In accordance with a decision of the ninth congress of the r
Download 4.26 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
|
9 TO THE EDITOR OF Z V E Z D A Dear Colleague, I am sending new material today for the Voter’s Handbook. This is nearly all, there will he another article or two from here in two days’ time, and then you will get an article on the budget from Tver. (1) I very much advise you also to reprint from Zvezda No. 34 (December 17, 1911) the article by Frey: “The Role of Worker Electors in the Election Campaign” (it would also be a good thing to reprint his article in No. 36, Decem- ber 31, 1911, about the role of peasant electors, * as well). Don’t go out of your way to cut them down. It is better to publish in full a substantial article which will be of value in giving intelligible guidance for the elections. Don’t go out of your way for cheapness and brevity—better publish something solid. If, after all, it is absolutely impossible to publish all the articles, be certain to return those you don’t. (2) Here it is most essential to make arrangements for regular correspondence. Let your secretary write to me direct here, and not through Arcachon, to avoid any delay. Give us a better address for letters to you. (3) You are wrong not to reply to the liquidators. This is a great mistake. You can and should reply, without saying a word about the Conference. You should print a brief reply to every lie of Zhivoye Dyelo: Zhivoye Dyelo in such-and-such a number is lying, as all the liquidators do. It is essential to reply, otherwise you lose. * See present edition, Vol. 17, pp. 372-84.—Ed. 37 TO THE EDITOR OF ZVEZDA (4) If Plekhanov writes, you should send his articles here in proofs. Otherwise it becomes a “privilege” for him, which we cannot tolerate. Be careful. You will force us to leave if Plekhanov is given the privilege of writing against the Conference when we cannot write in favour of it. It would be a mean trick to allow him to abuse it when we cannot praise it. (5) Be sure to send us in a separate packet, wrapped up in Novoye Vremya, 32 these numbers of Zvezda: Nos. 24 and 25 of the summer of 1911, No. 18 (54), No. 19 (55), No. 22 (58), No. 23 (59)—we haven’t got them—and Zhi- voye Dyelo No. 11 and No. 12. Please send us confiscated issues separately, wrapping them up in newspapers of the Right. (6) Let us know as soon as possible about the daily paper. 33 What will be the size? What length of article can be sent? (7) Try and buy as cheaply as possible the Verbatim Reports of the Third Duma, especially the sessions of 1911-12. Write.
Written on April 2 2 , 1 9 1 2 Sent from Paris to St. Petersburg First published in 1 9 2 3 Printed from the in the book Iz epokhi “Zvezdy” typewritten copy found i “Pravdy” (1911-14), Part III in police records 38 FROM MARX TO MAO NOT
FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION
34 June 6, 1912 Dear Colleague, It is terribly annoying that my first letter to you about the book (thank you very much for sending it) has been lost. It is an incredible-but with us, it turns out, a pos- sible—fact that a letter of a purely scientific nature can be lost. I will try and repeat it from memory, because I did not take a copy. I read your book * with great pleasure, and was very glad to see that you had taken up a serious and large-scale work. This work will certainly enable you to test, deepen and consolidate your Marxist convictions. I will note some ideas which came into my mind when reading it. It seemed to me that here and there, when study- ing the results of “differentiation”, departures from the countryside are overlooked. I will make clear what I mean by this example, (a) first aspect: out of 100 households 25 have no horse= 25 per cent, or have no sowings; (b) second aspect: of 150 households 36 have no sowings= 24 per cent. Diminished differentiation, it would seem? But if 30 house- holds or families have left the village for the town, or migrated, etc., then in fact proletarisation has increased. I think this is a typical example. The statistics always consider the households in existence, remaining “narrowly statistical” and omitting what is sometimes most important. Then, the author definitely and more than once confines the subject of his research to the tillage aspect. But in * Reference is to B. N. Knipovich’s book K voprosu o differen- tsiatsii russkogo krestyanstva. Differentsiatsia v sfere zemledelcheskogo khozyaistva (A Contribution to the Problem of Differentiation of the Russian Peasantry. Differentiation in the Sphere of Farming), St. Petersburg, 1912.—Ed. 39 TO B. N. KNIPOVICH his conclusions he imperceptibly extends the theme, speak- ing of the whole of agriculture and sometimes even of the whole economy. This leads to error, because some aspects of “differentiation”, i.e., of the proletarisation of the peas- ants and the genesis of capital, are, as a consequence, lost (for example, commercial stock-breeding in Yaroslavl Gubernia and other forms of penetration of exchange into agriculture, as it becomes specialised). Furthermore. Do not the rows of figures sometimes obscure the types, socio-economic types of farmers (substan- tial bourgeois farmer; middle farmer; semi-proletarian; proletarian)? This danger is very great because of the qualities of statistical material. The “rows of figures” carry one away. I would advise the author to take this danger into account: our “socialists of the chair” unquestionably in this way throttle the living Marxist content of data. They drown the class struggle in rows and rows of figures. This does not occur with the author, but in the big work he has undertaken he ought particularly to take account of this danger, this “line” of the socialists of the chair, the liberals and the Narodniks. He should take it into account and trim it down, of course. Lastly, Maslov 3 5
has appeared as something like a deus ex machina. Cur? Quomodo? Quibus auxiliis? * After all, his theory is very remote from Marxism. The Narodniks rightly called him a “critic” (= opportunist). Perhaps the author took him on trust more by chance? Such were my thoughts when reading your interesting and serious book. I shake you by the hand, and wish you success in your work. I take this opportunity to send warm greetings to the whole family, and particularly to the “water-carrying nags” 36 —do you remember? Yours, V. Ulyanov Written in Paris First published in 1 9 2 8 Printed from the original in the magazine Bolshevik No. 7 * Why? How? By what means?—Ed. 40 11 TO THE EDITOR OF P R A V D A 37 Dear Colleague, I send you one more article by I. Gylka. The author reminds you that he is expecting an advance. It is urgently necessary to reply to him immediately (you can do it through me, but without fail on a separate sheet). The author lives in Lemberg, makes a special study of his subject, and such a contributor should be drawn in. Once again I advise you to pay him an advance, and in any case to reply to him at once. N.B. If Gylka’s articles are not accepted, return them at once without fail! We have received the parcel, and cannot help complain- ing.
Of the books, only one! Write and say why. Did other members of the staff take the rest of the books received? Have they taken them for long, or for good? If so, you ought to arrange to send them to us for a time. We repeat that without books we cannot work. The office should be more careful about this. We received the Voter’s Handbook two and a half weeks
There has been a delay with the papers, after all. We are stuck here without newspapers, and we shall be without them for another two or three days. I would very much advise you to send a reporter to the City Council, find out how many applications * they are * From what districts? streets? etc., as detailed as possible. 41 TO THE EDITOR OF PRAVDA getting from tenants and set about publishing this syste-
to the unsuccessful). Very little time is left, and the paper should make itself responsible for the whole business. You should get from the City Council, through any sta- tisticians among your acquaintances (or officially from the editors and the members of the State Duma), all the sta- tistical material (if they don’t exist, then buy Rech 38 for those years and months, or some other paper) about the elections to the First, Second and Third State Duma& Petersburg statistics (housing, population, etc.). With such material in your hands, and with an intelligent reporter visit- ing the City Council daily or 2-3 times a week, you can run a good section in the paper about the course of the elections. Do you send Pravda to the Wiener Arbeiter-Zeitung 39 in Vienna? Send it, and send it to us as well by wrapper. I advise you to reply to Trotsky through the post: “To Trotsky (Vienna). We shall not reply to disruptive and slanderous letters.” Trotsky’s dirty campaign against Prav-
and follower of Plekhanov, Rothstein (London), has writ- ten to us that he received Trotsky’s slanders and replied to him: I cannot complain of the Petersburg Pravda in any way. But this intriguer and liquidator goes on lying, right and left. Yours faithfully,
P.S. It would be still better to reply in this way to Trotsky through the post: “To Trotsky (Vienna). You are wasting your time sending us disruptive and slanderous letters. They will not be replied to.” Written on July 1 9 , 1 9 1 2 Sent from Cracow to St. Petersburg First published in 1 9 3 3 Printed from the original in Lenin Miscellany XXV 42 12 TO THE EDITOR OF N E V S K A Y A Z V E Z D A 40 Dear Colleague, I have received your long letter, and I see that you and I must most certainly have it out. First of all, a detail. You won’t find correspondents at two kopeks a line. So long as you have no money, you will have to make do with our articles about affairs abroad.
Now for the main thing. You complain of monotony. But this will always be the case if you don’t print polemics— if, in particular, you cut down Kamenev (he writes in a different tone)—if you reduce everything to “positive liquidationism”. And in addition you will lose all your con- tributors if you don’t print them, and don’t even reply and don’t send back articles (for example, mine: the reply to Blank—important! “Unquenchable Hopes” 41 and a num- ber of others!!). Just look at Nevsky Golos: it’s more lively. It is not afraid of polemics. It attacks. It boldly makes its point to the bitter end. By avoiding “painful questions”, Zvezda and Pravda
uncombative organs. A socialist paper must carry on polem- ics: our times are times of desperate confusion, and we can’t do without polemics. The question is whether they are to be carried on in a lively way, attacking, putting forward questions independently, or only on the defensive, in dry and boring fashion.
43 TO THE EDITOR OF NEVSKAYA ZVEZDA For example, the “Supporter of Zvezda” in No. 16 gave a good reply. Clearly he is a man of principle. But all the same he did not dissipate the terrible fears aroused every-
42 What did happen, after all? Was there a conference? Called by whom? What for? None of this is clear! And until this is cleared up no one wants to work. Everyone is saying: haven’t I the right to know who I am working for, whom I am helping to get elected to the Duma? Maybe it’s a liquidator? Maybe it’s some muddled Trotskyist concilia- tor? Perhaps I am taking part (indirectly) in drawing up a “common platform”?? Such questions paralyse energy and introduce demoral- isation. Meanwhile Nevsky Golos is attacking briskly and takes a more challenging line. You can’t hide differences from the workers (as Pravda is doing): it’s harmful, fatal, ridic- ulous. You can’t leave it to the adversary, to Nevsky
certain.
It would certainly be victorious if it were not afraid of polemics, talked straight about the liquidators, became lively through argument, by an article against Axelrod, 43 etc. Such articles as Axelrod’s attract: all the workers hear about the differences and are attracted to Axelrod’s open explanations, because he says things straight out a hundred times more boldly than we do. All the workers hear the talk about a united platform, all the leading work- ers know Axelrod’s article 44 —and if you are silent, you have fallen behind! And the paper which falls behind is lost. A paper must be a step ahead of everyone, and that goes for both Nevskaya Zvezda and for Pravda. Side by side with the two “positive” little articles, Pravda must provide
ing the liquidators—and so forth. Monotony and lateness are incompatible with the newspaper business. And Pravda has in addition a special and exceptionally important duty: “whom is it going to lead”—this is what everyone is asking, what everyone is trying to read between the lines. It would be important to have a meeting (once in four years, before
V. I. L E N I N 44 the elections)—you can’t carry on the paper without even infrequent meetings with your constant contributors. Think over this well and quickly, for time won’t bear delay. Best wishes,
Written on July 2 4 , 1 9 1 2 Sent from Cracow to St. Petersburg First published in 1 9 2 3 Printed from the original in the book Iz epokhi “Zvezdy” i “Pravdy” (1911-14), Part III
45 13 TO THE EDITOR OF P R A V D A Dear Colleague, I have received your letter about the “pressing matter” and, I confess, read it with a sorrowful feeling. It shows quite clearly that there is between us not enough of the mutual understanding that in a “pressing matter”, as in any serious matter, is most essential. And the matter is really serious and—I agree with you— pressing (not in the sense of a few days, of course). In order to get mutual understanding on this, we ought to meet: this would cost four or five days and 11&11&15&10= 47 rubles all in all.... All that I can do at present to meet your request, I am doing. I am sending you an article “On the Election Plat- form”. 45
from this article. As regards altering it, I must lay down special con- ditions (usually I don’t make any, as you know, relying entirely on a comradely, collective and not pettifogging attitude). But on this occasion these special conditions are essential for me, because the question is one of vast importance, a radical question of principle. I can agree only to (1) eliminating the subhead and (2) minimum corrections for the censorship (only!!) in three or four places, correction of individual words, and nothing more at all. If even then you can’t print it either in Pravda or in Nevskaya Zvezda, return the article, I need it. To eliminating mention of the liquidators I cannot agree. The essence of the whole question is that the liquidators are setting a trap: “let’s have an open platform” (while privately the liquidator thinks: I will sign anything in V. I. L E N I N 46 an open platform). And that is true, the liquidator will sign anything in an open platform!! And it will be not a platform, not a serious affair, but philistine chatter, a list of “reforms”, a competition with the liberals on their own ground, because every liberal (up to and including Trubets- koi) will at present, six or eight weeks before the elec- tions, put his name to anything!! The liberals and the liqui- dators will sign anything, if only they can get elected to the Fourth Duma. One must grasp the essence of the question, the principle involved, and not be afraid of somewhat “unusual”, “unsuit- able” (for Pravda) expressions, polemics, etc. The work- ers in their mass will understand very well the spirit of the thing (“no cutting up”)—and that is the whole point.
of-June Russia, six or eight weeks before the elections, is ridiculous, stupid, philistine, even scoundrelly. And that is the essence. Such an article printed as a feature in Pravda, even in small type, will at once take up a position, and kill the adventurism of the inventors of open platforms. It will kill the demagogy of their “say openly what you believe in”. Used not Katkov in just the same way to ask: “Say openly that you recognise the autocracy”? Much has devolved on Pravda in the elections, and much will be required of it. It would be a scandal if Pravda were ridiculed from the left for drawing up open platforms.
must be defended honourably. It should say clearly, calmly and firmly: against the liquidators. And at once the whole gang of these petty liberals will be killed. Let them put forward their own list: they won’t dare, because they will be completely disgraced!! I await a speedy reply. With greetings, Yours,
V. Ulyanov Written earlier than August 1 , 1 9 1 2 Sent from Cracow to St. Petersburg Published for the first time Printed from the original in the Fourth (Russian) Edition of the Collected Works
|
