V. I.

Lenin

163

To:   A. V. LUNACHARSKY

Dear An. Vas., I have received your pamphlet at last—the first part arrived quite a long
time ago. [1] I kept waiting for the end so as to read it as a whole,
but I waited in vain. So far the third supplement is still missing (“How
Marx Regarded”, etc.). This is most unfortunate for, not having the
complete manuscript, one is afraid of giving it to the press to be set up. If
this third supplement has not been sent yet, please try to send it as quickly as
possible. The money (200 rubles) has been sent to you; did you receive it?

As regards the content of your pamphlet, I liked it very much, as did all our
people here. A most interesting pamphlet and excellently written. The only
thing is, there are many unguarded statements, so to speak—I mean the kind
of things which various S.R.s, Mensheviks, syndicalists, etc., will pick on . We discussed collectively whether we should touch it up or give an
explanation in the preface. We decided on the latter course, as it would be a
pity to touch it up; it would impair the integral character of the exposition.

The conscientious and attentive reader will be able to understand you correctly,
of course; nevertheless, you should specially guard yourself against
false interpreters, whose name is legion. For example, we must of course
criticise Bebel, and I do not approve of Trotsky, who recently sent us a hymn of
praise to Essen and German Social-Democracy in general. You are right in
pointing out that in Essen Bebel was wrong both on the question of militarism
and on the question of colonial policy (or rather on the character of the radicals’ fight
at Stuttgart on this subject). [2]
But it should be mentioned in this connection that these are the mistakes
of a person with whom we are going the same way, and which can only be rectified
in this, Marxist, Social-Democratic way. For there are many people among us (you
probably do not see their press) who maliciously chuckle over Bebel for the sake of glorifying Socialist-Revolutionarism, syndicalism ( à la Yezersky, Kozlovsky, Krichevsky—see Obrazovaniye ,
etc.) and anarchism.

In my opinion, all your ideas can and should always be set forth in
such a way that criticism will be aimed not at orthodoxy, not at the Germans in
general, but at opportunism . Then it will be impossible to
misinterpret you. Then the conclusion will be clear, namely, that Bolshevism,
taking a lesson from the Germans and profiting by their experience (this demand
of yours is a thousand times correct!), will take all that is vital
from syndicalism in order to kill Russian syndicalism and opportunism . To do this is easier and more natural for us Bolsheviks than
for anyone else, for in the revolution we have always fought against
parliamentary cretinism and Plekhanovite opportunism. And it is we alone who,
from the revolutionary and not from the pedantic Cadet standpoint of Plekhanov
and Co., can refute syndicalism, which produces no end of confusion
(particularly dangerous confusion in the case of Russia).

Proletary No. 17 has come out and has been sent to you, and so
has
Zarnitsy . [3] Have you received them? Do you read
Tovarishch ? How do you like it now? What about your remembering old
times and poking fun at them in verse? Write please.

All the very best.

Yours, Lenin

---
Notes:
[1]
This refers to the pamphlet by A. V. Lunacharsky (Voinov) on the attitude
of the Party towards the trade unions, which was written in connection with
the discussion of this question at the Seventh, Stuttgart, Congress of the
Second International. Lunacharsky attended the Congress as a member of the
Russian delegation and a representative of the Bolsheviks. He was elected
to the committee that drafted a resolution on the question of “the
relations between political parties and the trade unions”.

Lunacharsky’s pamphlet was not published owing to the tightening of the
censorship in 1908. ^^See Lenin’s preface to the pamphlet in Vol. 13 of
this edition.^^

[2]
This refers to the Essen Congress of the German Social-Democratic Party,
held on September 21–23, 1907, at which Bebel came out against
Karl Liebknecht, who had criticised Noske’s chauvinist stand and the whole
behaviour of the German delegation at the Stuttgart Congress. Bebel also
came out against Rosa Luxemburg and all the German Left wingers for the
“methods” (i.e., for their bloc, with the Bolsheviks) which they adopted
at the Congress in their struggle against the social-chauvinists and
social-imperialists.

[3]
Proletary —a Bolshevik illegal newspaper, edited by Lenin,
published from August 21 (September 3), 1906 to November 28 (December 11).
1909. Altogether 50 issues were put out. Proletary , in effect, was the Central Organ of the Bolsheviks. The paper devoted a
good deal of space to tactical and general political questions, and
published reports on the activities of the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P., the
decisions of conferences and C.C. plenary meetings, C.C. letters on various
questions of Party activity, and a number of other documents. The paper was
in close touch with the local Party organisations.

During the years of the Stolypin reaction Proletary played an
important role in preserving and strengthening the Bolshevik organisations
and combating the liquidators, otzovists, ultimatumists and god-builders.

By a decision of the plenary meeting of the Party’s C.C. of January 1910
the paper was closed down.

Zarnitsy (Summer Lightning)—a Bolshevik legal symposium,
published in St. Petersburg in 1907.