Written: Written at the end of August 1905
Published: First published in 1934. Sent from Geneva to Italy. Printed from the original.
Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1974, Moscow, Volume 34, pages 334-335.
Translated: Clemens Dutt
Transcription\Markup: D. Moros
Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive (2005). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source. • README
Dear An. Vas.,
Your plan for a pamphlet on Three Revolutions pleased me immensely. I’d drop the reply to Plekhanov for the time being if I were you—let that enraged doctrinaire bark away to his heart’s content. To delve specially into philosophy at such a time! You must work as hard as you can for Social-Democracy—don’t forget that you are committed for your entire working time.
As for the Three Revolutions, tackle this straight away. This subject has to be dealt with in a thorough manner. I am sure you could make a success of it. Describe, in a popular way, the tasks of socialism, its essence and the conditions for its realisation. Then—victory in the present revolution, the significance of the peasant movement (a separate chapter), what could now be regarded as complete victory; a provisional government, revolutionary army, uprising—the significance and conditions of new forms of struggle. Revolution a la 1789 and a la 1848. Finally (better to make this the second part and the preceding one—the third), about the bourgeois character of the revolution, more fully about the economic aspect, then thoroughly expose the Osvobozhdeniye people in all their interests, tactics and political intrigue.
This is a rich theme indeed, and a militant one, against the Iskra vulgarisers. Please tackle it at once and take your time over it. It is extremely important to produce a popular thing on this subject, something forceful and pointed.
Now about the split. You misunderstood me. It’s no use your waiting for me, for these are different subjects: one is the history (we shall try to manage that); the other—an outline of their polemical methods. A literary-critical out line on the subject, let us say, of “cheap and shoddy literature”. Here an analysis is to be given in a whole pamphlet of several chapters, with quotations, showing up all this disgusting claptrap of Old Believer, Martov and the rest in their polemic with Proletary, as well as the rehash of this theme in “Majority or Minority”, etc. Pillory them for their paltry method of warfare. Make them into a type. Draw a full-length portrait of them by quotations from their own writings! I am sure you’d pull it off, if only you collect a few quotations.
All the very best.
P.S. I have received the article about Kuzmin-Karavayev. Also the 1848 feuilleton.