V. I. Lenin

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

TO THE EDITORS OF PRAVDA.
[June 16, 1913. Zakopane.]

Dear Colleagues, Having only today, June 16, 1913, received the issues of Pravda in the enlarged format, I hasten to congratulate the editors and contributors. I wish you every success. The main thing now, in my opinion, is not to forget that we must fight for 400,000 readers. For this it is necessary (1) to have small, extremely popular Sunday supplements costing one kopeck. Be sure to write your opinion on this, as well as data on the budget: i.e., how much money was taken for the enlargement of the format? and how much are the monthly expenses now, how much more than before? The great (and only) danger for Pravda now is the loss of the broad reader, the loss of the position for the struggle for him.

This is the first business point, and I would very much ask you to acquaint the publisher with all the business points, and not refuse to send me a reply.

(2)
On the question of the 7-hour working day for postal employees, etc., the editors made a clear mistake. To err is human, and there is nothing particularly bad about it yet. But, by insisting on the mistake, the editors will, for a long time, if not forever, "leave a splinter", spoil their name and position both in Russia and in Europe. I was very glad to see from the secretary's letter that not everyone on the editorial board stood by the mistake. I strongly advise you to reconsider the question and publicly adopt a different position (by publishing G. Z.'s article unsigned, on behalf of the editors). Two lines are enough: "Having reconsidered the question, the editors have arrived at the following conclusion": — G. Z.'s article. Or: "Having reconsidered the question with a fuller composition of the editors and contributors". This is worse than simply "having reconsidered".

Let the liars from Luch dance a little jig over this correction — only false shame can prevent making it. It is a thousand times worse if Luch can forever refer to the mistake. A corrected mistake disappears. An uncorrected one will become a festering sore. In such cases one must have the courage to undergo the operation immediately. Otherwise, there will be very little pleasant in the renunciation of a number of Pravda's friends — both individual writers and press organs — from Pravda's position.

I very much ask you to discuss all this and drop me a couple of lines without delay.

(3) Regarding Yu. K[amenev] I have already written once. His article on Alekseenko is excellent. And, of course, the author can regularly provide such articles. But you are not paying him — that is outrageous!! He writes to me that he is stopping writing. I hope you could not have thought that the enlargement of the format requires new expenses only on paper and printing. Of course, you counted on an inevitable increase in expenses also for the literary side. Yu. K. must be placed in the first rank. He now has no means of livelihood. Losing a contributor to both Pravda and Prosveshcheniye is impossible. Therefore, I most insistently advise you to immediately adopt a decision to pay Yu. K—v 75 (seventy-five) rubles a month. This is the minimum for a permanent contributor to both the newspaper and the journal; remember also the literary-critical section, which is generally limping with us, and without it a "big" newspaper is impossible.

I very much ask you to reply about this immediately. I have a letter from Yu. K. of an ultimatum tone, and I consider it my duty to warn the editors and the publisher of Pravda that I do not know who will consider it possible to run an enlarged newspaper with the refusal of such a contributor.

(4) Vitimsky's article in No. 123 was particularly successful, in my opinion. I congratulate the author. And Stal's, in my opinion, should be reprinted: it's good! [I am enclosing a reply to Vitimsky, which (the reply) it seems you should also read (I did not understand whether Vitimsky's letter was personal; in my opinion, it is not).]

(5) For a month, as we are informed, a letter from Alexinsky regarding "Controversial Questions" has been lying at the editors. I do not understand such an attitude!! The editors, apparently, do not know the situation, do not know the history of the "Vperyod" group and have fallen into a mistake with Mr. Bogdanov (about this separately). Why was Alexinsky's letter not sent here?? This is necessary in order to consult about the only "Vperyodist" who had enough sense to rise up against the vile empirio-criticism and similar abominations that disgrace the proletarian party. And the editors, by publishing Bogdanov's lying letters, hinder the work of a general consultation regarding Alexinsky: perhaps his letter is also worthless, but we need to consult. For this, we very much ask you to send his letter here quickly and to send such things in general.

(6) Regarding the incident with Mr. Bogdanov, I am sending separately an appeal to the editorial board and to the publisher of Pravda. This question is extremely serious. I would very much not want to speak out in print against the editors of Pravda — we have worked together too long — but support for otzovism, for me, is a sin a hundred times worse than support for liquidationism and not only worse, but more dishonorable. And I, to be honest, will not be able to refrain from speaking out even in print against this support, which has become clear through the publication of Mr. Bogdanov's letter. If this is a blunder, let us correct it. If not, we will fight.

Send Alexinsky's letter. It is very important. Alexinsky is conducting friendly conversations, and you are giving him... Bogdanov!!

(7) I received the money for April. It is necessary to send it for May. I very much ask you not to be late. (The money is extremely necessary for me for my wife's treatment, for an operation.)

Ready to serve, V. I.

I am terribly afraid that you might have alienated Plekhanov!! Potresov lies and pours slops. And to force Plekhanov to be silent?? That would be an irreparable mistake.

Many thanks for the promise to send the missing issues of Pravda and Luch. You only mistakenly sent one issue once instead of "No. 8 (eighth number) for 1912 (twelfth) year. I very much ask you to send this No. 8 (1912). It was returned to the editors in 180 copies from seizure.