Date: 1900-10-26
Source: ru:PSS/v46
Source: CW vol 46

26. X.

Yesterday, I received your letter of the 24th and, at your request, am responding immediately.

I cannot send the letter now: by the method I use, I only send chemistry, not enclosures, and I do not have time to write letters in this way. Yesterday, I wrote to the addressee* about the essence of the letter, and I hope to inform him of the entire letter in the near future. Or perhaps you could rewrite it in an unbound book with chemistry, and then I will send it immediately.

I will give you the address of my sister: she was not in Paris in September, so it is unlikely that you were there at the same time. I hope you have written her a few words using the address I gave you?

Now to business.

Your letter to me makes a strange impression. If one excludes the information about addresses and messages, there remain only reproaches—bare reproaches without any substantive explanations. The reproaches even go as far as attempts at sarcasm ("Are you convinced that this was done for the benefit of the Russian workers' movement or for Plekhanov's benefit?"), but, of course, I will not exchange sarcasms with you.

You reproach me for "advising against" 57. You are very imprecise in repeating my words. I clearly remember that I did not express myself categorically or unconditionally: "We find it difficult at the moment to advise," I wrote, i.e., I directly conditioned our decision on a preliminary clarification of the matter. What the clarification should consist of is clear from my letter: it was necessary for us to fully understand whether there had indeed been a "turn" in Rabochaya Mysl (as we were informed and as we had the right to conclude from the fact that you turned to Plekhanov with a proposal for participation) and what kind of turn it was.

On this, the main and fundamental question, you say nothing.

That we view Rabochaya Mysl as an organ of a particular trend, with which we seriously disagree, you have known for a long time. In such an organ, both I and the addressee of your large letter flatly refused to participate several months ago, and it is understandable that, acting this way ourselves, we could not but advise the same to others.

But the news of a "turn" in Rabochaya Mysl put us in a "difficult position." An actual turn could have significantly changed the matter. Therefore, it was natural that in my letter, I first expressed the desire to learn all the details about the turn—and you did not respond to this at all.

However, perhaps you consider that the answer to my question about the turn is contained in your letter to a friend.* Perhaps, if you approached Plekhanov on behalf of the editorial board of Rabochaya Mysl, your letter to a friend can be considered an authentic expression of the editorial board's views. If so, I am inclined to conclude that there is no turn. If I am mistaken, please clarify my mistake. Recently, another close supporter of Plekhanov also wrote to me about the turn in Rabochaya Mysl. But, being in correspondence with you, I

* Presumably referring to Y. O. Martov. Ed.