LETTER TO G. E. ZINOVIEV.
[August 24, 1909*. Bonbon, Seine-et-Marne Department.]1
Dear Gr[igory]1 — I have received Nos. 7–8 of the S[ocial]-D[emocrat].
I protest against Trotsky’s signature: signatures must be removed.9·
(I have not yet had time to read the articles.)
Regarding Proletar, I believe we should include in it:
1) an article on the elections in St. Petersburg (in light of the vulgarities uttered by Retch and Vodovozov—if Retch has not distorted their words); 2) a definitive article on the Swedish strike; 3) likewise, an article on the Spanish events; 4) a piece on the squabbles arising from their (most despicable) polemic with the Genevan anti‑liquidator Georgien; 5) as a special supplement, a response to Maximov and Co.’s “Open Letter.” We must give them a proper reply, so that these scoundrels do not mislead the public with their lies.
After three weeks of rest, I am beginning to recover my strength. I might take on Nos. 4 and 5—perhaps even No. 1—but I still hesitate to commit to No. 4. Please let me know what else is available for Proletar; your opinion regarding deadlines would be most helpful—please be precise.
Nos. 2 and 3 can be compiled using Vorwärts: I will send them to you if you agree to write them.5
Have you read Trotsky’s letter to Inok?6
I hope that, if you have read it, you are now convinced that Trotsky behaved like the most despicable careerist and factionalist—of the sort exemplified by Ryazanov and his ilk? Either we embrace equality within the editorial board, submit to the Central Committee, and refuse to allow anyone but Trotsky to travel to Paris (for he seeks to “set up” a cozy little clique at our expense, far from the harsh realities of Party life!)—or we sever ties with this opportunist and expose him in the Central Committee. He talks endlessly about the Party, yet conducts himself worse than any other factionalist.
I shake hands with N. Lspip.

THE STRUGGLE ON TWO FRONTES

My address: Mr. W1. Oulianoff. (At Madame Lecreux’s). Bonbon
(Seine-et-Marne).
P.S. Shall we perhaps just wave goodbye to Kamenev? The promised four-month—or perhaps six-month—feuilleton on “Social Movement”7 ? ? ........
1 The date is established on the basis of the letter’s reference to the recently published No. 7–8 of the Social Democrat, dated August 21 (8), 1909, as well as on the basis of the correspondence between this letter and Lenin’s letter to M. A. Ulyanova, dated August 24, 1909 (see “Letters to Family Members, 1894–1919,” 1931, p. 346). Lenin’s mention in both letters that he had spent three weeks in retreat provides grounds for concluding that both letters were written on the same day.
1 The reference is to Trotsky’s signature (“N. Trotsky”) beneath the article (the feuilleton) “External and Internal Difficulties” in Nos. 7–8 of the Social Democrat. * Here, we are speaking of the contents of the forthcoming No. 47–48 of Proletar. All of the materials listed— including three articles by Lenin—were printed in this issue, albeit in a slightly altered order.
When referring to the Mensheviks’ polemic with the “Genevan anti‑liquidator Georgien,” Lenin had in mind the editorial (unsigned) article in the Voice of the Social Democrat, No. 15, “On the Article by the Genevan Comrade.” This was a response to the anti‑liquidator article “A Few Words on a Troublesome Topic,” which had appeared in the same issue of the Voice of the S.-D., marked with the note: “Geneva, June 22, 1909,” and signed “Georgien” (“the Georgian”).
4 We are speaking of Lenin’s writing, for Nos. 47–48 of the Social Democrat, three articles: “To the Elections in St. Petersburg,” “The Liquidators Exposed,” and “On the Faction of Supporters of Recallism and Theosophy” (Works, Vol. XIV, pp. 125–166).
8 The articles in question concern the Swedish strike and the Spanish events.
β Trotsky’s letter to I. Dubrovinsky has not been found.
7 We are speaking of L. Kamenev’s article “The Liquidation of the Proletariat’s Hegemony in the Menshevik History of the Revolution,” published in Nos. 47–48 and 49 of Proletar. Kamenev’s article was devoted to a critique of the first volume of the five‑volume edition “Social Movement in Russia at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century,” which had been published under the editorship of L. Martov, P. Maslov, and A. Potresov.