V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:PSS/v46;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

25. IV. 01.

Dear P. V., It is a long time since I had a talk with you; I have been unable to get down to it, and besides Alexei wrote to you about all business matters*—but the need for a talk has become so great that I decided to put it off no longer. I want to consult you about both the Parisians and the Zurich people,106 and about affairs in general.

Do you know that the Parisians have “dissolved (long ago, two or three weeks ago) the group for support of *Iskra*” and have refused (for the second time) to collaborate, giving as their motive our “violation” of “organisational neutrality” (sic! we are unfair to the Union** and have wrongly attacked it in *Zarya*). This was written by the author of “Notes on the Programme of *Rabocheye Dyelo*”***, at the same time making the most unambiguous hints that *Rabocheye Dyelo* is mending its ways (in No. 6 of its *Listok*107 it has even over-mended them, in our opinion!) and consequently... consequently... *Vivrons verrons* ****—concluded this “dear comrade”. Obviously he is aiming (like some “young forces” about whom G. V. wrote) at a better place in *Rabocheye Dyelo*. We were so outraged by this blackguardism that we did not answer them at all. We intend in No. 4 of *Iskra* (No. 3 will be ready, they promise, by May 1. We want to start on No. 4 at once) to give *Rabocheye Dyelo* a dressing-down for its weathercock policy.

And so I no longer know whether to spit on these intriguers once and for all or... still to make another attempt. They are undoubtedly capable people, they wrote, supplied (both of them) material (and Danevich too), skilfully collected money (as much as 350 francs: nowhere else abroad has so much been collected for *Iskra*). And we, too, are really not without blame towards them: we showed insufficient attention, did not send them a single article for perusal and “comradely advice”, did not offer them any “department” (if only a foreign review in *Iskra* or notes for the chronicle of public affairs on certain questions). Evidently, in relations abroad it is impossible, absolutely impossible, to do without something of the sort.

And now the Berliners* (Arsenyev was there recently) also want a definite position: simply to help *Iskra*, they say, is enough for a student, but for us or for Dvinskaya (she and her husband are leaving the Union, in which, when the members were polled, only three—Grishin *compris**!—voted for a conference. *Vive camarade G.!***)—well, we must have something, you know...

It is simply a disaster! We must “invent” an organisation—without this *es geht nicht* ****.

I have had an idea: could we not try the following plan of organisation: the *Sotsial-Demokrat* organisation, the *Zarya* editorial board and such-and-such groups (the Berliners, for example, the Parisians, perhaps, and so on) or such-and-such individuals unite into one, say, League.108 Literary management is threefold: the Emancipation of Labour group manages its own printing-press, *Zarya* its own, and an elected Literary Commission is the closest collaborator, takes part in periodical general editorial congresses and prints (under the signature of the Literary Commission) pamphlets, etc., in the printing-presses of *Sotsial-Demokrat* and *Zarya*,—*eventuell* *****

* The Berliners—members of the Berlin group for support of *Iskra*. *Ed.*
**—including. *Ed.*
***—Long live Comrade G.! *Ed.*
****—it won’t work. *Ed.*
*****—possibly. *Ed.*

and in a third printing-press, if such is set up by the League (there are certain prospects for this).

The supreme decision on literary questions in the League belongs to a conference of three members: from the Emancipation of Labour group, from *Zarya* and from the Literary Commission. The administration is general and elected.

Such is the essence of my project (*Iskra*, as a Russian publication, of course, does not formally enter the League). In principle it is approved here, and the elder sister too. It seems to me that such a “constitution” (“Austrian”, as Alexei jokes) is in no way dangerous for us, but something of the sort is absolutely necessary, for otherwise the public is universally dissatisfied and may all scatter. Thus we fully guarantee ourselves against troubles and squabbles, fully retaining our own printing-presses and editorial boards, while giving the public the necessary scope without which it will not agree to help.

Please write what you think of such an idea, and talk it over with G. V. (to whom I am not writing, as he is soon to be here, and on the way will of course call on you). I am not going into details: they can easily be arranged. If we all (i.e., the whole *Sotsial-Demokrat* group) agree on this, there is a very good chance that the Berliners (who have a printing-press and are thirsting for “work” with a definite “position”) will join, and then we shall be able to oppose to the Union a united “League” developing wide activity.

There is no need to fear an elected administration, for it will have charge only of transport and the collection of money abroad, to be distributed in a certain proportion between *Sotsial-Demokrat*, *Zarya*, etc., and will not touch *Iskra*;—*Iskra* will informally stand behind *Zarya* and together with *Zarya*. Formally the League can be declared the foreign ally of the Russian *Iskra* organisation, which we are already setting up.

There is no need to fear literary stupidities either, for (1) the Literary Commission can be restricted by its rules in independent printing; (2) it prints under its own signature: the Emancipation of Labour group and *Zarya* are not mixed up with it; (3) our people may be on it;

(4) it is subordinate to the conference, in which we have the majority.

I do not know, of course, whether the Parisians will be satisfied; they are very proud. It is already awkward for us to approach them. If you approve the plan, will you not undertake to write to them and throw out a feeler: after all, in Paris they told you about their sad position—so you might suggest this way out to them. If you approve the idea, we shall ask Koltsov and request him to draw up a draft of the rules of the “League”*.

Now about the Zurich people—the Letts. I do not know whether you have heard that the transport arranged with their help has completely failed: 3,000 copies of *Iskra* (No. 1) were seized by the police, who also captured the smuggler. Afterwards one of them wrote to us, asking for more money for the trip. We replied that we could not give any more for that route—we dare not before our organisation—but if he undertook specially to transport one pood (as he undertook in conversation with me), then let him come.

Not a word in reply. Do you know whether they have taken offence, or what? How are their affairs and plans?

If you see any of them, please talk to them to clear the matter up.

We are beginning to think about No. 2 of *Zarya*—it is time. The article on Witte will soon be finished,** in two or three weeks (Dietz is dragging it out incredibly: only 9 sheets are ready so far). There is no material yet, except the article by Nevzorov on the historical preparation of Russian Social-Democracy, which you already know about. We are counting on a leading article by G. V. on the new events, on his *contra* Struve,*** on your article (from the editorial note)—is that not so?; an article by Luxemburg is promised (a new introduction to her articles “Die sozialistische Krise in Frankreich”,**** which articles we want to translate), Kautsky has promised a short article on academicians and proletarians.

* It would be a good thing to come out before the public already with a general project of *Sotsial-Demokrat* and *Zarya*.
** See V. I. Lenin, “The Persecutors of the Zemstvo and the Hannibals of Liberalism” (present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 31–80). *Ed.*
***—against Struve. *Ed.*
****—“The Socialist Crisis in France”. *Ed.*

M. G. VECHESLOV. APRIL 25, 1901

There are no foreign reviews. How stands the matter with the “Austrian” article? Will anything come from America?—from Switzerland? Danevich, they say, is ill. There is no one to ask to write about Germany—unless Parvus, who has promised (?) a foreign review, but that is not the same.

For the fourth issue of *Iskra* an article on terror is planned (by Alexei); there is: “Autocracy and the Zemstvo” (continuation), “Autocracy and Finance” (by Parvus), something for the chronicle of public affairs (there are additions on the demonstrations) and the working-class movement.

We think of bringing out No. 4 as one sheet (No. 3 has swollen to two sheets, eight pages (seven pages are already ready), like No. 1—and even then part had to be left out!). We must make every effort to speed up the appearance of *Iskra*—to make it a monthly.

Good-bye! I firmly press your hand and send greetings to all your family. My wife does too.

Yours,
Petrov
P.S. Write to me care of Rittmeyer.

Lest I forget: on the instructions of the elder sister I inform you that 250 francs have been received. The account of them is being printed in No. 3 of *Iskra* (“From America via Axelrod”). I am sending via Stuttgart 10 copies of *Zarya*—send them to Ingerman, Mokriyevich, etc. The elder sister is writing an article for the Germans on the demonstrations.

---

Sent from Munich to Zurich

First published in 1925
in Lenin Miscellany III

Printed from the manuscript