V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:LS/v25;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

N. G. POLETAYEV*

FOR KRASS** 1

[February 25, 1913, Cracow]

Dear Friend,

I was very glad to receive your letter of February 2*** and extremely sorry that, despite a number of attempts on our part, we have so far failed to establish regular correspondence. The absence of such correspondence gives rise to misunderstandings. I am glad of your criticism of the walk-out from *Luch*, for I welcome all criticism from Russia: without criticism there is nothing but dead matter. But this time your criticism is wrong—I only don’t know from which angle to approach its refutation. I shall wait until the next letter. Regarding the “reforms” in a certain newspaper, I must say that your absence is very, very deplorable. I will not conceal from you that I regard your launching of this undertaking as a historic service, and your closing down of the “big sister” and your “semi-absence” in the summer as a great mistake. But what is past is past. Its lessons must be used for the future. The plan for a big newspaper is excellent. My conviction is that two newspapers are needed: a big one—5 kopeks, and a small one—1 kopek, and the present one must be developed “towards the small one”. The publication of pamphlets and books of 5 to 10 signatures is also a correct idea. We too are tackling it energetically. We should all be very, very glad if you tackled it energetically and if we succeeded in organising joint work more systematically, more amicably and more successfully than in the spring and summer of 1912. One of the indispensable conditions for this is a meeting and regular correspondence. Gorky has now set to work very energetically to help *Prosveshcheniye* and turn it into a big magazine. The publication of a big newspaper and of books has every chance of becoming a tremendous undertaking of tremendous importance and usefulness. That is why it is all the more important to make a correct start from the very beginning.

Experience has fully convinced us that coming to an understanding (as you write) with Plekhanov, Rozhkov and the like is hopeless. We are not beginning from that end. And we are arriving at the best. You know, of course, that Alexinsky and Dnevitsky came without any understanding with us. With a correct and firm policy this will be even more justified in the case of a big newspaper and the publication of books. We are fully confident of this. A firm policy—retention of leadership by the former group—attraction not by agreement but as contributors—these are all conditions for us, ultimative ones. We are confident that we shall find quite enough contributors for the big newspaper, for the books and for the thick magazine. With Bogdanov, for instance, even co-operation is impossible: this is clear from his latest works. With Alexinsky and Dnevitsky (Plekhanov) it is possible, and payment for work will increase this circle of contributors fivefold. I await an immediate reply: 1) do you agree with the above or not; 2) if not, what is your plan; 3) how much money is needed; 4) how much can you find; 5) how do you define or plan your own participation in the undertaking in the sense of limits of competence, etc. Reply more precisely. We must act quickly. Events will not wait. A Moscow newspaper is also necessary. . . A good friend of mine, whom you also know, will call on you; have a business talk with him and be more precise.

* Published from a copy made by the Police Department. *Ed.*
** For Krass. *Ed.*
*** February 15, New Style. *Ed.*