was not written, but the plan was partly used for the article "Black Hundreds and the Organization of an Uprising" (Works, VIII, 158-161).

After the publication of the manifesto of August 19 (6) on the State Duma, Lenin printed in No. 14 of "Proletary" of August 29 the article "The Unification of the Tsar with the People and the People with the Tsar" (Works, VIII, 151-157).