Letter to Nakhamkis
1. We shall publish it.
2. + + articles. Remarks on the mass movement and the Social-Democratic mass movement—on the impossibility of Social-Democrats renouncing for a moment their strictly
Social-Democratic principles—on propaganda and agitation, on the relation between political rights and political freedom. As to not narrowing down the significance of May 4, etc. .
3. - certain, unimportant, alterations in the article would be desirable, a draft of which we are submitting, in the hope that a joint discussion of them will lead us to complete
agreement.

First, a summing up of what has been said is needed, a resume, a conclusion, as
you yourself have already pointed out. Second, in connection with this, some abridgement
would be desirable (for example, the following passages might be abridged: p. 3 (NB 2); p. 39 (NB 16) and certain others) in the rest of the article (the total length of which must not exceed 1 printed sheet) and a revision of certain passages. It seems to us that this revision ought to consist in the following: the entire form of the article has assumed a somewhat challenging character (“an open letter,” addressing the reader as “You,” etc.), which is hardly desirable. You
yourself have pointed to certain excesses in the current polemics (“Mr. G.’s smart lads” 36 and
the like) and you were perfectly right; and since there have been excesses, we must now be more cautious: not in the sense of yielding an iota of principle, but in the sense of not embittering people unnecessarily who are working, according to their lights, for
Social-Democracy. Perhaps a criticism of the programme of Rabocheye Dyelo, speaking of
them in the third person, would be better in this respect?

For the same reasons, some “leniency” in regard to the formal aspect of the Rabocheye Dyelo programme would be appropriate: for it is not a Party programme, nor even a draft Party programme, so that it is incorrect to compare it with the programmes of the French and
German Social-Democrats (at least, if such a comparison is made without reservations, as you do on p. 42 (NB 17)). Criticism of the formal aspect of the programme might be abridged (you yourself expressed a desire (p. 2) to “leave aside” formal defects), reducing the formal defects, as particular defects, to the general defect of principle in the programme. It seems to us that a similar alteration would be desirable in regard to the critical remarks made on
p. 45 (NB 20), p. 39 (NB 16), p. 20 (NB 9), p. 6 (NB 6). In the sharp
formulations given to these remarks in places, they might, perhaps, give
the public an opportunity to speak (and not altogether without reason) of hair-splitting*. The superfluous—
from a strictly theoretical point of view—mention of the need to reckon with local conditions, etc., may be the result not of the Editorial Board having failed to assimilate scientific socialism, but of their wanting to emphasise this self-evident
thing precisely now, when they see a need for such emphasis. And is there not sometimes a need to emphasise even self-evident things? We do not in the least deny that in the present instance this “need” was three-quarters due
to the “need” to curry favour with Rabochaya Mysl—but only 3/4. By forgetting about the remaining 1/4, we shall enable the public to accuse us of hair-splitting, whereas, by reducing these
formal defects, as particular instances, to the general defect of principle, we shall weaken the carping character of our remarks and strengthen our argumentation.

Then, some more particular notes:
P. 17 (NB 8), Note 1. The remark, “What does this dream mean?” is not clear.

P. 24 (NB 11). It cannot be said that Social-Democracy “cares little about the attainability of its demands.”

* From here to the end of the paragraph the text in the manuscript is crossed out by V. I. Lenin.—Ed.

We understand your thought and agree with it, but it must be expressed more precisely, more cautiously:

“cannot make direct attainability the supreme criterion,” points the way that must be followed and not. the possibility of immediate practical
success, or something of that sort.

P. 32 (NB 13)—“in its own expression”—isn’t that rather strong?

P. 33 (NB 14)—“seize the forest”—an awkward, incautious expression because of the word “seize.”

P. 35 (in fine*, note). (NB 15.)
“Gendarmes,” etc. Wouldn’t it be better to delete or alter this?

P. 43 (NB 18). Too strong. The term “peasantry” cannot be renounced.

P. 44 (NB 19). Too sharp and straightforward. The question of what the peasantry can give has still not been settled by the Russian Social-Democrats (cf. note to
the programme of the Emancipation of Labour group of 1885 37) and is hardly likely to be settled in the sense that the political role of the peasants is equal to zero. (Cf.: Der 18 Brumaire 38.)
I hope to receive a letter from you in reply to this, and not just one letter, but with the article (preferably not later than in 2, or at the very latest 3 weeks).

G. V. has read the article and also expressed himself in favour of it, noting only the passage on p. 24 (on attainability).

P. S. “We” in this letter are your interlocutors in Belevrive 39. We do not undertake to speak for the entire Editorial Board with full certainty as yet, but we hope that this will not give rise to any unpleasantness either for us or for you.