Letter to Nikolai Poletaev, February 25, 1913

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

For Krass

Dear Friend,

I was very glad to get your letter of February 2 and exceedingly regret that we have so far not been able to establish regular correspondence, despite a number of at tempts on our part. The lack of such a correspondence gives rise to misunderstandings. I welcome your criticism of the withdrawal from Luch, as I welcome all criticism from Russia: the absence of criticism makes a dead thing of it all. In this case, however, your criticism is incorrect, and I simply don’t know from what side to start dealing with it. I shall wait until the next letter. As regards “reforms” in a certain newspaper, I must say that your absence is very regrettable. Frankly, I consider the organisation of this business by you to be a historic service, and your closing down of the “big sister” and your “semi-absence” in the summer to be a great mistake. But the past is gone and done with. We must make use of its lessons for the future. The plan for a big newspaper is excellent. I am convinced that two newspapers are needed—a big one for 5 kopeks and a small one for 1 kopek, and the present paper should be worked into “a small one”. Publication of pamphlets and books of 5–10 sheets is another good idea. We are taking this up, too, energetically. We would be very, very glad if you would take this in hand and we could succeed in co-operating more systematically and effectively than in the spring and summer of 1912. An indispensable condition for this is a personal meeting and regular correspondence. Gorky has now started very energetically to assist Prosveshcheniye and turn it into a big magazine. The publication of a big newspaper and books has every chance of becoming a tremendous job of tremendous importance and usefulness. All the more important is it to have proper organisation from the outset. Experience has convinced us most fully that any attempt to reach an agreement (as you suggest) with Plekhanov, Rozhkov, etc., is hopeless. We are beginning at the other end. And we are getting better results. You know, of course, that Alexinsky and Dnevnitsky came without any agreement with us. Given correct and firm tactics, this will hold true still more in the case of a big newspaper and the publication of books. We are fully convinced of this. Firm tactics—keeping the leadership by the former group—enlistment not by contract, but as contributors—all these conditions are categorical for us. We shall find quite enough contributors, I am sure, both for a big newspaper and for books and for a big magazine. As for Bogdanov, for instance, even co-operation with him is impossible: this is clear from his new writings. With Alexinsky and Dnevnitsky (Plekhanov) it is possible, and remuneration will widen this circle of contributors fivefold. I await an immediate reply: 1) whether you agree to the above or not; 2) if not, what your plan is; 3) how much money is needed; 4) how much you can raise; 5) how you define or plan your participation in the business as regards sphere of competence, etc. Answer as precisely as possible. We must act quickly. Time presses. The Moscow paper too.... A good friend of mine will call on you—you know him too. Talk things over in a businesslike, precise manner.