the most essential and primary task" of armed insurrection. On armed insurrection there is no need to speak in the resolution on trade union struggle, since it is the means for that "overthrow of the tsarist autocracy" of which point II speaks. Professional unions could broaden the base from which we shall draw strength for the insurrection, so that, once again I say, to counterpose one to the other is mistaken.

Ad IV. "Conduct energetic ideological struggle against the so-called minority," reverting to "economism" "on questions of professional unions." Is this not too general for a resolution of the Odessa committee? Does this not smack of exaggeration? After all, there has been no critique in print of a single resolution of all the Mensheviks on "professional unions." It was only pointed out that the liberals praise them for the tendency to bustle about this question without rational consideration. But from this [the conclusion] is only that we must bustle "with rational consideration," but we absolutely must bustle nonetheless. In my view, either this point should be dropped altogether, limiting ourselves to warning against narrowness and struggle with the tendencies of the bourgeoisie and liberals to distort the tasks of professional unions; — or formulate it specifically in connection with some particular resolution of the Mensheviks (I am not aware of such resolutions at present; unless some Akimovite ones have appeared in your south).

Ad V. Now this is the business. The words "and if possible, leadership" I would replace with "and leadership." We do everything "if possible." The insertion of these words here and only here will provoke incorrect interpretation, as though toward leadership we strive less, and so forth.

In my view, generally speaking, one must beware of exaggerating the struggle with the Mensheviks on this question. Now, probably, professional unions will soon begin to arise. One must not stand aside and most of all must not give occasion to think that one should stand aside, but rather strive to participate, to influence, and so forth. After all, there is a special stratum of workers — older, family men — who will give very little in political struggle now, but very much in trade union struggle. One must utilize this stratum, directing only its steps in this domain. For Russian Social-Democracy it is important at the very outset to strike the right note on professional unions, at once to create a tradition of Social-Democratic initiative on this matter, of Social-Democratic participation, of Social-Democratic leadership.

Of course, in practice there may not be enough strength, but that is quite another question, and besides: if one knows how to utilize all the diverse forces, one will always find them for professional unions too. After all, we found the strength to write a resolution on professional unions, that is, to provide ideological direction — and that is the crux of the matter!

I press your hand and ask you to drop me a line about receiving this letter and your thoughts on it.

Your N. Lenin

Sent from Geneva to Odessa

First published in 1926 in *Lenin Miscellany* V

Printed from the manuscript