Date: 1902
Source: ru:LS/v2

Source: LS vol II

1 1 0
LENIN’S COLLECTION.
The delegates find themselves in this position.
This, without a doubt, must be corrected.
Paragraph 14: The Commission concludes that the development of technology, among other things, subjects small producers to varying degrees of dependence on capital.
But the crucial point is that, beyond more or less complete dependence, there also exists a more or less overt (or, alternatively, a more or less concealed) form of dependency.
The “critics” à la Bernstein overlook this distinction:
where dependency is concealed, they simply refuse to acknowledge its existence at all.
Aware of this, I stated in my draft: more or less complete, more or less overt, more or less—intense.
These final words seemed essential to me, given the debates I had been forced to engage in in Brussels3 with certain Belgian “critics”—debates whose full account would take far too long to elaborate here.
The Commission improved upon my draft.
Whether this improvement was for the better, I do not know…
To Paragraph 7.
The Commission failed to notice that, in this very passage, it tacitly acknowledged the validity of my formulation: commodity production based on capitalist relations of production.
Better late than never4!
But what a ponderous, almost Lomonosovian style she adopts here!
Paragraph 9: Its opening is illegible5. Yet toward the end, the underlying idea is sound:
certain strata—not fully proletarian—shift toward the side of the proletariat as they come to recognize the hopelessness of their own condition, expressed in a tone of despairing crudity.
Would it not be better to say: to the proletariat and to the other strata of the working and exploited masses, since these people have come to realize the utter hopelessness of their present situation and are beginning to adopt the standpoint of the proletariat?
§ 12.
To organize the proletariat into a distinct political party that struggles against all bourgeois parties—is neither precise nor elegantly phrased: the struggle against all bourgeois parties is not obligatory at every single moment in time.
For example:
the Belgian socialist proletariat now joins forces with one section of the bourgeoisie against another.
It would suffice to say: the working class should form an independent political party.

PLEKHANOV – COMMENTS ON THE COMMISSION’S PROGRAM DRAFT.

§ 14.
The old order, founded upon the enserfment of the laboring masses to landowners and the state.
Beyond the peasants bound to the landowner and the state, there were also peasants who were enserfed directly to the head of state:
My draft made this clear.
The Commission refined my draft in this regard.
Whether it was an improvement, I do not know…
Moreover, since the old order is a thing of the past, we ought to say: which was founded upon—and not founded by—.
§ 15.
I have no objection.
Only the style has become somewhat heavy-handed, as in the preceding paragraph.
But we’ll discuss that later.
Thus, I agree with the draft—even in the event that you do not incorporate a single one of my remarks.
Yet I earnestly urge you to consider them all, especially what is stated under sub 3 [sub 3].
I can only regret your decision to move to London.
But it is true that here, those who will work closely with “Iskra” cannot be afforded the full freedom of action they require.
Still, I suggest that you relocate the publication of “Zarya” to Zurich and entrust its management—as soon as possible—to me and Pavel [Akselrod].
In this way, we can divide our labor: we shall handle “Zarya,” while you take charge of “Iskra.” I earnestly ask you to consider my proposal.
The sole positive aspect of publishing “Zarya” in Stuttgart lies in a mere 40 percent increase in expenses—and in the multiplication of typographical errors.
The negative side, however, is the considerable distance between the place of publication and the site of editorial oversight.
It seems to me that the positive outweighs the negative.
Your move to London will make it even more difficult for me to contribute to “Iskra.”
Meanwhile, events in Russia are growing ever more serious, and my hands itch to engage in journalistic work.
Sometimes the thought occurs to me: might the “League”6—meaning, in essence, you yourself—permit me to publish in Geneva a special newspaper along the lines of Dostoevsky’s “Diary of a Writer”? I could not compete with “Iskra”; on the contrary, I would gain a loyal ally for her.
And the costs of publication would be offset by the sales of my diary.
I ask you to reflect on this matter and to reply to me in your next letter7.
I am sending V. D. [Zasulich]’s article with this letter.
At the end of the piece, she directs a scathing critique at the orthodox writers who contributed to legal journals8^.
8*

I strongly protest this attack in the name of Beltov and Kirsanov9. If you find it impossible to remove this attack, then I ask you to grant me the opportunity to publish a rebuttal to it in the same issue of “Zarya.” With just two or three quotations from Beltov and Kirsanov, I will demonstrate the unfounded nature of the aforementioned attack.
My article on the crisis cannot serve as an internal review.
Rather, it will offer an overview of the situation in all countries affected by the crisis—in other words, nearly the entire globe.
Clearly, an internal review must be written separately.
The latest issue of “Iskra”10—almost in every correspondence—states that the demonstration was initiated by Socialist-Revolutionaries.
Why advertise to the Socialist-Revolutionaries?
Such phrases ought to be deleted.
Furthermore, “Iskra,” with unshakable seriousness11, prints a report from Poltava, where it is reported that cries rang out: “Long live Count L. Tolstoy, champion of freedom!”
The editorial staff should have explained to readers that this count fights for no such freedom.
The fact that his name has become a rallying cry is a sad indication of the political immaturity of Russian society.
We must strive to overcome this immaturity.
If Frey [Lenin] has completed his work on the Agrarian Question12, then will he not send me my own books on this subject?
They may not be of much use to me here, but the British Museum in London holds ample collections of all kinds of books.
Well then, I extend to you a hearty handshake.
Yours, G. P.
The address of V. D. [Zasulich] is written in such a way that it is barely legible—I was unable to read it.
1) Consciously.
2) Karl Marx’s “Capital.”
3) In Brussels, G. V. Plekhanov attended a meeting of the International Socialist Bureau on December 30, 1901.
(See his report in No. 15 of “Iskra,” Collected Works, Vol. XIII, p. 192.)
Since the above data provide grounds to assume that the first discussion of G. V. Plekhanov’s program draft took place