As regards the article for the Central Organ on the resolution of the Copenhagen Congress concerning disarmament, the article was already commissioned (back in Copenhagen) and has been written by another contributor. Unfortunately, your offer came late.

With regard to getting your article into the next issue, I must speak with Varski and the other co-editor. I shall do so.

Concerning your leading articles in *Leipziger Volkszeitung*, I must say that the question is very interesting, but I have not studied it much, and it seems to me that theoretically you are not quite right. The criterion of “unfeasible within the framework of capitalism” cannot be understood to mean that the bourgeoisie will not allow it, that it cannot be carried out, etc. In this sense very many demands of our minimum programme are “unfeasible” and yet they are obligatory 258.

Then, when you mention the Address of the International, you omit in the quotation Marx’s words about the principles of relations between states 259. Is not this a “minimum programme” in international policy? And finally, why do you say not a word about Engels’ “Kann Europa abrusten?”*?

You are quite right, in my opinion (all this is my personal opinion, of course), that the demand for arming the people cannot be omitted. Would it not have been more correct to concentrate the attack not on the fact that *Abrustung** stands in the resolution, but on the fact that *Volkswehr*** does not stand in it? 260

I intend to reply to Martov and Trotsky in *Neue Zeit*. I have already written to Kautsky and asked him whether he will publish it and what the size should be. In *Leipziger Volkszeitung*, too, a reply must be given, of course.

I shake your hand. Yours,
Lenin

* — “Can Europe Disarm?”—Ed.
** — disarmament.—Ed.
*** — arming of the people.—Ed.