Anonym user: please answer the question that appears below (more info):
What is the surname of Karl Marx`s great friend ?
add
Dear Colleagues, Today at last I have received the file of <i>Pravda</i> for the last few days or, more precisely, for the last week. My best thanks and best congratulations on your success: in my opinion the paper has now undoubtedly <i>found</i> its feet. The improvement is a tremendous one and a serious one, and, let us hope, firm and for good. The length of Plekhanov’s articles and the abundance of anti-liquidationism (about which one of the workers’ deputies writes to me) are now questions of detail; it won’t be difficult to correct matters in Ibis respect, now that the paper has taken a firm stand, and I think that the workers on the spot will see at once bow to make the necessary correction. We have also received the detailed letter of a member of the staff (who unfortunately has not the pleasant “deputy” quality), and we were very glad of it, congratulating him on every kind of success. It seems as though now (and only now, after the St—v<ref>Who this refers to has not been established.—<i>Ed</i>.</ref> adventure) the period of wavering has ended ... touch wood!... I don’t advise you to present Plekhanov with ultimatums: it is too early, it may do harm!! If you do write to him, write as kindly and mildly as possible, He is valuable now because he is fighting the enemies of the working-class movement. As regards Demyan Bedny, I continue <i>to be for</i>. Don’t find fault, friends, with human failings! Talent is rare. It should be systematically and carefully supported. It will be a sin on your conscience, a great sin (a hundred times bigger than various personal “sins”, if such occur...) against the democratic working-class movement, if you don’t draw in this talented contributor and <i>don’t help</i> him. The disputes were petty, the cause is a serious one. Think over this! As regards expansion, I have recently written in detail to one of the <i>Prosveshcheniye</i> people; I hope you also <i>have</i> seen the letter. I, too, am in favour of financial caution: to provide the same six pages (the present extra sheets) <i>in another form</i>, with a different sauce and title and content: 4 pages of Sunday supplement for the advanced workers + 2 pages of a “workers’ kopek” for 1 kopek, for the <i>masses</i>, to win a hundred thousand readers, with an especially popular content. You shouldn’t imitate <i>Luch</i> but go your <i>own</i> road, the proletarian road: 4 pages for the advanced <i>workers</i> and <i>2</i>pages (and <i>later</i> even 4) for the <i>masses</i>, for a long and stubborn battle for 100,000 readers. We must go wide and deep, into the masses, and not follow intellectual patterns like <i>Luch</i>. Once again greetings, congratulations and best wishes. Yours, <i>V. I.</i> Another special greeting to Vitimsky: his article about the workers’ press and workers’ democracy against the liberals<ref>Lenin refers to the article by M. S. Olminsky (A. Vitimsky) “Kto s kem?” (“Who Is on Whose Side?”), published in <i>Pravda</i> No. 106, May 10, 1913. The article was part of the polemic with <i>Luch</i> concerning the conference between the editors of bourgeois publications and representatives of the workers’ press. The conference was called for the purpose of protesting at the introduction of harsher laws against the press. The chairman of the conference did not allow a vote on the draft resolution submitted by the <i>Pravda</i> representatives. They and representatives of a number of trade union papers refused to sign the liberal editors’ resolution. Besides the representatives of <i>Rech, Russkaya Molva, Sovremennoye Slovo</i> and <i>Dyen</i>, etc., = only the representatives of <i>Luch</i> and <i>Nasha Zarya</i> signed the resolution, thus acting against the workers’ papers represented at the conference.</ref> was <i>very successful</i>!! And the Bogdanov “Ideology” is <i>certain</i> to heresy: I promise you that I will prove this exactly!!<ref>On Lenin’s insistence A. A. Bogdanov’s article “Ideology” (from the “Dictionary of Foreign Words” series) was rejected by <i>Pravda</i> as anti-Marxist. Concerning the statement which Bogdanov then sent to <i>Pravda</i> announcing his resignation from the paper, Lenin wrote a “Letter to the Editor” which was published in the newspaper <i>Put Pravdy</i> No. 9, January 31, 1914 = (see present edition, Vol. 20, pp. 93–94).</ref> Marxists are glad of an increase in circulation when it is increased by <i>Marxist</i> articles, and not by articles <i>against Marxism</i>. We want a principled paper—all the contributors and readers of <i>Pravda</i> want it—a Marxist, not Machist paper? Isn’t that so? P.S. The address is not Paronen, but <i>Poronin</i> (Galizien), and be sure to <i>add</i> on the wrapper: <i>via Warsaw-Frontier– Zakopane</i>. <references />
Save page Show preview Cancel