V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:PSS/v47; en:MT;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

Dear An. Vas.!

I have received your letter. It is better to write to my personal address: 3. Rue David Dufour.

As for Kostrov’s pamphlet, I do not 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 it is precisely “Black-Hundred literature” 67. How to reply? – you ask.

Vas. Vas. wrote a note for *Proletary* – a pale one, I do not want to print it.

Olin gave a lecture and writes too, – but he will not be able to do it. What is needed here, in my opinion, are two things:
Firstly, a “brief outline of the history of the split”. Popular. From the beginning, from Economism. With precise documents. With a division into periods: 1901-1903; 1903 (Second Congress); 26.VIII.1903 – 26.XI.1903; 26.XI.1903 – I.1904; I – VIII.1904; VIII.1904 – V.1905; V.1905 (Third Congress).

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

Secondly, a lively, sharp, subtle, and detailed characterisation (literary-critical) of these Black-Hundred people is needed. After all, essentially, this falsity lies at the basis of both L. M. (have you read the outrage in No. 107? Schwartz is answering with an article. I don’t know if it’s worth it?) – and of Starover. One should collect a series of such articles and pamphlets, expose the crude lies, catch them out so that it is impossible to wriggle free, nail them and brand them precisely as “Black-Hundred literature”. The Iskra-ites have now provided a mass of material, and if it were carefully worked over, and these filthy methods of gossip, tale-bearing, etc., etc., were illuminated in all their charm, – then a strong piece could result. These vague “personal hints” of L. M. alone – what boundless vileness they are!!

I might perhaps undertake the first topic, but not now, not soon; I have no time* (and then, perhaps, it will be too late altogether!).

I would not undertake the second, and I think that only you could do it. It is not a cheerful job, a stinking one, there is no denying it, – but we are not white-handed gentry, but newspapermen, and it is impermissible for publicists of Social-Democracy to leave “baseness and venom” unexposed.

Think it over and drop me a line.

The pamphlet on the mass political strike should be produced, – that will not be difficult for you.

You should certainly continue the popular pamphlets, choose some topic that is more topical. Which one exactly, I do not know. On the Bulygin Duma? One must wait for its publication 70.

A good one would be on the organisation of the workers. Compare our Rules (Third Congress) and the Conference Rules, chew them over,

Then I have a plan floating in my head for a popular pamphlet: “The Working Class and the Revolution” 69 – a characterisation of the democratic and socialist tasks, then conclusions about insurrection and the provisional revolutionary government, etc. It seems to me such a pamphlet is necessary.

* Now I will settle down to answer Plekhanov (*Sotsial-Demokrat* No. 2 68). He must be thoroughly taken apart, for he too has a mass of nastiness and wretched arguments. I hope I shall succeed in this.

explain the idea, importance, and methods of the revolutionary organisation of the proletariat (especially for insurrection), the difference between party organisations and those adhering to the party, etc.

This would partly also be a reply to Kostrov, a popular one, for the masses, on a topical theme.

Try it!

A firm handshake. Yours, N. Lenin