11 October [1905, Geneva].

Dear Anatoly Vasilyevich! Your article takes up an extremely interesting and highly timely subject. Recently, the *Leipziger Volkszeitung* in its leading article mocked the Zemstvo people for their IXth congress, saying they were "playing at constitution," pretending to be parliamentarians already, etc., etc. The mistake of Parvus and Martov absolutely requires analysis from this angle. But you have not produced such an analysis. In my opinion, the article must be reworked in one of two directions: either shift the centre of gravity onto our "playing at parliamentarism" *Iskra* supporters, showing in detail the conditional, temporary significance of parliamentarism, the vulgarity of "parliamentary illusions" in an epoch of revolutionary struggle, etc., explaining this from the very basics (extremely useful for Russians!) and bringing in Hilferding only for illustration, very lightly. Or take Hilferding as the basis, in which case less reworking of the article would be needed, giving it a different title, but outlining more clearly Hilferding's own formulation of the question. Of course, perhaps you will find another plan for reworking, but please be sure to undertake it at once. There is time, because the article could not go into this issue (the Moscow events + old material have filled everything). So the deadline for sending it is Tuesday, 17.X. I earnestly ask you to write a substantial little article and send it by 17.X. It would be better to rework it in the first direction; perhaps it will turn out to be a leading article!

If we already had a parliament, we would certainly support the Cadets, Milyukov & Co. against the *Moskovskiye Vedomosti*. For example, in re-ballotings, etc. There, this would not violate the independence of the Social-Democratic class party. But in an epoch not of parliament but of revolution (you have already indicated this distinction in the title), support for people incapable of revolutionary struggle is 1) a violation of our party's independence. A deal cannot be clear and open. This is precisely a "sale" of our rights to the revolution, as you say, not an application of our rights for support. In parliament we give support without disappearing in the slightest. Now we disappear, obliging the Milyukovs to speak for us on certain conditions. Then, the main point 2) such support is a betrayal of the revolution. There is no parliament yet, only illusions among the Milyukovs. We must fight *revolutionarily* for a parliament, not *parliamentarily* for the revolution. Fight revolutionarily for a strong parliament, not in a powerless "parliament" for the revolution. Now in Russia, without the victory of the revolution, all victories in the "parliament" (the State Duma or something of the sort) are zero, worse than zero, because they cloud people's eyes with a fiction. Parvus did not understand this.

The Cadets have already become *regierungsfähig* (the Trubetskoys and Manuilovs in the role of rector, etc.), have already climbed to the second storey of freedom of assembly (at the price of vulgarising assemblies), to the storey of quasi-parliamentarism. All they need is for the proletariat, remaining in reality in the basement, to imagine itself on the second storey, to fancy itself a parliamentary force and to enter into "conditions" about "support," etc. This is a rich theme! We are strong now through the people's revolutionary struggle and weak in the quasi-parliamentary respect. The Cadets are the opposite. Their whole calculation is to drag us over to quasi-parliamentarism. *Iskra* has let itself be fooled. This is precisely the place to analyse in detail the relation of "parliamentarism to revolution" (cf. Marx on the class struggle in France in 1848).

These thoughts (which I am setting forth, of course, extremely generally and imprecisely), which you have indicated, need to be developed, chewed over, and put into people's mouths. Russians are terribly in need now of an explanation from the very basics of the correlation between parliamentarism and revolution. And Martov & Co. are hysterical, shouting: quickly into legality! quickly into the open! anyhow, but legally! What we need now is endurance, a continuation of the revolution, a struggle against wretched semi-legality. *Iskra* did not understand this. Like all opportunists, they do not believe in the energy and persistence of the workers' revolutionary struggle. Moscow is a lesson to them. And now the vulgarian Parvus is transferring to Russia the tactics of petty deals!!

Did you receive my letter? I firmly shake your hand. Greetings to Anna Alexandrovna.

Yours, Lenin.